Barbara Frum: Pioneering Broadcaster
Even though the interview was not a standard one, Barbara Frum maintained "her cool" by not letting Sandra Good's comments or statements get to her. She stayed strictly serious and kept a calm tone throughout the interview, which even annoyed Sandra to the point that she called Barbara "ignorant". She didn't care what comments Sandra stated and just kept pushing her to answer the most important questions.
I think that if Barbara had of been more aggressive or confrontational, the interview would of ended much sooner. It was a good idea for her to keep such a calm tone because any other tone would have angered her more and she would of been fed up sooner.
I think the one question that Frum asked that was effective was when was the last time Sandra Good had seen or talked to Lynettte Fromme.
I believe this question was the most effective because every time this question was asked, Sandra became defensive and completely avoided the questions, and even began asking questions back.
One of the things that Terry mentioned during his visit at Blackville school was to always push to get the answers to the questions you're asking. Never let the person you are interviewing to avoid answering questions, make it so you are in control of the situation.
As a student journalist, I have learned from Frum's technique that if I was ever faced with an interview that "went wrong", I would know that staying completely calm and keeping a nice tone is key. If you let everything get to you and lose your temper, you won't help the situation at all, and even make it worst.
As a student journalist, if I could choose to interview one person, I would choose to interview Thomas Edison in the present time to see how he would react to electricity today and how it is used compared to his time.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Caught in Lies
While watching or reading news articles, I don't usually think of the news to be incorrect or even fabricated at all. I usually trust the people working on the stories, which is probably a bad idea, but it's their jobs so they should at least make it truthful. There are some stories, however, that seem to stretch the truth but that could be the story fault. Also if I hear a story from a friend, I won't believe the story until I see it in an article.
My reaction to the article, "Jimmy's World" was pity towards the woman, Janet Cooke, and her lie that went overboard. As wrong as the lie she told was, I feel kinda sorry for her, trying to get past the pressure of making such an eye catching story. I think it was a smart decision for her to leave her life of being a journalist, not just because of the humiliation, but because the pressure over powered her.
My reaction to the article, "The Wafer Story" was disappointment, and no pity towards the writers at all, because unlike the first article, the journalists involved included a person who actually existed. This could hurt the person who was involved, especially with the person was very well known.
I was a little surprised to know that professional journalists fabricated news because i don't know why they would take the risk off losing their jobs. Also once they get caught, they will probably have an article about them lying, which might effect their future jobs.
I do not agree with Shafer's assertion because sometimes people lie since they don't want to hurt the ones they care about, For journalists, some may lie just because of the fact that the stress is too much, and time is just running out. They may think that losing their jobs are much worst than lying about one little story.
I think that colleges and universities should help their future journalists deal with the stress they will probably face during the job. Since the stress is one of the biggest factors involved in why journalists lie about their stories, being able to deal with it earlier would help them greatly.
If issues of ethnic arise, I think that an ombudsman would be of some help. Since their job is basically dealing with personal complaints, they would probably listen to many of them, caring about each individually, and try their best to help each one.
My reaction to the article, "Jimmy's World" was pity towards the woman, Janet Cooke, and her lie that went overboard. As wrong as the lie she told was, I feel kinda sorry for her, trying to get past the pressure of making such an eye catching story. I think it was a smart decision for her to leave her life of being a journalist, not just because of the humiliation, but because the pressure over powered her.
My reaction to the article, "The Wafer Story" was disappointment, and no pity towards the writers at all, because unlike the first article, the journalists involved included a person who actually existed. This could hurt the person who was involved, especially with the person was very well known.
I was a little surprised to know that professional journalists fabricated news because i don't know why they would take the risk off losing their jobs. Also once they get caught, they will probably have an article about them lying, which might effect their future jobs.
I do not agree with Shafer's assertion because sometimes people lie since they don't want to hurt the ones they care about, For journalists, some may lie just because of the fact that the stress is too much, and time is just running out. They may think that losing their jobs are much worst than lying about one little story.
I think that colleges and universities should help their future journalists deal with the stress they will probably face during the job. Since the stress is one of the biggest factors involved in why journalists lie about their stories, being able to deal with it earlier would help them greatly.
If issues of ethnic arise, I think that an ombudsman would be of some help. Since their job is basically dealing with personal complaints, they would probably listen to many of them, caring about each individually, and try their best to help each one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)