Snow Day for Obama's Children

On the front page of Thursday's USA TODAY, a headline stated "D.C. snow closures puzzle former Chicago resident," which referred to President Obama and his children's school closure due to snowy conditions. Skimming this headline, President Obama didn't come to mind until I read the first line of the lead. After I read the full 12 inches, I questioned the story's relevance to the front page of the newspaper. Washington D.C. experienced some snow and icy roads, so the city closed down the school of Obama's children just to be safe. An interesting article to say the least, and the story did have an argument, but I felt the content was lacking a journalistic personality you would expect from a major newspaper: And a front page piece. This article makes me wonder: Is every issue concerning the President (i.e. wife, kids, diet, hobbies, snow-closing-D.C. schools, etc) game for front-page coverage?

What the reader saw was what the reader got in this article.: No continuation on another page, but a small sidebar to the right. And the headline did not even mention the President or the President's name. The title referred to the President of the United States as a "former Chicago resident." Does that reference do him justice? This article provoked several questions about the way the President is reported in the news, and the events revolved around him that are considered front-page priority. Is the spotlight on Obama too extreme, even for the President of the United States? Looks like his children will get to build snowmen this year.

With the economy's situation today, many people are effected and having to change their life styles. I thought the article in the New York Times was really interesting about the girls who are feeling this recession because of their financial analyis husbands and boyfriends. The journalist got a lot of sources but I think it would have been interesting to hear from the guys perspective and what they thought of the whole idea. Or if they felt they haven't changed but instead their wives have. All the viewpoints are from the girls who attend this "Dating a Banker Anonymous" club so the oppinions may be biased. Also it would be interesting to have heard a sotory of women who are coping with this situation and how they handle it. The journalist focused on girls who complained about thier significant other, especially focusing on this one woman who was drinking a matrini at the bar. I don't know why the journalist felt it was necessary to incorperate that into the article of why he would evene want to use her quotes.

FDA: Criminal Probe begun in Salmonella outbreak

Apparently in Georgia, a peanut butter plant was found to have salmonella in the products as of september. There have been atleast 500 cases of the bacteria linked to the peanut butter products from the Peanut Corporation of Americas Blakely. The headline of the story "Criminal Probe" and the mention of the FDA, make the article seem very serious. I see how the wording can make a reader become curious because of it dealing with the FDA, it could effect them in the way of their health. In any case, any kind of food scare will have readers eyes stuck to the story because it is important that they do not come in contact with the bacteria. However, the article fails to say how many people became sick from this, if any at all. Maybe the writer does not know this information, but something may need to be said about it.
Towards the end of the article, it states that brand name peanut butter is not expected to be effected by this recall, and so it is almost as if the whole story from the beginning was not that serious. Although, ofcourse any kind of bacteria like salmonella is serious. There is not much information in this article either. It does not tell how the evidence of salmonella was found or what kind of conditions in the plant caused this. I think more information was needed.

Who Is Hiring?

As the graduates of 2009 from all over the country get ready to enter the work force one question still remains: Is anyone hiring during this economic crisis?

The answer is not really. With many companies losing money there are few who are willing to hire, not to mention the lack of positions available these days. Many experienced employees have been layed off and are still having trouble finding other work. There has also been a reduction in the amount of employment recruiters on college campuses this year. Christine Bolzan of The Boston Globe writes, "Even in robust economic times, 60 percent of all graduates return home from school unemployed, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. The average job search takes 6 months, but it is expected to take at least 3 months longer this year."

However, there are certain career fields that are offering opportunities for upcoming graduates. These fields include: the government, healthcare, and telecommunications such as PR or sales. Bolzan goes into greater detail on these careers here.

The lesson here is to start looking for a job as soon as possible (long before graduation). Many students may need to consider a career in a field different from what they originally wanted because of the limited amount of jobs out there. This is unfortunate but at times like these we all have to do what we can to survive financially.

EPA dodging deadlines, adorable mouse to blame.

[From the February 2009 Issue of Discover Magazine.]
[Chronology available on the EPA site.]

In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency passed the Food Quality Protection Act and amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to require extensive testing for endocrine disruptors - chemicals that emulate organic hormones and have been linked to infertility and deformed sex organs. Just shy of 13 years later, testing has yet to begin. The latest setback? Controversy over lab rats.

The Sprague Dawley is tough. In a rare example of the government making too good of a choice, this rat strain is simply so well adapted to laboratory testing that some fear the possibility of false negatives. Its innate resistance to known endocrine disruptors combined with a fecundity that stands out even among rodents allow it to survive and continue mating under conditions that would devastate the endocrine system in a human.

“People say, ‘Look these rats suffer a 50 percent decrease in sperm and they still reproduce.’ They say, ‘If you had a guy who had a 50 percent decrease in sperm, he’d be infertile!’” Gary Timm, a senior environmental EPA scientist, said in an interview with Discover magazine.

The holdup hasn’t been all about rats, however. For over a decade, the EPA set up committees who in turn set up subcommittees in search for the most accurate way to test substances whose detrimental effects wouldn’t be seen or felt for generations. Endocrine disruptors, a category so broad as to include any synthetic product that emulates or, well, disrupts the production of natural hormones, range from big names like DDT to everyday plastics and bug spray. The EPA’s awkward lunge in the dark has been so long in coming that even Congress has grown fed up with the receding deadlines. In the 2008 appropriations bill, Congress mandated that endocrine testing was to begin in the summer. The summer of 2008, I mean. Testing is scheduled for early 2009 now.

It’s only the end of January at the moment, so if one were to stretch the definition of early to its limit, that’s a new five month lease on life for a lot of rats. Its an even longer lease on life for the newest medical bogeyman. Testing has not yet begun and once started will not end soon. Results will be postponed, at the very least, into the next decade and the chemical industry is already standing in line to dispute the findings.

If you’re somewhat antsy at the thought that things you touch everyday are slowly killing you instead of mice, you can check a handy list of things to avoid here.

Balance and Fairness Continued

Apropos our conversation about balance and fairness:

A new study of the partisan affiliation of politicians invited to major cable news stations. The findings challenge the idea of a "liberal" media. Should election outcomes - which have favored one party over the other in the last two electoral cycles - be reflected by the voices offering commentary and perspective on cable news?

A despicable act in California

A family of 7;8-year-old girl, twin 5-year-old girls, and twin 2-year-old boys all shot to death in Los Angeles, California. Not by a junkie or a serial killer or a burglar, by their father who was upset over loosing his job. Is this proof of the crumbling economy? No. This is proof that there was yet another man who needed therapy and wasn’t seeking it. Ervin Lupoe, after being let go from his job as a medical technician, shot his wife and five children before turning a hand gun on himself. But not before writing a suicide note, faxing the local news station, pulling his kids out of school several weeks in advance stating a family move, and calling local authorities to report the shooting. I guess it was nice of him not to let his family’s bodies rot until someone came to see why none of them had been seen. I can not fathom what kind of sick, weak man would do this to his own family. I don’t think I’m being cold or cruel at all and if you do then maybe you need to imagine this:
You have five children to support, your wife and you have both been let go from your jobs. What is the first thing you do? I fully understand the state of the economy, the job market, etc… however I can guarantee that most of you aren’t thinking you would kill your family and yourself. This story makes me so angry. This man should have killed himself and let at least his small children live! In his fax to the news station he wrote, "Why leave the children to a stranger?" Hmmm I don’t know maybe because then they wouldn’t have been shot to death? This story has no grey area. This man is a murderer and I wish he would have lived to remember the horrible atrocities he committed.
Lupoe also wrote that his employer said to him, “You should not even have bothered to come to work today. You should have blown your brains out.” Obviously this was not the best way to let go your employee, in fact that boss is a huge jerk. But guess what Ervin Lupoe my boss is on a fast track to hell also, and when he is condescending or insulting I think to myself, “I can’t wait to get home and see my family, the people I love who make life worth living.”

House Passes Obama Stimulus

msnbc.msn.com posted an article Wednesday night after the House of Representatives passed Obama's stimulus plan of more spending and tax cuts. The hearing was not surprising. All Republicans opposed while most Democrats agreed, 244-188. The article was well written although it was biased at some moments. The economy was described as "badly ailing" and as "the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression." Though this statements are true, some may look at these descriptions as a bit extreme. Personally, I do not but some may.
The article interviews some Republicans, at least giving them a voice in the more liberal news site. Meanwhile, foxnews.com only interviewed Republicans. They claimed the pass as a "victory for Obama." It sounds like a competition instead of a decision. It's viewed as two teams facing off instead of a political meeting. This article even praised Rep. Bartlett for "standing up to Obama in the meeting."
Both sources seem biased but Fox News seems more blatant. MSNBC is more subtle in their political views.

The Deepening Gloom

I’ve always found it interesting that when something goes wrong journalists seem to focus on intricate details about what made it go wrong, who’s to blame, and the statistics and figures, while only briefly touching on possible solutions to the problem and its progress. A great example: the majority of articles covering the economic recession. I learned the same seems to be true for international news outlets after reading the BBC News story titled, "Massive Layoffs as Gloom Deepens" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7852484.stm). I'd much rather read intricate details about what's being done about the recession rather than getting hung up on numbers and predictions, and if nothing's being done I'd expect a journalist to expose that. The article was about several big corporations announcing 70,000 layoffs in one single day. This is without a doubt a significant blow to global unemployment rate, but instead of mainly focusing on the individuals affected and what's being done for them, the article focuses on the gloomy outlooks for 2009 and which company made the biggest cuts. Though the article only briefly mentions it, it was relieving to read that Barack Obama addressed the issue and is urging congress to pass an eighty-five billion dollar stimulus package. I don't understand why there isn't more focus on details such as how much of this stimulus package will benefit those affected by the layoffs. In my opinion, yes, things are down right now, but dwelling on the extent of the damage isn't making progress. I'd much rather read about our efforts than our defeats.

Media vs. Newspaper (inauguration day)

This week was obviously a monumental week for many different reasons, however all having to do with the Presidency. As I watched the news beginning Monday night and continuing into inauguration day on Tuesday, I seemed filled with hope of a new day as did many Americans. I watched as individuals, both celebrities and politicians, stood before President Barack Obama in Washington D.C. as he took his Presidential oath of office. These people from across the nation of all backgrounds and all political affiliations came together to watch history being made, whether Democratic or Republican, Americans seemed overwhelmed by a sense of hope. To me, that is what America is about. "United We Stand," and united did we stand Tuesday as we witnessed a black man take office.

The television provided me with vision, as the newspaper articles could not have on this life changing day. I was able to see the variety of individuals who came out to support Barack Obama as he began a journey to better our nation on Tuesday, January 20, 2009. Not to say I did not read the newspaper on Wednesday, however the television did allow me to see a different side than the newspaper because of the visuals. I just thought going along with our discussion in class about the different types of media and comparing television broadcasts to newspaper articles, the Presidency was a prime example of how the two are different.

It's a completely different experience to picture a crowd of 1.8 million people outside of the Capitol building in Washington D.C. than it is to be able to see the crowd of people. It's one thing to hear a speech being made, but to see the speaker and the emotion behind the words being said has a whole different meaning. That is why on this important day in history, I chose to watch the television instead of waiting by online or for the newspaper to come out describing the event with a couple of pictures.

I understand that this is not necessarily on an article, however, I thought it to be a perfect example going along with our class discussion on the different types of media and the impact they have.

Feeling good naked

Feeling good naked
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/01/23/o.nude.attitude/index.html

I thought this was a cool article. Women today are so brainwashed by the media, and are told that they must be skinny and wear makeup to be beautiful. I don't think this is true at all. I think women should be told that they are beautiful, no matter how chubby or skinny they are, and that they don't need makeup to show their beauty. I would rather be an intelligent, creative independent woman than a skinny model with no brain. (That's not the say that all models are brainless. There are some pretty smart ones.) But I think intelligence also has to do with realizing that you don't need other people to tell you that you are beautiful. True beauty lies inside, and when it's genuine, it shows on the outside.

TV News Edits Inaugural Benediction

For starters, I missed President Obama's swearing in. I am sorry. You ask, "How can a journalism student knowingly miss history in the making?" My only defense is that journalism students get hungry at noon just like anybody else, and in any case, they had to redo the whole thing afterward. The importance of my inattention is that I also missed the benediction where Rev. Joseph Lowery said the words, "We ask you to help us work for that day...when white will embrace what is right," and that I would not hear those words until today from a group of super-stoked white people.

Of course, I watched all the coverage I could post-lunch, rotating through several news stations. They all had a clip of the benediction, but all the Rev. would say was "We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man."
"Cheers!" was what I thought at the time.

Tonight, I feel differently about the prayer (not offended, just sucker-punched), and it is because of the stations' censorship of events that I did not realize I was included in Rev. Lowery's iridescent blessing. With a sigh of relief came an accusation, and stations such as NBC and CNN thought that it was better for anything offensive to be omitted for the rest of the day. While I am flattered to be on the receiving end of racially sensitive reporting, I am upset that a journalist felt the need to distort a sentiment that an administrative review would allow.

Obama and Roberts Try Again

Journalist Jeff Zeleny who wrote the column “Obama and Roberts Try Again” seemed to portray his piece as comical. Using words like do-over and Take Two made it sound light hearted and of little importance. The whole article was also very nonchalant and mentioned how the aides first told reporters that it would be unnecessary to administer the oath again. This all seemed a little ironic because if it really weren’t a big deal then why would Obama have to be sworn in for a second time. He also used the word “chatter” when talking about whether the president was sworn in properly or not. To me this seemed funny because “chatter” sounds like people gossiping on things that are of little value when in reality it was probably important officials who had to deliberate whether or not the president was properly sworn in. 

Obama Closes Guantanamo Bay

CNN.com's report of President Obama closing Guantanamo Bay detention facility was written with a fair balance between political views. Starting off with quotes for President Obama addressing the reasoning behind his decision was a great start. It set the field for other opinions to surface throughout the article. After giving the facts and Obama's reasoning, the columnists looked into Republicans' ideas. The first to be quoted was general election opponent John McCain, who surprisingly supported the idea of closing GITMO but opposed setting a time table. The next quote was from another Republican official, stirring up concern about bringing the detainees into American prisons. The next Republican quoted, John Murtha, agreed with President Obama. The article raps up with the idea of moving the GITMO detainees into United States facilities. The final quote given by Rep. Bill Young shows his anxiety over this idea. I know it seems like I am summarizing the article, but I am for good reason. This shows the article breakdown and flow of information given by a seemingly unbiased reporting staff. The layering of conflicting ideas from Republicans shows that Obama is recieving a diversity in support. These types of unbiased articles are more enjoyable, engrossing, and informative than a biased source (ex: Fox News).

Obama Closes Guantanamo Bay

Yesterday President Obama signed official documentation to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. For those that do not know, Guantanamo Bay is a detention camp operated by the United States in Cuba. There are 3 camps on the property: Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta, and Camp Iguana. Many of the people being held here are terrorists that the United States has captured from countries in the Middle East (including some who helped plan the 9/11 attacks).

The question on many American's minds is, "What are we going to do with these terrorists after Guantanamo Bay closes?" According to The Boston Globe, "Critics of the reforms, including the top House Republican, John Boehner of Ohio, argued yesterday that some of the 245 detainees now at Guantanamo could pose clear threats to national security if released. Pentagon statistics show that of the hundreds of detainees that have been released from Guantanamo since it opened in early 2002, at least 61 have returned to terrorist activities." Boehner goes on to say that, "The real fear is what do you do with these terrorists and if you make it clear you are going to close Guantanamo and you don't have a policy in place to deal with those who are housed there, what do you do? I'm concerned that some of these let go too soon could end up back on the battlefield. There are a lot of unanswered questions."

Obama has also ordered that the captives receive regular visits from the Red Cross and be treated in a humane manner. He says he thinks "...that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively attain the intelligence that we need." This makes me wonder though. I am not saying that I think we should brutally hurt terrorists that are in these camps but if we treat them like they are upstanding citizens doesn't that send the message to other terrorists that if they attack us (the United States) we will treat them kindly?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/23/obama_changes_us_course_on_treatment_of_detainees/

A Questionable Future

With the inauguration ceremony quickly approaching, I found it enjoyable to follow the newspaper over the past few days. You read about skepticism, hope, fear, and faith all in regards to Barack Obama taking over the Presidency. Today, Tuesday, January 20, I found a very interesting article in the New York Times entitled For the Jobless, Hope and Fear For a New Day. It started off very subtle explaining how many people are living off of unemployment checks, attempting to make ends meet while realizing that these checks may not exist for much longer. What really helped me follow this specific part of the article was how journalist Peter S. Goodman used numbers as examples, so those individuals who were not in the same shoes as people hoping for unemployment checks could somehow relate and understand the situation.

Continuing, Goodman received a very interesting quote from a man, Mr. Lewis, who was applying for an extension to his unemployment paycheck at an employment office in Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Lewis told Goodman, "I haven't seen the change. Until he does something, he's just like all the rest of them to me. He ain't done nothing for me." What caught my attention about this quote was the reality check that it provided me with. I found myself wondering if it were truly possible for each and every person in our nation to benefit from Barack Obama's plans that would soon be put into action. From there I thought about the pressure we put on someone who is just like you and I, waiting for them to change the world and save the nation. How realistic are these standards that we hold Obama to and will we personally feel the change that we have been promised?

This article really challenged me to see the economy from those individuals views who seem to be suffering more than I and find themselves jobless. It also enabled me to wonder what it would be like to be in the shoes of Barack Obama, who now has the weight of the world on his shoulders to not only bring us out of this recession but to provide a nation that has slowly depleted for so long with faith, hope and change.

A cease fire in Gaza?

I hope it lasts this time. I've been following the issues in Gaza for about a month now. Im a member of Amnesty International, so I attended the second protest in Miami. That's where I learned about the stuggle that Palestinians have gone through over the last 60 years. I saw the documentary "The Iron Wall" last year, and I hadn't connected the two yet. I think there is a serious human rights crisis going on, and something should be done about it.
There is a cease fire happening right now, and Israel is trying to make themselves look good by saying that they won't bomb if Hamas doesn't hit first. If there was no occupation, there would be no reason to fight. Israel gave them three days, Hamas gave them a week. It's a political war at this point. But innocent people are still dying. Pregnant women giving birth cant get to the hospital because of the checkpoints, and they die with their babies. Same with wounded civilians. Israel may pull out their troops, but a million people are still stuck in a tiny country that is 5 miles wide. That's like putting a million people in lee county. And their houses are demolished every day. They don't have medical supplies or food. Isreal bombed the tunnels they used to get their supplies.
So, Israel might make themselves look good for now. They'll try to make Obama happy when he gets into office tomorrow. But it doesn't change the fact that a humanitarian crisis is still ongoing.

Great reporting

A couple of you have posted on the Hudson-landing story already, but I want to draw your attention to this particular story, which is an astonishingly good example of reporting at its best. The reporter shows us the story in clear, powerful, well-modulated prose describing the words and experiences of a range of sources. It's a real model of journalistic excellence in breaking news.

PS: note how I embedded the URL to the story into the text itself. Judging by several of the posts I've seen recently, many of you need to experiment a bit more with Blogger. To embed a URL into your text, highlight the text in which you want to place the hyperlink, click the icon on the toolbar above that pictures a globe with a chain link on it and paste your URL into the pop-up.

Miracle on the Hudson

On Thursday January 15, I was sitting in Moe's Southwestern Grill and suddenly noticed the broad casted headline on the bottom of the CNN screen. A US Airways plane crashed into the Hudson River and all 155 passengers survived. I watched the rotating images on the screen but could not hear the reporting side of the story. I came home later that day to follow the amazing story of the plane that was destined for Charlotte, NC, and couldn't help but notice the emotions of the reporters covering this incredible headline. They spoke to the public in most sympathetic tones and delivered the story with the watchers affected by this crash landing in mind. I was proud to see the newscaster's emotional sides shine through their reporting, for they really spoke with uttermost amazement and sympathy for the passengers on board and the television audience watching it firsthand. I intially thought that reporters must maintain a straight-faced, unaffected appearance, but the reporters covering the story really let observers know that they were just as amazed as their audience.

I just read an interesting article from The Boston Globe entitled "Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy." The article talks about how bad the economy is right now and yet about $150 million is being spent on Obama's inauguration this week. A concert will be going on in celebration of his inauguration with performers including U2 and Beyonce. Not only that but Obama is expected to attend 10 inaugural balls. Now I understand that Obama's inauguration is a very exciting time for many people but I think that all of this is a little too excessive, especially when that $150 million could definetly be used elsewhere to improve the state of the economy. It just seems inappropiate to be spending that much right now.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/17/obama_hosting_pricey_party_in_a_dicey_economy/

The Mob

I assume everyone over the last year and a half has heard something on the news about the missing, now murdered child, Caylee Anthony. I am curious about one thing that I noticed during the investigation in regards to the press coverage it received. Every morning for months, there would be a new development, and the press would hold a convention right on street, threatening to swell into the lawn. Leaving the house would mean accepting manslaughter charges as their SUV backed over reporters. There would be no escape because the press had vans waiting to follow. What are the limitations of the press in highly publicized cases involving private citizens such as the Anthony’s?

The press’ use of its “freedom” becomes nearly oppressive to the average Joe. Unlike a corporation, which enjoys the comfort of staffed PR, lawyers, individual rights, and intangibility, the typical citizen is easily overwhelmed by the onslaught of photographers and investigative journalists. I wonder if the frenzy becomes all the more intense because of the easy pickings. That our media will stalk and swarm such a small group of people in such large numbers for a chance at a headline is exactly why we oftentimes view journalists with disdain. Group intimidation is in no way ethical, especially during a police investigation.

I am mostly ranting, but shouldn't there be a line? Is there a line? The freedom of the press should not include the right to bully our neighbors with the same force they would need to annoy a corporation.

Plane Crashes in Hudson River

I am surprised that nobody has posted this story yet. On Thursday a US Airways airplane crashed into the Hudson River shortly after takeoff. Fortunately the pilot was able to land the plane in a way that it stayed afloat. All 155 people on board the Airbus A320 survived the accident. Flight 1549 left LaGuardia Airport and was heading to Charlotte, N.C. This article was written by an Associated Press writer and in my opinion the article is very well written. The story gives all the necessary facts and the reported used a variety of sources. Not only did he use passengers as sources, but the writer also quoted ex-pilots and aviation experts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_re_us/plane_in_river

Oil Industry's Uncertainty

The piece written in the New York Times on January 15, 2009 is a good example of an article that contains statistics and charts, as read about in Chapter 4 of Inside Reporting. Bar charts are used to compare oil price changes between 1990 and 2008. The article presents a good amount of numbers without it being confusing to the reader. A word used to describe the oil inustry is "volatile". It perfectly defines the way oil companies feel about the rising and lowering of prices and the demand for oil in recent times. Overall the article is written very well and portrays the struggle and confusion that oil companies are currently going through.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_confirmation

This is an article I found on Yahoo's homepage, and I was actually quite surprised that I didn't hear it anywhere else first. I was even surprised to see that it wasn't event mentioned on NBC's Nightly News program (although, the plane crash in NYC probably took precedence). Anyway, Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State to President-elect Obama was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (she was approved by a 16-1 vote). I was quite surprised that Clinton is receiving major support from both Democrats and Republicans. As a former Clinton supporter during the primaries, I always felt the media was a little biased against Senator Clinton. But I'm glad to see her support for this high-profile position.

Tuition Costs Spiking

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/college_costs

In this Yahoo article, I read about a spike in tuition costs for several states in the coming months. Once state budgets are run through, the verdict will be in. Florida is looking to give universities more leeway and power to raise prices. California proposes a 10% increase. I all ready find tuition costs difficult to pay, and Florida tuition is one of the lowest in the country. The article says New York increased their tuition 14% midyear. The spike in costs for higher education is just the start for what looks like a crumbling economy. It's upsetting, because it is directly affecting my peers and me. The article itself is short but affective in getting the message across. I find it well written and well structured.

Two Articles on Madoff by same Author

I noticed in today’s New York Times there were two stories about the Madoffs, both written by the same author. The first was about Mr. Madoff and his $50 billion con, but then it talked about Mrs. Madoff and whether or not she was involved in this scheme. Through various words and sources in the article it made it appear as she was completely oblivious to what her husband was doing behind her back. It made her sound down-to earth and like a typical all-American girl who would never do harm to anyone. It explained her smile and happy charisma at social events, making you feel that she probably didn’t have an involvement in the scam. However, in the second article by the same author it made Mrs. Madoff sound like she had her own scheme going on, except hers involved an unsuccessful cookbook. The editor of The Great Chiefs of America Cook Kosher explained how she was paid by Mrs. Madoff to write the entire cookbook. She also emphasized that the mailing address for the books payment no longer works. In this article, the author veered the reader into believing Mrs. Madoff could have been a con artist, just like her husband.

Is the sky blue?

Language itself is blurred. The art of written and oral communication is complex and continually evolving primarily because language is evolving. Lines of appropriateness and truth in language will never be concrete as long as we are using a man-made language to describe actual events. Not only do certain words have particular meanings to individuals based on their experiences, but individual definitions of words also change frequently. The complexity is spawned from the relationship of  words with emotions as opposed to the relationship of words with reality. A journalists duty to report truth will always be difficult. Even pieces of information that are considered to be undeniable fact can be argued. For example, someone may state, "The sky is blue." Believe it or not, someone could question this. How do we know that the sky is blue? At some point someone looked at what we call the sky and named it "sky." And then at some point, another person, flawed just like ourselves, looked at the color of the sky and called it "blue." Until language itself can be proved and made to be unchanged, it will always be blurry. Likewise, the use of the word "torture" is blurry in this instance. The journalist chose to speak through the mouth of other people to prove their point.

Journalists and word usage

Journalists choose their words very carefully. How they are portrayed means everything as far as how the public sees them, and how their employers view them. For example, the word terrorist. This is a word that grabs everyone's attention. If a journalist believes that a certain group is a "terrorist organization," or they are told that through various resources, they will put their beliefs into their articles. They also will say what people want to hear, and what catches their attention. An outspoken journalist that is successful is hard to find. I think a journalist should write about real truth. I think both sides shold be told, and though words should be chosen carefully, they shouldnt be excluded because of what people will think.

"Torture"

As any journalist, I would imagine that the proper choice of words would be the hardest of all obligations and responsibilities while writing a story. Journalists aim to "tell the truth", which I would not imagine to be easy, however finding the appropriate descriptive words would seem to pose more of a issue not to mention make the situation more challenging than finding the truth. That brings me to the point about "torture" being used by Mazzetti/Hulse in the New York Times article. Every word triggers different emotions and feelings for each individual reading the newspaper, however the word "torture" one would imagine to have a common theme of negative connotation. That is why the word, when used, was used only in a quote, because then if people disagreed they could look at the situation and lay blame with the speaker rather than the writer. It is a tough situation because no word can please everyone and is guaranteed to be precise.

Torture Dilemma

Important news deserves to be reported correctly, and whether or not writers want to appeal to a larger audience, they should always keep in mind that factual information is their first priority. Writers should not play ring-around-the-rosy for those who would rather read a story with less intense diction, but they should use the correct vocabulary to enhance the story's purpose. "Torture" is not the only word we have to worry about. What about terms like "war" and "peace"? Both are strong words that are written nonchalantly, but both represent deep world issues. "Torture" is definitely read with more caution, but the world deserves to know the facts, not degraded versions of them.

Torture

The only reason Mazzetti and Hulse are not to use the word "torture" is because they probably don't want to scare or offend anyone. I personally think this is rediculous because if they are going to write an article where one of the underlying topics is torture then they have to have the confidence to really go in depth about the topic and actually use the word. Since we live in a world of terrorism the word "torture" should have a clear and distinct meaning to all Americans. Especially since this subject is such a big part of American society and politcs it is the reporter's duty to inform the people. Panetta is about to take on an exetremely large job full of tremendous responsibilities and I for one want to know how he is going to address important issues such as torture.

Torture

If this Mazzetti/Hulse writing team had any gumption they would have used the word torture. The definition of torture is not blurry in any way; “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty; extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.” Though the idea may be immoral and violent, all is fair in love and war. In the NY Times article, Panetta is quoted to have written the following in the Washington Monthly, “Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances...” This is coming from the man soon to be responsible for finding Al Qaeda. The authors are discussing torture, the quotes they use are about torture, and an underlying current of the article is torture. The long and short of it is that the writers didn’t use the word torture because they were afraid of negative feedback.