Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
With your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!
Maybe I'm behind on this, but apparently The Onion and CNN.com have formed a partnership - one that strikes me as unnatural. On CNN's front page, about halfway down, just above World News, is a little box labeled "Breaking Onion Satire" and a link to this story. It's not even an external link - that story is within the cnn.com domain. It does, however, include this editor's note:
Oh, CNN, you crazy cats.
Likewise, when you read a story on The Onion's site, there's a box along the side with five or so headlines from CNN.com, as well as Slate (they're both under a "From Our News Partners" header). On Slate's web site, The Onion's headlines appear above those from both washingtonpost.com and Newsweek.
I keep forgetting that news satire - see The Daily Show - is so mainstream. Part of what I've always liked about it is that it seems subversive somehow, making fun of both the government and its supposed watchdogs. But I suppose that was a bit naive.
But bravo to CNN for having a sense of humor. Now if it would just keep Anna Nicole Smith out of the top headlines we'd be all set.
Editor's note: This may look like a real news story, but it's NOT. It is from
The Onion, a humor publication that calls itself "America's finest news source."
CNN may beg to differ, but we do enjoy a good laugh and hope you will enjoy a
weekly selection of their satire.
Oh, CNN, you crazy cats.
Likewise, when you read a story on The Onion's site, there's a box along the side with five or so headlines from CNN.com, as well as Slate (they're both under a "From Our News Partners" header). On Slate's web site, The Onion's headlines appear above those from both washingtonpost.com and Newsweek.
I keep forgetting that news satire - see The Daily Show - is so mainstream. Part of what I've always liked about it is that it seems subversive somehow, making fun of both the government and its supposed watchdogs. But I suppose that was a bit naive.
But bravo to CNN for having a sense of humor. Now if it would just keep Anna Nicole Smith out of the top headlines we'd be all set.
New tools for transparency
Two things that crossed my path today:
LegiStorm, a month-old web site that lists the salaries of congressional staffers. The database, searchable by the staffer's name, the rep. or senator's name, committee, or state, lists each staffer and what they made each quarter from July 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. (Apparently it takes a while for the people on the Hill to compile the data, and then another couple weeks for the people at LegiStorm to get it into the database). It can be a little unclear, however. For example, on Rep. Bill Delahunt's page, one Steven Clark Schwadron is listed as a chief of staff/press secretary and apparently made $12,635 on Jan. 1, 2006 and another $13,071 on Feb. 1. Either something's fishy, or something was lost in translation. Maybe a little of both. Plus, some pay periods overlap - there were a few staffers whose pay was listed from July 1 through Sept. 30, and then again for Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. But all in all, it was really interesting to see what kind of (taxpayer) money the right-hand men and women are getting, and who's under- and way over-paid.
The other is Congress's Family Business. The Sunlight Foundation asked citizens to dig up financial records on their representative to find out how many have spouses on the payroll. The citizens stepped forward, apparently, because research on all 435 reps was completed in two days, over the holiday weekend no less. Sunlight is still calculating how many people contributed and verifying the findings. As Jay Rosen points out, there are problems with the program, especially when it comes to those legislators that find ways of paying their honeys without putting their name on the payroll. That aside, this was quite the adventure in collaborative reporting to get a story a reporter couldn't have gotten on her own -- or, at least, hadn't until now.
It all comes back to the very basic fact, that we as citizens can't cause an uproar about sketchy behavior on the Hill until we know about it. Not that many people try to stir things up when they do know about wrongdoing, but that's a whole 'nother post altogether.
LegiStorm, a month-old web site that lists the salaries of congressional staffers. The database, searchable by the staffer's name, the rep. or senator's name, committee, or state, lists each staffer and what they made each quarter from July 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. (Apparently it takes a while for the people on the Hill to compile the data, and then another couple weeks for the people at LegiStorm to get it into the database). It can be a little unclear, however. For example, on Rep. Bill Delahunt's page, one Steven Clark Schwadron is listed as a chief of staff/press secretary and apparently made $12,635 on Jan. 1, 2006 and another $13,071 on Feb. 1. Either something's fishy, or something was lost in translation. Maybe a little of both. Plus, some pay periods overlap - there were a few staffers whose pay was listed from July 1 through Sept. 30, and then again for Sept. 1 through Dec. 31. But all in all, it was really interesting to see what kind of (taxpayer) money the right-hand men and women are getting, and who's under- and way over-paid.
The other is Congress's Family Business. The Sunlight Foundation asked citizens to dig up financial records on their representative to find out how many have spouses on the payroll. The citizens stepped forward, apparently, because research on all 435 reps was completed in two days, over the holiday weekend no less. Sunlight is still calculating how many people contributed and verifying the findings. As Jay Rosen points out, there are problems with the program, especially when it comes to those legislators that find ways of paying their honeys without putting their name on the payroll. That aside, this was quite the adventure in collaborative reporting to get a story a reporter couldn't have gotten on her own -- or, at least, hadn't until now.
It all comes back to the very basic fact, that we as citizens can't cause an uproar about sketchy behavior on the Hill until we know about it. Not that many people try to stir things up when they do know about wrongdoing, but that's a whole 'nother post altogether.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Apparently Mama Bear's apples were too fermented...
Newsflash of the year: News travels fast.
Sometime yesterday afternoon a drunken bear was caught on tape as it stumbled around a small Colorado town, apparently after a binge on fermented apples. I heard about it first when I was doing the 10 p.m. cop calls. A dispatcher told me there was nothing going on in Carver or Canton or whereever, but he had just seen a drunk bear on TV. My roommate repeated the news as soon as I walked in my door an hour and a half later.
That's pretty cool. Some enterprising news crews must have been on their toes -- thank God for scanners.
But regarding the newer technology involved, I was a little disappointed. I had heard so much about the bear already last night, so I tried to find the video online. I assumed -- since we all talk about how advanced technology is and how quickly news travels -- that it would already be posted somewhere, whether on a news site or YouTube.
But to my great dismay it was nowhere to be found. I found it today through Google News, and watched it without the sound (these NU e-bars...). True, it's hilarious. And there's even a quick shot of a woman filming the bear with her Kodak EasyShare digital camera. So that makes up a little for the sloth with which the video was made available to me, in Boston without cable TV.
As I thought about it, I realized my disappointment came mostly from surprise. Sure, a drunk bear isn't exactly world-shattering, government-overthrowing news. But the fact that it wasn't in front of me immediately reminded me these things aren't instantaneous. There is a process; there are humans working behind the scenes.
A good thing to remember, in this world that's not as online as we think.
Sometime yesterday afternoon a drunken bear was caught on tape as it stumbled around a small Colorado town, apparently after a binge on fermented apples. I heard about it first when I was doing the 10 p.m. cop calls. A dispatcher told me there was nothing going on in Carver or Canton or whereever, but he had just seen a drunk bear on TV. My roommate repeated the news as soon as I walked in my door an hour and a half later.
That's pretty cool. Some enterprising news crews must have been on their toes -- thank God for scanners.
But regarding the newer technology involved, I was a little disappointed. I had heard so much about the bear already last night, so I tried to find the video online. I assumed -- since we all talk about how advanced technology is and how quickly news travels -- that it would already be posted somewhere, whether on a news site or YouTube.
But to my great dismay it was nowhere to be found. I found it today through Google News, and watched it without the sound (these NU e-bars...). True, it's hilarious. And there's even a quick shot of a woman filming the bear with her Kodak EasyShare digital camera. So that makes up a little for the sloth with which the video was made available to me, in Boston without cable TV.
As I thought about it, I realized my disappointment came mostly from surprise. Sure, a drunk bear isn't exactly world-shattering, government-overthrowing news. But the fact that it wasn't in front of me immediately reminded me these things aren't instantaneous. There is a process; there are humans working behind the scenes.
A good thing to remember, in this world that's not as online as we think.
Technology, the devil.
I was talking to a recent J-school grad who just got her first Real Job at a public relations firm in Boston (owned by some conglomerate based out of California, naturally). She was telling me about her own office, her leather chair and her view overlooking City Hall. Then she said something that really shocked me: The people in the "newsroom," editors included, don't have access to the Internet. Apparently, it's a company-wide policy and an industry standard, something to increase productivity by keeping employees away from sites like this. Or this. But these flacks are writing press releases and "breaking news stories" according to the firm's web site. Don't they need to check facts, find sources and generally stay informed about the world like the rest of us? How can they be cut off from the Internet? As another friend pointed out, even aside from professional concerns, it boosts morale to have a break every so often, to check sports scores or read the news or The Onion. I can't imagine working without the Internet. I had no idea any corporation, much less a PR firm that issues press releases every day, would prohibit employees from using the it. That's like saying they can't use the phone. Or those horseless carriages.
And I thought newspapers were slow to change.
And I thought newspapers were slow to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
