What makes an excellent and outstanding journalist can be determined by a variety of factors. For some, it is their ability to support their argument with appropriate and meaningful evidence - how much focus they spend on their subject. For others, it may their ability to convince their audience of an assertion that may not be well-supported, but is well-spoken. It is of utmost importance to keep these points in mind when making the decision of which of two writers presents a stronger argument. By use of these points, comparing and contrasting a liberal columnist to a conservative one becomes much easier. For example, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and George Will of the Washington Post are two distinguished columnists. Though they clearly …show more content…
Dowd and Will mainly focus on politics in their columns, and so this paper’s reader should have a knee-jerk suspicion that after the tumultuous 2016 election, their writings will be all but intense and vivid. In one of her many pieces on U.S. President Donald Trump, Dowd gives her audience a recollection of her father’s experiences after World War II. She tells of how when he felt there was anti-semitism festering in his neighborhood, he swiftly confronted the racist citizens. She then compares these experiences to Trump’s lentient attitude towards the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rallies, asserting “[every] day, President Trump teaches us what values we cherish — and they’re the opposite of his” (“Trump, Neo-Nazis”). The way that she feels about Trump could not be more clear. She uses evidence from her own life, and experiences she knows her audience will be familiar with to paint an image of Trump. He is racist, only thinks for himself, and will not hesitate to show this. As a liberal, her audience anticipates this. As a conservative, maybe not as much. Will, from Dowd’s opposing political party, writes surprisingly similar about Trump. In his article opposing …show more content…
Arguably one of the most important facets to examine is what information they’re presenting to their audience, and why. Maureen Dowd’s article from September 2017 is meant to present a myriad of new, relevant information to her audience. First, she complies a wealth of information about how Russian bots created ads on Facebook using racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Clinton speech towards people who were statistically more likely to vote for Trump. After noting how many government officials are gravely concerned about social media tampering in the election, she continues on to state how famous computer scientist Stephen Hawking even warned people of the dangers of Internet bots. She ends with a tidbit from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who claims that these claims by Hawking are ridiculous. This creates a pertinent, useful, and well-structured article that doesn’t chiefly force the audience to think one specific way. It is clear Dowd respects her audience. And while her argument is strong, unfortunately, not show as much respect to your audience doesn’t create a weaker argument. George Will creates nearly a textbook example of this. One of his last articles of 2017 is one that recounts all of the “hilarious”, as put in the title, things that happened that
In Rushworth Kidder’s book “How Good People Make Tough Choices,” Kidder provides a series of different methods, codes and examples of what being an ethical journalist could mean. He gives examples of different situations where a person’s ethics are tested and what would be a good way to deal with these situations. He starts by explaining the difference between things that are right-versus-right dilemmas, and those that are right-versus-wrong dilemmas.
Gary Gerstle attempts to reinterpret twentieth-century American history in light of the power of race (and to a much lesser extent, or even not at all, class and gender). The American Crucible conceptualizes American liberals as well as whiteness scholars’ synthetic historiographical interpretations on mainstream Americanism like Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt- Theodore Roosevelt especially, due the author’s attention to the meaning of the liberal state and liberalism. However, above all that, Gerstle argues that inherent tensions between two powerful types of nationalism- racial and civic- have decisively shaped American history, policy-making and political debates in the twentieth
Self-motivation and determination are two of the main ideals of being journalist. If a journalist does not have the desire to find and report a story, he has no career. A journalist depends on finding the facts, getting to the bottom of the story and reporting to the public, whether it’s positive or negative. Janet Malcom states in the book The Journalist and the Murderer, “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” (Malcolm, 3) Her starting words speak volumes about “the Journalist and the Murderer” and the lessons that can be learned.
The authors are using credentials and conclusions of someone to vouch for their argument. For example, Lukianoff and Haidt explain that public figures like “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke”. By public figures explaining the relevance of college campuses and how attention must be increased strengthens the argument, because it is bringing attention to the issues of freedom of speech. Lukianoff and Haidt also provide examples of events being canceled, because of protests. Based on a TV commercial an event was canceled because the “’program [was] dividing people and would make for an uncomfortable and possibly unsafe environment’”. This example shows how many events, words, subjects, will cause discomfort to people causing them to be canceled. However, the examples provided shows how many people are missing out on positive learning experiences. By showing examples, it strengthens the argument by allowing the reader to realize campuses are harming students and their experiences to
... journalist. Besides being incredibly successful, Dr. Greer is an important figure in the world of journalism because she can easily explain her learning experiences to those who wish to follow in her footsteps. Also, the fact that Dr. Greer has spent the majority of her life learning to be a successful journalist should inform young writers that, in journalism, there is always something to be learned. Thus, this lifelong learning process should ensure young writers that success is attainable with the right amount of valued experience and appreciated opportunities. In other words, precisely follow the path set forth by Dr. Greer. The University of Alabama professor’s success in journalism is undeniable. For evidence of this success, look no further than Dr. Greer’s office. The writing is on the wall.
Peekay’s first boarding school was full of Nazi sympathizers who constantly remind him that Hitler would “deliver the Afrikaner people from the hated English” (page 23, last paragraph). As we saw in the recent rallies in Charlottesville, there are still Nazi sympathizers today.
I think the reason why we were given this article to read because it can help us in our writing or using the right way to use quotations. We should not take shortcuts when it come to writing. It can either confuse the reader or make the reader to believe the quote is fake just like Mcardle did at first. Instead we should write the whole quote out or quote it in two quotations instead of quoting the whole quote.
It is not uncommon to hear people complaining about what they hear on the news. Everyone knows it and the media themselves knows it as well. Some of the most renowned journalists have even covered the the media’s issues in detail. Biased news outlets have flooded everyday news. We find that journalism’s greatest problems lie in the media’s inability for unbiased reporting, the tendency to use the ignorance of their audience to create a story, and their struggles to maintain relevance.
Whether it is best to write objectively or balanced is a question many journalists and news stations have encountered and discussed. When it comes down to it, the reason this question is so widely debated is because it is a matter of opinion. I believe it is best to strive to write objectively. My opinion was formed after research involving definitions, news stories, and finally the pros and cons to both balance and objectivity. One aspect that journalist’s admire about writing objectivity is that it allows for them to avoid a bad reputation.
Public journalism has changed much during its existence. Papers are striving to actively involve readers in the news development. It goes beyond telling the news to embrace a broader mission of improving the quality of public life. The American style of journalism is based on objectivity and separates us from the bias found in most European partisan papers. American journalism is becoming too vigilant in being objective that the dedication to investigating stories tends to be missing in the writing. Public journalism works to incorporate concepts from partisan and objective writing to increase the flow of information and improve the quality of public life.
There are two distinct sides to the debate of journalism, their journalists, and the consumers: traditional journalism and public journalism. In the current digital age there is a greater number of public journalism being practiced. However, journalists and their consumers run into several issues concerning that matter. To express more clearly, there are particular roles and characteristics in which journalism standards are being gauged.
...sense that in a newspaper, every news counts, and every story is keenly observed on what deserves to be put inside the newsprint. It is also because columnists and writers freely expresses their opinions and is not dictated by any other factors but only their hearts and minds. In this context, publishers and editors are also spared in the argument of prejudice for they are independent citizens who have no political alignment or inclination to any political party, making them genuine bearers of truth.
Journalism is type of writing that investigates and includes lots of research of good and bad stories and some events. Journalists tend to write news stories that people should know about and haven’t already heard. Journalism comes in different categories; some are reporters, writers, editors, and photographers. People who tend to like journalism are those who love language and enjoying writing and reading, are called journalist; they work as reporters at newspapers, magazines, websites, TV stations, and radio stations. Good journalists love to read and want to find out what is going on around them and the world. They write short and long stories as they must write true stories. Journalists write stories that are from real people and they make the stories real too. People are not interested in reading newspapers now as much as they used to long time ago. These days’ people carry news on their iPods, cell phones, laptops, and more. They can even watch them on TV. A long time ago people knew the news through newspapers or the rich would have a radio which was the only way to know what is going in the world, but now news are everywhere.
In trying to attract new audiences, news media have begun to transition from reporting to becoming a form of entertainment. With the meteoric rise of social media’s role as a news source, the fight for an increase of diversity in the media, and the ever-growing desire of immediate content, the future of responsible journalism is more important than ever. Ask yourself, why do I think the way I do? Where do my political views originate? How do I prove them? Most likely, it is due to the biased portrayal of issues in the media and the politicization that accompanies what we consume. Now, compare your views to your preferred news reporting entity. More than likely, they are the same.
McLoed and Hawley (as cited in Wilson, 1995) elucidated appropriately, "a recurrent journalistic controversy has involved the question whether journalism is a true profession or merely a craft." Sparked primarily by Lippmann and Dewey, extending into the age of the penny press (mid 1980s) and later, the attempt to commercialise the news (late 1980s) to our present era, there has existed a contentious debate on journalism being distinguished as a profession (Wilson, 1995).