Monday, December 14

All editorials and news articles due to me by tomorrow (Wednesday)!! My e-mail is meghan.kazer@gmail.com. Thank you for a great semester!! I'll miss you all!!

Monday, December 13

Happy Monday! If I have not received your editorials I need them TODAY! I have begun to read them and you did a great job!

For the next few days, you are going to be writing another news article, much like you did at the beginning of the year. Use today to begin brainstorming ideas - what is going on around the school? Around the community? You may write about anything. Remember, while you were subjective in your editorials, news articles are objective. Remember the lead: include the who, what when, where, and why towards the beginning of your article, adhering to the inverted pyramid structure. Ideally, I'd like you to include quotes, so if you have a classmate you can interview, or anyone else around the school who you could speak to during the day, that would be great. These should be between 400 and 50o words - only one this time, though! Due on Wednesday...my last day. Thank you for a great 4 weeks!!

Let me know if you have any questions!

Tuesday, December 7

Today you will begin writing your own editorials. Remember, editorials are more subjective than the typical objective news articles. They state an opinion, but back that opinion up with research, facts, support, etc. I have included some information below on what to consider when writing an editorial. Much like the examples you read yesterday, you will be writing two editorials (one for each side of the issue). Each must be 450-500 words and you should do some sufficient research on the topic you choose. You will turn in final copies on Friday. I have listed several options you may choose from below. If you would strongly prefer to pursue a different topic, please run it by me. As always, let me know if you have any questions!

Editorial writing:

The purpose of most editorials is to influence people's actions or opinions.

Use personal opinion. The main difference between an editorial and a news story is that there is room to try to persuade readers with your personal opinion. This should be done in a rational manner, as with a standard news story, and with attributed sources if needed. It is not enough to state your opinion on a news story, but rather to use your opinion to guide interpretation of the story.

Use persuasive language. Persuasive writing is one of the key elements of a good editorial. Using clear, active language in your writing is far more persuasive than a weak narrative that rambles. Get to the point.

Get your facts straight. While there is a limited protection afforded by opinion pieces, there is still a chance of your piece being construed as libel. If you are discussing people or businesses in your editorial, be sure that all facts are correct and are attributed. If you are writing negative opinions about people or businesses, be sure to begin by stating that it is your opinion. Opinions can be neither proved nor disproved, and will not be construed as libel unless there is an obvious component of malice to them. For this reason, never name call.

Your editorial will include an introduction, the reaction (your opinion), the details, and the conclusion (solutions). Keep in mind the thesis statements with supporting details you wrote yesterday. How did the writer set up his/her argument and how did he/she use facts and/or research to support that argument?

Please choose one of the following options. Complete the necessary research on your topic before beginning your point-counterpoint editorials.

1. American involvement in Afghanistan

2. Decriminalizing drugs

3. Vaccinations

4. Extending the school year/day

5. Should pro athletes have a salary cap?

6. School uniforms

Monday, December 6

New Topic: Editorials

We are going to be moving into editorials and editorial writing. An editorial contains a distinctive point of view and is a way for a reporter to get his/her own personal opinion into a story, rather than the objective approach used with other newspaper stories. Editorials can be powerful because they often affect public opinion about a new policy, a project or program, etc. Newspapers and newsmagazines tend to run editorials on a regular schedule, whether daily or two to three times per week. These are normally written by the staff reporters, though community leaders or experts in certain fields are occasionally invited to craft an editorial, which we will see in the editorials we read today. When I was on my high school newspaper, the editors would have a meeting each month to decide what we wanted to write about for the next issue. Several staff members would write an op-ed for each edition. It was a great way to get your voice out about issues going on in the school, the town, or even the country. Editorials serve several functions, which are listed below. As you read the editorials today, think about which functions each serve.

Functions of Editorials:

-To Explain: a new policy or rule may need to be explained to readers. This

explanation how this new policy will affect the public.

-To Persuade: an editorial may attempt to direct its readers to a specific point of view – the editorial may support or refute a topic. While taking a certain stance, this point of view is backed up with fact.

-To Answer: an editorial might serve the purpose of answering criticism or defending a particular point of view with supporting facts and details.

-To Warn: upcoming concerns may be written about to warn readers. Ex. Driver safety in the winter.

-To Criticize: sometimes the actions of others are criticized in a thoughtful and constructive manner. However, writers need to make sure they have done the research and have their facts straight before proceeding with the story. Criticism should also be balanced with suggested solutions or alternative courses of action.

-To Praise: offering a congratulations for a job well done – people or groups can be the subject of an editorial.

-To Entertain: some editorials are playful and do not take strong punches at the opposite side. They are meant to provide humor and cover non-serious issues.

-To Lead: can lead the way to positive social change by bringing public issues to light and gathering support where it is needed.

Below are two pairs of editorials, representing both sides of an issue. (I tried to pick interesting, relevant issues that you would enjoy reading about). Please read all four. When you have finished reading, write a thesis statement for each piece. What was the overall argument? Include bullets of the points used to support that thesis. What facts/statistics were used? What comments were made supporting the argument? What point was the writer trying to make? Please turn this in at the end of class. Starting tomorrow, you will begin writing your own point-counterpoint editorials, so keep in mind how the writer gets his/her point across and what techniques he/she uses to set up and support the argument.

Have fun!

Our view on child obesity: In this toy story, San Francisco bars Happy Meal treats

USA Today 11/8/10

Amid all the Election Day hoopla, you might have missed last Tuesday's action in San Francisco: The Board of Supervisors moved to end a scourge on the American food landscape. Consumers call them Happy Meals. On a preliminary 8-3 vote, enough to override a threatened veto by the mayor, the supervisors prohibited restaurants from giving away toys with meals that don't meet certain nutritional standards for calories, sodium and fat. A final vote is scheduled for today.

Now, there's no doubt that too much fast food is bad for children. A study out Monday from Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that just 12 out of the 3,039 meals available at fast-food chains were considered a healthy choice for preschoolers, and only 15 satisfied the requirements for older kids. That's inexcusable.

But banning toy giveaways in meals that don't measure up to government-approved standards, as California's Santa Clara County has done and San Francisco is moving to do, is just another ineffective, quick fix attempt to solve the complex problem of child obesity.

For one thing, the "food justice" agenda, as supporters call it with a straight face, doesn't pass the logic test: Customers pack fast-food restaurants because they offer convenient, cheap and tasty (if unhealthy) food. Parents won't stop being pressed for time and money, or stop taking their kids to McDonald's, because harmless trinkets are harder to get.

More broadly, the toy bill is exactly the kind of invasive, nanny-state government intervention sure to infuriate many citizens. What's the next target? Sugary cereals that include a toy or stickers in the package? Sodas that offer discounts on amusement parks? Unless San Francisco plans to prohibit these, too, restaurants are being unfairly singled out.

Of course, none of this is to say that fast-food establishments shouldn't offer more healthy alternatives, or to deny that child obesity is a crisis. Nearly a third of kids in America are overweight or obese. Over the past three decades, child obesity rates have roughly tripled, putting more kids at risk for diabetes and cardiovascular problems.

There are a number of promising approaches to this legitimate health emergency that don't involve aggravating parents or depriving children of toys. These include making school lunches healthier and encouraging schools to offer more physical education. In low-income neighborhoods, where obesity tends to be more prevalent, efforts are underway to attract more supermarkets that offer fresh produce, and to build more playgrounds and ball fields to encourage outdoor activity.

Because junk food has been shown to have addictive qualities, information and education are keys to changing attitudes and behaviors, just as with the campaign against smoking. The new national health care law requires large restaurant chains to include calorie counts on menus. That's a sensible way to ensure parents can make informed choices about the meals their children eat — including opting to trade the fries for fruit, or soda for milk. The key is making menu items' nutritional content transparent to consumers. What they decide to do with that information should be their choice, not the government's.

As with other issues, San Francisco might think it's ahead of the times. But its heavy-handed approach is more likely to make kids unhappy than it is to make them skinny.

Opposing view on child obesity: Put kids' health first

USA Today 11/8/10

By Eric Mar

On Nov. 2, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed a common sense ordinance. The Healthy Meals Incentive ordinance does just what it says — it incentivizes restaurants to provide healthier options. Kids' meals must meet basic nutritional standards in order for restaurants to use toy-giveaways.

I proposed this ordinance, because my city is like so many others across the country: One in three kids are at risk in their lifetime for type 2 diabetes and other conditions due to poor diet. Communities of color and low-income families are disproportionately affected. Our doctors' offices and pediatric clinics are increasingly overwhelmed with the needs of younger patients. Childhood obesity rates have tripled in the 30 years since the introduction of the Happy Meal.

San Francisco is at the forefront of programs to promote physical activity, healthier school lunches and nutrition education. Yet, even as these programs make measured progress, each year, the fast-food industry sells more than a billion junk food meals to kids under 12 on the wings of toy giveaways.

In neighborhoods across the country from southeast San Francisco to east Los Angeles, to urban cities like Detroit and Newark, residents are living in food deserts, where fast-food restaurants far outnumber supermarkets and access to healthy food is scarce.

Dollars spent on junk foods dwarf what our city can spend on education. McDonald's says kids' meals are healthy. Are apple slices dipped in sugary caramel sauce healthy? A parent shouldn't need a graduate degree in nutrition to decide. Mom and Dad should be able to trust that food sold to their kids is healthy.

From the Institute of Medicine to the World Health Organization, we know that reducing the consumption of junk food by kids could spare the health of millions and save billions of dollars to our overstrapped public health system. That's why pediatricians, educators, parents, community health advocates and thousands of individuals lined up to support this ordinance.

As the California Restaurant Association says, this epidemic requires a "broad societal response." We agree. From Mom to McDonald's, everyone must do their part.

After all, parental responsibility does not preclude corporate accountability.

San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar sponsored the Healthy Meals Incentive ordinance.

Our view on security vs. privacy: Critics bash airport scans, but what's their alternative?

USA Today 11/16/10

If anyone wondered about the limits of public tolerance for the increasingly unpleasant airport screening experience, the answer is being provided by the reaction to newly installed body scanners and newly aggressive pat-downs offered as an alternative.

This week alone, New Jersey's Legislature passed a resolution saying the scans violate a citizen's right against unreasonable searches. John Tyner, a California traveler who sought a pat-down instead of a scan and then told airport security, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," became an Internet sensation.

And in the most ambitious and irresponsible protest, two grass-roots groups started the call for fliers to "opt out" of scans and insist on public pat-downs on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving. That's about the worst idea since somebody suggested, "Let's change the formula for Coke." It threatens to create even bigger bottlenecks on what's one of the year's busiest travel days.

More broadly, there's a gaping hole in the critics' logic: None has offered an effective alternative. The body scanners can detect objects that metal detectors miss, such as plastic firearms, ceramic knives and, yes, possibly explosives hidden in a person's underwear — the kind carried by the failed Christmas Day bomber last year. The unspoken conclusion of the critics' thinking is that the government should possess technology that can detect hidden weapons, but not use it because of public squeamishness. Imagine the outcry if a bomber managed to board a plane and bring it down.

In fact, despite the critics' overwrought charges, they are a vocal minority. In a CBS News poll last week, 81% of those surveyed said airports should use full-body X-ray machines. The scanners' invasive aspects have been toned down considerably. Software obscures images of body parts. Individuals can't be identified. The operator who sees the image is in another room.

This is not to say there aren't valid questions about the machines or that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can't improve this process. While the Food and Drug Administration has assured the public that the scanners do not pose a health risk, a few scientists question that assertion and have called for more study. Given the millions of people who will pass through these devices, that's a good idea.

More urgently, the government should take heed of the hundreds of travelers who have complained about rude, curt or obnoxious treatment by TSA workers, particularly during pat-downs. Such treatment is inexcusable, and screeners need to be told pronto that unpleasant pat-downs aren't meant to coerce passengers into using the machines.

The government and airlines should do everything they can to make the process less infuriating without compromising safety. This includes reviewing existing policies that have piled up in response to particular plots. Is it still necessary for everybody to take off their shoes? Is 3.4 ounces still the right limit for carry-on liquids? Is it necessary to clog checkpoints by giving fliers big financial incentives to avoid checking their luggage? And is there room for more common sense in the whole process?

As another holiday travel season approaches, airport screening might finally be reaching a tipping point. But before a vocal minority forces the issue, everyone needs to calm down and remember that the security-line indignities are a necessary byproduct of an era in which terrorists remain fixated on blowing jetliners out of the sky.

Opposing view on security vs. privacy: Honor basic human dignity

USA Today 11/16/10

By James Babb and George Donnelly

We Won't Fly urges air travelers to say "I opt out" of TSA abuse on Nov. 24. Travelers should opt out of full-body scanners not only to protect their health and privacy, but to protest the Transportation Security Administration's demeaning new security theater. We can ensure passenger safety without making nude images of our children or groping our grandmas.

For this, TSA Administrator John Pistole accuses us of being "irresponsible."

The TSA and the Homeland Security Department, however, are the irresponsible parties. They have deployed untested technology that biochemist Michael Love says "statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from."

They did not properly educate the flying public about their new intrusive security regimen. Passengers thrust into these new procedures report cases of trauma, including flashbacks for rape victims and feelings of humiliation. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a political appointee, irresponsibly misled the nation in a USA TODAY Forum piece Monday, saying the scanners were safe and the genital probings were discrete. They are neither.

Homeland Security has suckered Americans into a false sense of security with scanners of dubious value. It remains to be seen whether they even detect the threat presented by last December's underwear bomber.

Rafi Sela, a leading Israeli airport security expert, recently told the Canadian government: "I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747." Is that the security you were expecting, America?

National Opt Out Day is of vital importance to the nation, despite the risk of flight delays. The traveling public urgently requires education on these new intrusive TSA procedures, education that the TSA has neglected.

Individuals need to be warned of the radiation dangers. Parents need to be aware of the emotional trauma their children may be subjected to from TSA "bad touches."

Air travelers are clamoring for someone to stand up and demand that their basic human dignity be honored. As parents, we have a sacred responsibility to our children to keep air travel safe, trauma-free and respectful of individual liberty. The only irresponsible action would be for us to continue doing nothing at all.

James Babb and George Donnelly, who live in the Philadelphia area, are co-founders of the grass-roots group We Won't Fly.

Friday, December 3

Happy Friday!! Read the following information to see what we are doing in class...

As we saw in Shattered Glass, there are many ethical decisions a reporter and editor must weigh and ultimately make in a given story. Many of you were surprised something more serious didn’t happen to Glass legally. This is partly due to the fact that his stories were fabricated; he did not harm any individual, as these individuals were frequently false.

When discussing media ethics, one must consider the most common legal pitfalls, which include:

Libel: Injury to reputation. False words, pictures, or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule or induce an ill opinion of a person are libelous.

Obscenity: Another form of unprotected speech. Generally defined as something that by community standards arouses sexual desire, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Slander: The utterance of a falsehood that damages another’s reputation. Spoken defamation (as opposed to libel, which is printed).

Not every unethical behavior is legally forbidden, even if it is injurious (such in the case of Stephen Glass' stories). The basic ethical issues that usually arise in journalism include:

1. The importance of getting more than one source; the importance of using only information that is “on the record.”
2. The question of whether it is ethical to use the names of juveniles who have committed a crime.
3. The ethical question of when something is an invasion of privacy; the question of when a photo, or whether that photo should be published.
4. The question of whether to print unsigned letters to the editor; the importance of having a letter to the editor policy established. The responsibility of the publication for everything it prints.
5. The issue of using anonymous sources.
6. The issue of conflict of interest.
7. The importance of getting both sides of an issue.

Today you will think through 11 different ethical situations that I have provided, all of which take place in a high school newspaper setting. Using the information above, you will work with a partner in making a final ethical decision. You will see just how tricky this can be. Write your answers to these questions on a separate piece of paper. I will collect these at the end of class.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Thursday, December 2

After seeing that there was a 60 Minutes interview with the real Stephen Glass included on our DVD, I thought we would watch the ten-minute clip. Stephen tells the audience exactly what happened and why, and the real Chuck Lane is also interviewed about the deception. After watching this segment, you'll complete two activities regarding the movie, but more so, regarding the editorial process. I have hard copies of the assignments, but have also posted them below. You will be fact-checking several excerpts from Stephen's other articles, as well as putting yourself in the position of the editor.

I am also including a fun little activity, which you may do in place of one of the others. It is a news brief that is filled with false information. Your job is to fact-check the piece. You may use the Internet to look up businesses, maps, directories, etc. I've included the brief below:

How many mistakes can you find in this news brief?

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Thursday, December 2, 2010) – Scoffing at superstition, protesters gathered outside the Taft Building today to oppose pending federal legislation that would impose new restrictions on SUVs. Blocking the intersection at Constitution and Independence Avenues with an assortment of supersize vehicles - Escapades, Grand Tetons, Liberatos - the gruop called attention to its cause with horn blasts and car alarms that echoed among the cherry trees that line the Mall. Alerted in advance, D.C. police soon dispersed the protesters with help from Anacostia Wrecker Service and other local towing companies, restoring the scene to tranquility and traffic.

Link to the 60 Minutes interview if you would like to check it out: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml

The Editorial Process

We saw Stephen Glass get away with reporting fiction as fact in the film, Shattered Glass. As Glass said in the movie, although there is a rigorous fact-checking system, there is a loop-hole. Oftentimes, a reporter’s notes are the only source to check fact against. Thus, fabricated notes could cause for an untrue story to be printed.

Suppose you had been a fact-checker at The New Republic. Do you think you would have caught Glass’ deceptions? Here are three excerpts from articles Glass wrote for the magazine. Read each one and underline the details that you think need independent verification. In the space provided, explain how you would go about uncovering the real facts.

1. One Chicago-area school for Santas featured a 144-page textbook that provided instruction on everything from going to the bathroom in a Santa suit to rules on how to touch children.

2. Western Union now has a “Stop the Cassini” hotline, 1-888-no-cassini, which forwards anti-Cassini telegrams to the White House for $10 a pop…and Las Vegas is even taking bets on whether the satellite will malfunction. The approximate odds before lift-off: 1 in 70.

3. Take Joel Carni, whose family business, Four Acres, is one of the nation’s largest political novelty manufacturers. This summer, stores will be hit with Carni’s newest project, the Monicondom.

Editorial Standards

During his time at The New Republic, Stephen Glass worked under the editors of Michael Kelly and Charles (Chuck) Lane. As portrayed in the film, Glass and Kelly differ in the ways they provide editorial support to their writers. To gauge this difference, and to learn something about your own editorial philosophy, take a look at the episodes from Shattered Glass described below. For each episode, explain why you agree or disagree with the editor’s actions, and if you disagree, explain what you would have done.

1. When Kelly receives a letter charging that Glass fabricated his account of a hotel room orgy during a young conservatives convention, he asks Glass to gather his notes so they can respond. When he learns that Glass did misreport one detail – there was no mini-bar in the room, just a rented mini-fridge, according to Glass – Kelly sends him home, satisfied that the story is solid. But once Glass is gone, Kelly calls the hotel to confirm that guests can rent a mini-fridge as Glass has claimed.

2. When the publisher forces everyone on staff to circle every comma in the last issue, so he can point out what he believes are mistakes, Kelly confronts him. “These people…deserve our thanks, not another one of your world-famous tantrums,” he tells the publisher. “I would resign before I’d allow you to bully them like that again.” Then, hanging up the phone, Kelly announces, “The Great Comma Debate is history.”

3. After Lane and Glass spend hours in a conference call with Forbes, during which the facts in Glass’ computer hacker story become steadily more and more dubious, Lane sends Glass back to his office and calls the Forbes editor privately to ask that they spare his reporter. “You guys have discovered something that a troubled 25-year-old has done,” he says. “He could be very hurt by what you guys publish.” But when asked if he still stands by the story, Lane answers, off the record, “I’m looking into it…”

4. Finally convinced that Glass faked every shred of evidence for the facts he reported in his computer hacker story, Lane finds himself confronted by other staff members who feel it would be wrong to fire him. “He doctored his notes,” Lane tells them, “He lied to his editor.” But when they insist that Glass only lied out of panic and needs help, Lane backs down. Instead of firing him, he suspends Glass for two years.”

Wednesday, December 1

Here is a photo of the real Stephen Glass. After he was fired from The New Republic, Glass went on to receive a law degree from Georgetown University. He then moved to New York City, where it is believed he is a paralegal. After his departure from the magazine, Glass stayed away from the journalism community. In 2003, he published an "auto-biography" titled, The Fabulist, which recounted his scandal.

Today we will be finishing up the movie, Shattered Glass. Since each class has reached a different point in the movie, we will all begin an activity tomorrow. Today, after the movie, you will write (or type) a 250-word response, in which you will answer the following...

-What were your initial reactions to the movie?

-Which elements of the Code of Ethics were present? Which were broken? What ethical decisions had to be made? Explain.

-What would you have done if you were Chuck Lane (the editor)?

-Why is it important to have a Code of Ethics?

Turn these into me by the end of class.

Happy Wednesday!