Where did great journalists like Edward R. Murrow get story ideas?

By Ren LaForme

Journalism may be a shifting industry, but one thing remains the same – journalists still need to come up with story ideas to entice readers.

Where do the majority of journalists get their stories?

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had to work to get their story. They trawled through interviews and stalked sources until they got to the center of the Watergate scandal.

Other journalists get big stories delivered directly to their notebook – like when Washington Post op-ed columnist Robert Novak was given the name of an undercover CIA operative by a member of the Bush Administration.

At The Spectrum, we get our ideas from a variety of sources. Some of the most common are:

• Press releases from the University at Buffalo, Student Life, the Student Association, clubs, recording companies, artists, authors and the government
• A weekly safety report we get from the University Police Department
• Local newspapers, Web sites, radio stations and other publications
• Other campus newspapers, such as the Syracuse Daily Orange or the Harvard Crimson
• UB student leaders, such as SA Acting President Ernesto Alvarado, former President Hassan Farah, College Democrats President Kinsey Davidson and College Republicans President Robert Matthews
• Outspoken professors, such as Jim Holstun and Gerald Finnegan
• Blogs like the UB Freethinkers

One of my favorite sources  is the Student Newspaper Survival Blog and its corresponding book. The site, and especially the book, offer a multitude of links that any journalist can utilize to find great story ideas.

Where else can journalists get story ideas?

Decisione della Consulta sulla costituzionalità del lodo Alfano.

Oramai ci stiamo dentro fino all’osso e il bello che non ce ne accorgiamo; o meglio la maggior parte degli italiani ancora non se ne è resa conto. Stiamo assistendo ad un golpe di stato bello e buono ma eseguito in maniera moderna e revisionata; come un male, una malattia che si espande molto lentamente,  silensiosamente.

La costituzione oramai non viene più considerata come dovrebbe essere. La corte di cassazione, in questi giorni, riunita,  continua a farsi  “le pippe mentali” nel decidere se una legge, così sfacciatamente incostituzionale, sia o meno leggittima. E c’è pure da pensarci!. Ma siamo veramente tutti impazziti. Ragazzi svegliamoci. E intanto la sinistra, impassibile riname a guardare tutto ciò senza fare niente.  Bisognerebbe ribellarsi concretamente  a tutto ciò: organizzare mega scioperi, raccolta firme ma tutto questo non accade. Lo stato è in mano a dei corruttori, delinquenti professionisti , mafiosi senza scrupoli e le vittime purtroppo siamo noi comuni mortali che non possiamo far altro che subire  tali ingiustizie.

Oggi, e nei prossimi giorni, si continuerà a parlare del nulla, assistendo ad un teatrino inutile nei confronti della decisione della Consulta sulla costituzionalità del lodo Alfano. Il governo dovrebbe occuparsi con priorità assoluta della crisi economica mondiale e invece dobbiamo essere noi le vittime di un presidente del consiglio che preferisce organizzare festini con escort, un presidente del consiglio che deve farsi processare come  un cittadino qualunque e quindi  rispondere davanti alla legge a seguito di  una miriade di accuse. Invece di dimettersi, come dovrebbe avvenire in una democrazia che si rispetti il presidente continua per la sua strada.

Il motto del governo: “La legge è uguale per tutti, ma non la sua applicazione”. Queste sono le parole con cui poco fa Ghedini ha preso per i fondelli la Costituzione e gli italiani. Come può la Consulta pensare che il suo parere e le sue toghe nere possano fermare gente con un disprezzo così viscerale per le istituzioni?

ciao,

guana.

Quello che ho potuto capire da tutta la storia Tarantini ( sanità malata, politica, droga, escort e feste ) è che in alcuni luoghi si formi una società gestita in modo deplorevole dai potenti . Una società che seguendo i propri interessi crea un giro di favori che turbano il giusto svolgimento dei fatti, dagli appalti, alle nomine, ai permessi, alla sanità … tutte cose gestite dalla politica che accetta di collaborare con persone ricevendo e facendo favori a loro volta.

Tarantini a quanto pare era avvantaggiato nella fornitura di protesi, avvantaggiato da quei politici che ricevevano favori da lui… tutto ciò ha provocato un ulteriore deriva da quello che si capisce..perché si incentivava l’uso delle protesi anche quando non ce n’era bisogno .

Inoltre Tarantini era abituato a frequentare/organizzare delle feste del Premier, ma non da solo perché ci portava delle ragazze. Se fosse fatto solo per divertirsi non credo ci sarebbero problemi.Però se Berlusconi se le portava a letto, di una ormai si è certi ( D’Addario), il problema c’è, visto che lui è il presidente del Consiglio e come la sua maggioranza ha sempre difeso il valore della famiglia cristiana… quindi il problema non è più personale ma pubblico, perché un politico deve fare ciò che dice e impone agli altri se no è un bugiardo . Un’altro problema sorge quando a queste ragazze gli viene chiesto di entrare in politica, per poi ritrattare la cosa perché il giornale “Fare Futuro“(fondazione di cui il presidente è Fini)  critica le liste del PDL per le europee  piene di veline, critica che farà anche V. Lario e poi sapete com’è andata la storia; finisco dicendo che se delle ragazze vanno a letto con un Mr X e poi Mr X le candida alle elezioni … bé c’è qualcosa di malato, di anormale anche perchè a pagarle saranno i cittadini .

In merito alla puntata di AnnoZero del 1 ottobre 2009 (link dei video)“No Giampi, No party” vorrei fare due riflessioni :

Perchè nessuno ha chiesto:

1. Come mai un imprenditore ha pensato di portare a Berlusconi delle Escort ?

2. Se si doveva solo parlare o discutere di affari o fare una festa poteva portare anche delle persone che non facevano le Escort, come altre ragazze immagini ( se proprio voleva puntare sull’estetica(ma perchè avrebbe dovuto ? ) o meglio persone amiche o famigliari . Che male ci dovrebbe essere nel portare la famiglia dal premier ? dovrebbe essere un vanto, un onore … ma si sa ogni caso è diverso ….

3. Se si porta una escort e le si dice che se si fermerà la notte le verrà dato un compenso (il premier sembra non lo sapesse, anche se Tarantini oltre a dire questo, dice che la mattina dopo le ragazze avrebbero trovato una busta,qual’è la verità?)… c’è qualcos altro da sapere ?

4. Come fa Tarantini a sapere che alla escort potrà esserle chiesto di fermarsi la notte? E se lo sa come ha fatto a scoprirlo ?

5.Quand’è che ha saputo la prima volta che Berlusconi andava a letto con delle donne invitate alle sue feste ?

Sono domande importanti perché le risposte ci potrebbero far capire se il premier sapeva se queste ragazze con cui passava la nottata fossero delle Escort( D’Addario risponde a Santoro se Berlusconi lo sapeva ) … Inoltre una persona per bene non dovrebbe pensare di dover portare delle Escort dal premier o no? …ma Tarantini non sembra tanto per bene da come si definisce lui stesso “uso le donne e la droga per scalare la società“ significato delle parole pronunciate da lui stesso.(se è arrivato a Berlusconi direi che ci è riuscito … purtroppo).

Sulle Escort e ragazze immagini ognuno può avere la sua opinione e non è di rilevanza pubblica, quindi non dirò nemmeno la mia. Ma c’è da dire che sono anche loro CONSAPEVOLI e in cerca di un OBBIETTIVO ( con i politici sarà stato facile pensare a candidature, favori, soldi, Tv ecc)…

Tutto questo sistema di cui faceva parte Tarantini era fatto per creare un giro di conoscenze, di affari tutto nell’illegalità e nell’unico obbiettivo di avere dei vantaggi personali . Ognuno ha la sua responsabilità, chi più consapevole (imprenditori, politici), chi meno consapevoli, forse( Escort, ragazze immagini). E ognuno ha un obbiettivo da raggiungere.

E Tarantini l’aiuto dove lo cercava ??
In POLITICA !!! ma che STRANO !

Per esempio i suoi contatti nella sanità comprendevano esponenti della sinistra, i quali in cambio di favori o escort o feste indirizzavano la struttura sanitaria ad avvantaggiare la sua azienda …
che strano che ci siano politici deficenti che giocano con i nostri soldi e sulle malattie delle persone (le protesi venivano messe anche se non necessarie a quanto pare, come dice Belpietro nella puntata)!

Berlusconi che centra ?

Non lo so ma è per questo che se ne deve parlare, che si deve cercare se nella frequentazione Tarantini- Berlusconi c’erano altri scopi …
Anche se uno potrebbe già essere ipotizzato : <La ricerca di candidate di bell’aspetto, senza una necessaria preparazione buttate in politica così su due piedi( non mi riferisco agli incontri/lezioni organizzate per scegliere le ragazze su base di curriculum ecc ma alle ragazze “reclutate” alle feste ) , dopo essere andata a letto con Berlusconi magari e quindi pagate con i nostri soldi(divenendo un problema pubblico )… vedi caso D’Addario …>

Per concludere .
Non possiamo credere alla solita balla che lui non conosce le persone che frequentano casa sua ! ( vedi Mangano,mafioso pluriomicida e condannato per altri reati ) … Sarebbe da stupidi o ingenui non conoscere una persona che si frequenta ! ( forse lo è lui o lo staff che lo circonda ?? ma stiamo parlando dell’uomo + potente in Italia e allora dovremmo preoccuparci se fosse veramente così )
Mettiamo che Berlusconi abbia fatto tutto in buona fede … se non conosceva gli affari loschi di Tarantini non avrebbe dovuto dire di essere sconvolto e che gli dispiaceva di aver frequentato una persona così (anche se le sue amichette non erano male) e che la prossima volta sarebbe stato più attento? ( bé è già un passo avanti in confronto a Mangano !!)
Sì avrebbe dovuto ma non l’ha fatto …

PS: andare a letto con chi vuoi non è reato ... neanche se sei sposato… è solo una scelta … ma poi non si può però difendere il concetto di famiglia cristiana per non dare i diritti alle coppie di ogni altro genere, xk allora diventa importante ciò che fa a letto … perché si capisce se ci prende per il culo o no …

Nota Bene : ogni cosa scritta è quello che ho capito leggendo articoli online, vedendo interviste, telegiornali e trasmissioni online … in tutto queste credo che le dichiarazione della D’Addario si possano prendere per vere anche se non ci giurerei mai al 100 %.

Tutti i video della puntata :

Sito AnnoZero.rai

Youtube : Intervista D’Addario(4 parti) ; Marco Travaglio ; Introduzione di Santoro (pezzo su Minzolini e BBC ) ; Vignette Vauro ; Premio Pulitzer Carl Bernstein .

La Libertà di stampa – Marco Travaglio, semplicemente ILLUMINANTE!

ciao,

guana.

“No Gianpi no Party”. Questo il titolo della puntata di Annozero andata in onda ieri sera, 1 ottobre. Al centro delle discussioni il “Sistema Tarantini” e cioè la commistione fra sesso, denaro, festini e politica nella sanità pugliese e nei palazzi della politica. Sono intervenuti, oltre ai soliti Marco Travaglio e Vauro, il sindaco di Bari (del PD) Michele Emiliano, il direttore di “Libero” Maurizio Belpietro, la direttrice del settimanale femminile “A” Maria Latella, il vicedirettore de “Il Giornale” Nicola Porro e la giornalista de “Il Manifesto” Norma Rangeri. In collegamento da New York è intervenuto anche il Premio Pulitzer Carl Bernstein, quello che ha scoperto il caso Watergate (e a cui Robert Redford presto’ la faccia in “Tutti gli uomini del Presidente“, in coppia con Dustin Hoffman). Non sono intervenuti esponenti del PdL, che hanno disertato gli inviti di Santoro.

Ma l’ospite eccezionale, che prima, durante, e dopo la trasmissione ha fatto tanto discutere, e’ senza ombra di dubbio l’escort Patrizia D’Addario.

Questa la sua dichiarazione focale: «Sapeva (soggetto Berlusconi, ndr) che facevo la escort. Lo sapevano tutti. Eravamo in tre quella sera e io non ero l’unica escort». Su questo si dovrebbe discutere, con la conseguente e importante riflessione sul perche’ la piu’ alta carica dello Stato Italiano debba avere certi atteggiamenti di “scarsa moralita’”, ma ancora peggio sul fatto che un Capo di Governo in questo modo sia RICATTABILE! e quindi potenzialmente molto, molto, molto debole! Il processo ieri sera non era sulla D’Addario (contro cui certe “persone” hanno cercato di deviare, vedi Belpietro)! Sotto processo era e deve rimanere Berlusconi, e chi ancora lo difende e giustifica, e ne accetta comportamenti e infelici uscite. Belpietro attacca la D’Addario, le da della ricattatrice (lei si difende affermando «Io non ho ricattato nessuno, sono io a essere stata tradita perché le promesse che mi sono state fatte dal presidente non sono state mantenute»), le chiede insistentemente come in questo momento stia campando, dove trova i soldi per vivere… Caro Belpietro, non e’ questo il punto! La D’Addario ha ricattato Berlusconi? Me ne frego sinceramente! e nel caso ben gli sta! Il punto, ripeto, e’ piuttosto che Berlusconi si fa ricattare da una escort! e non da meno, che con la escort ci vada a letto!

Un momento molto alto della trasmissione e’ stato sicuramente l’intervento di Carl Bernstein, uno che di scandali presidenziali se ne intende, uno che sul giornalismo investigativo ha costruito una carriera di successi e riconoscimenti. Un intervento, insieme a quello di Travaglio (clicca per guardare il video su YouTube), sull’importanza della stampa, sui suoi doveri e diritti, e su quanto sia difficile in questo momento essere giornalista in Italia, e anche editore! Querele, processi, cavilli, multe, sanzioni… un mestiere sotto controllo, imbrigliato, imbavagliato, incatenato… «La stampa ha il dovere legittimo di accertare il vero se ci sono evidenti verità nelle accuse contro un Capo di Stato o un premier. È stato il caso di Monica Lewinsky nei confronti di Clinton ed è il caso che riguarda oggi Berlusconi. C’è da verificare se la condotta generale di Berlusconi si rifletta sul suo incarico. Il giornalismo investigativo è un dogma per il giornalismo libero». E ancora (e chissa’ che giri su se stesso deve aver fatto lo stomaco del Premier…): «L’atteggiamento del presidente italiano che prova a limitare l’informazione sulle sue vicende riporta allo stalinismo sovietico, non degno di una grande democrazia occidentale».

Finisce AnnoZero con le sempre efficaci e preziose vignette di Vauro, sto per spegnere per andare a dormire, ma il dito scivola sull’1… Ta-daaaa Ta-daaaa – inizia Porta a Porta! Che come copertina riporta le immagini appena trasmesse su Rai Due della D’Addario che cerca di difendersi dalle accuse di ricatto di “Maurizio The Mask Belpietro”… E poi quell’esserino di Vespa che fa subito commentare a Ignazio La Russa, anche lui potenziale disertore del programma di Santoro (solo potenziale, perche’ Santoro non l’ha invitato…), il quale accusa: «E’ stato giusto disertare Annozero, perché non si pende dalle labbra di una finta Maria Goretti, che è una prostituta»…

Dall’altra parte (o “porta”) Marino, candidato alla presidenza del PD… che come al solito si fa sfuggire l’occasione ghiotta di controbattere coraggiosamente e giustamente… ad esempio dicendo: “Prostituta? anche se fosse, e’ il signor Berlusconi che se la porta a letto, e che per di piu’ si fa ricattare..”. Come ho detto prima: il processo non e’ alla D’Addario come tanti stano cercando di fare. Il processo e’ a Berlusconi… ma cosa ci volete fare?! a cosa servirebbe altrimenti il Lodo Alfano???

Carl Bernstein was invited on the controversial Italain political show Annozero last night. He spoke twice (from New York), and it appeared that there were indeed two separate Carl Bernsteins: one who chose journalistic prudence: “We have to be very careful of generalizations. I think many of the restrictions of good journalism are self-imposed.” He won a Pulitzer Prize, so he should know. Below is the clip, around 4:30.

Which brings us to the second Carl Bernstein. About half an hour later, the previously prudent Bernstein–who had admitted he wasn’t in any position to judge Italian politics because he didn’t really follow them–lashed out against the Berlusconi government as “a kind of Soviet Stalinism.” You can hear this at around 3:20 in the clip below.

What was responsible for the sudden change of heart? Even Michele Santoro, who earlier had introduced Bernstein as “played by Robert Redford in the movie”, commented: “Bernstein must have had an espresso.”

In questo periodo la politica italiana sta subendo un rapito tracollo. Una rovina in tutti i sensi. Dovrebbe essere sotto gli occhi di tutti ma non è proprio così. La democrazia e la costituzione stanno ricevendo in continuazione attacchi che mai nessuno prima, dal dopoguerra ad oggi,  si sarebbe mai nemmeno sognato di fare. Provvedimenti, decreti e leggi degne di un parlamento di corrotti, piduisti e mafiosi. Sì, mafiosi. E quando si parla di mafia non si  esagera mai purtroppo. Un parlamentare come Marcello Dell’Utri non può rimanere ancora insediato in parlamento dopo essere stato condannato a 9 anni di reclusione al primo appello per concorso esterno in associazione mafiosa. Ecco, questa, a mio parere, è solo una punta di un iceberg di un sistema oramai da estirpare dalle fontamenta. Oramai l’informazione, unico filo conduttore tra politica e cittadino viene di continuo ostacolata dall’alto, da questa dittatura che si è formata che riesce con troppa facilità a manovrare come marionette quasi tutti i Tg e buona parte della stampa.

Come avrete letto nei miei ultimi post di questo blog, ultimamente, è nato un nuovo quotidiano “Il Fatto Quotidiano”. Fortunatamente c’è ancora chi non molla e lotta per contrastare queste assurdità. L’uscita di questo nuovo quotidiano è un evento molto positivo ma secondo me non basta. Sono del parere che a questo punto è necessario un intervento europeo che possa iniziare a cambiare le cose. Fino ad ora ci sono stati dei piccoli avvertimenti da parte del parlamento europeo e dall’Onu come ad esempio per quello che riguarda la questione dei respingimenti. Ma tutto ciò sembra non abbia fatto effetto alcuno. Il governo procede indisturbato a testa alta, senza vergogna, promulgando leggi che tappano la bocca a chi vuole dire la propria opinione liberamente, leggi che proteggono condannati in parlamento o indagati al governo.Tutto ciò è pazzesco.

A questo punto allora mi chiedo, dov’è quella libertà che Berlusconi tanto incita sempre nei suoi comizi? Popolo delle “Libertà” si chiama il suo partito o sbaglio? Parla sempre per luoghi comuni, attacca sempre i comunisti e si nasconde sempre citando cifre, numeri e percentuali; fateci caso. Ma da quando in qua in Italia ci sono i comunisti?  Magari ci fossero veramente, quelli veri di un tempo!

Ragazzi, apriamo gli occhi. Ci stanno trattando come delle marionette ed ognuno di noi, nel nostro piccolo. può fare qualcosa per contrastare questa situazione.

Va beh, adesso vado a pranzo che devo prepararmi un bel bambino al forno con i peperoni …bello croccate!!! A presto.

ciao,

guana.

Okay, so lots of action on Twitter today regarding this story about Toronto’s supposed “frosty” reaction to a B.C. billboard.

B.C.'s billboard pokes fun at Torontonians

But the journalist quotes only one GTA resident’s response to the ad, and she’s from Newmarket. Since when does one woman from Newmarket represent the mainstream voice of Toronto? The Town of Newmarket is a fair drive out of Toronto. The town itself certainly recognizes that Newmarket is a separate entity from the city.

So, were any actual Torontonians upset by the billboard? Is there actually a controversy here?

Judging by the reactions I’ve heard from Torontonians on Twitter today, not really. I’m from Thornhill, Ontario myself, which is the suburb immediately to the North of Toronto, straddled between the Town of Markham and the City of Vaughan. And I’m not peeved by the ad in the slightest.

Just thought I’d set the record straight. Or at least a little less crooked, since hey, I didn’t conduct a city-wide survey of Torontonians either.

***

This kind of journalism is just the sort of sensationalism and manufactured controversy that legendary reporter Carl Bernstein says has overwhelmed the modern-day news world. As a Sydney Morning Herald writer reported in 2007, Bernstein says journalists need to listen and ask questions designed to illuminate, not elicit controversy.

“The most important thing is to be a good listener. The story is always going to take you somewhere away from your preconceived notions,” he said. “In Watergate my preconceived notion was that the CIA was behind it. It wasn’t and I listened.”

El pasado 9 de Agosto se cumplió el 35 aniversario de la dimisión del presidente de los EEUU, Richard Nixon, fue el trigésimo séptimo presidente y hasta la actualidad es y ha sido el único en toda la historia de los EEUU que ha tenido que dimitir de su cargo debido a su implicación en uno de los más famosos casos de periodismo de investigación del siglo XX que fue el Escándalo Watergate.

Richard Nixon, presidente de los EEUU entre 1969 y 1974

Nixon accedió a la Casa Blanca en 1968 de la mano del Partido Republicano, en su primer mandato se caracterizó por retirar soldados americanos de la Guerra del Vietnam, viajó a Moscú con el objetivo de disminuir las armas estratégicas con ayuda de la URSS, etc. Nada raro ni ilegal de momento, lo malo de Nixon empezó con su segundo mandato a partir de 1972, en plena campaña de elecciones detuvieron en el hotel Watergate de Washington, D.C. a cinco hombres por allanamiento en la sede del Comité Demócrata Nacional el 17 de Junio de 1972, mediante posteriores investigaciones del Senado de los EEUU se averiguó que todo estaba planeado por el equipo de Nixon, se averiguó que había escuchas ilegales, sabotajes, espionajes políticos a alto nivel con el objetivo de ganar las elecciones de ese año.

Nixon y su equipo intentaron tapar todo este asunto del allanamiento durante los días después a la detención de esas cinco personas que se descubrieron que eran agentes de la CIA y miembros del Comité para la Reelección de Nixon. Durante los dos años siguientes se descubrió que Nixon tenía un sistema de grabaciones de conversaciones donde se demostraba que había actuado en contra de la Justicia, estas grabaciones tienen el curioso nombre de “The smoking gun” (la pistola humeante). Luego más tarde a expensas de una condena del Senado y la acusación de la Cámara de Representantes y haberse iniciado un proceso de impeachment, figura del derecho anglosajón por el que se procesa a un alto cargo público, Richard Nixon dimite del cargo y le sucede su vicepresidente Gerald Ford.

Hotel Watergate en Washington, D.C.

Todo esto salto a la luz pública gracias a los periodistas del Washington Post, Carl Bernstein y Bob Woodward que consiguieron desenredar toda la trama cuyos hilos apuntaban a la Casa Blanca, estos periodistas contaban con la ayuda de un personaje anónimo que se hizo muy famoso llamado Deep Throat (Garganta Profunda) que su identidad fue un secreto hasta 2005 que se descubrió que era Mark Felt, director adjunto del FBI bajo la presidencia de Nixon.

Una de las cosas que no me gustaron de todo este asunto es que Ford, el presidente que sucedió a Nixon, le indultó de todos los procesos que iban contra su persona, esto lo mira cualquier persona de hoy en día nacido después de Nixon y se cree que no fue tan culpable como decían los periódicos, se le tenía que haber acusado con todas las consecuencias legales que ello conlleva aunque sea ex-presidente de los EEUU, esto que se hizo hace que uno de los principios jurídicos más importantes que existe en Derecho, el principio de igualdad, contemplado en todas las Constituciones de  países democráticos, no se aplique en este asunto, dando una inseguridad jurídica ya que no todos somos iguales ante la ley, si eres presidente te salvas del asunto ilegal, eso sí como seas una simple ama de casa de cualquier ciudad de los EEUU no te salva nadie.

Carl Bernstein y Bob Woodward, periodistas del Washington Post, que desvelaron toda la trama

Una cosa que se asemeja a muchos de los políticos que había en aquellos años y los que hay en la actualidad, es que se mantienen en el cargo a base de mentir a la gente y no dar una muestra de dignidad personal y dimitir de sus cargos, quiero recordar que Nixon solamente accedió a la dimisión como presidente cuando ya se veía con el agua al cuello, mientras que no estuvo así, intento ocultar todo lo cometido por él y su equipo, que más que parecer un equipo de ayuda electoral, parecían unos mafiosos, eso sí de los malos, ya que los buenos no cometen tantos fallos como lo hizo Nixon y toda su gente de la CIA espiando a los demócratas en la capital de la nación.

Lo mejor de todo esto, fue el gran trabajo de los periodistas del Washington Post que consiguieron averiguar toda la trama del Watergate  provocando la dimisión de Richard Nixon en 1974, con este trabajo ganaron el premio Pulitzer, que es el máximo galardón que se da en el periodismo americano, con este trabajo demostraron la grandeza del periodismo de investigación que en esos momentos nacía en EEUU, ya que antes no se daba con mucha ocasión, ahora mismo es uno de los grandes campos del periodismo hoy en día, ya que gracias a él, se descubren muchas tramas de índole político y sociales importantes como ha sido en muchos países, cabe citar la investigación del Gal por parte de Diario 16 en la década de los 80 en España. Se debería fomentar este periodismo en detrimento de otros tipos que solo hacen que la gente hable mal de esta profesión y la critique en exceso y con razón.

All The President’s Men focuses on two journalists trying to find out the truth of the Watergate scandal which eventually lead to the downfall of President Nixon causing him to resign not long after the story came out in the press. I really enjoyed seeing the story of how the Watergate scandal was brought to everyone attention and how Nixon’s involvement in the cover up was found out.

I seem to like anything about the Presidents in the USA, I really enjoyed Frost/Nixon seeing how Nixon eventually showed remorse in what he had done, and how wrong he had been to get into such a scandal. I thought the acting from Hoffman and Redford was just fantastic. Two young journalists battling to keep their jobs and end up on one of the biggest stories of all time. They risked their lives at times in an attempt to get to the bottom of what happened at Watergate. It was a lot bigger than they first thought, as everyone was involved, the FBI, CIA and everyone in and around the president.

I really thought it was just fantastic how two people can mange to change and bring everything to other people’s attention. I also think what makes this an even more gripping watch, is that it is based on the real life story of the two reporters who brought Watergate out in the press. It was based on the book written by both Bernstein and Woodward.

Die Zeitung ist sterbenskrank. Traurig oder egal? Vielleicht liegt die Zukunft des Journalismus anderswo

Von San Francisco nach Detroit,von New York bis London: Die Zeitung aus Tinte und Papier ist sterbenskrank. 8000 Journalisten verloren heuer allein in den USA ihren Job. Das Blog „Newspaper Death Watch“ trägt täglich neue Hiobsbotschaften in die Welt. Besser, aber ebenfalls schlecht geht es den Kollegen in Europa. Die fatale Kombination aus sinkenden Werbeeinnahmen und ruinöser Konkurrenz durch Gratis-News im Internet streut Sand in die Druckpressen. Die Herausgeber setzen Journalisten auf die Straße, unterminieren Kollektivverträge und opfern journalistische Qualität auf dem Altar ihrer schmelzenden Profite. Anders als andere Industrien, die sich erholen werden, wenn die Konjunkturmaschine wieder anspringt, ist es fraglich, ob die Printbranche je wieder aus dem Koma erwacht.

Vielleicht ist es falsch, den alten Strukturen nachzutrauern. Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit, dem anzeigenfinanzierten Blätterwald Lebewohl zu sagen. Zeit, vom Gedanken Abstand zu nehmen, dass Journalismus Geld bringen muss. Aber wie ließe sich staatliches Handeln denn sonst kontrollieren? Wer bitte deckt Korruption, Packelei und Misswirtschaft in Zukunft auf? Es lohnt sich, abermals über den Atlantik zu blicken. Dort, wo die Zeitungskrise am härtesten und am längsten wütet, dort gibt es auch eine lange Tradition alternativer Strukturen. Kleine gemeinnützige Initiativen führen weiter, was große Redaktionen aus Kostengründen einschränken oder aufgeben: investigative Projekte, die wochen- oder sogar monatelange Recherche benötigen. Die die Rolle übernehmen, die Medien idealtypischerweise zukommt: Kontrolleure der Mächtigen, Garanten der Rechtschaffenheit und Wachhunde der Demokratie zu sein.

Weiterlesen im Falter

What else can be said about Sarah Palin?  She was woefully unqualified when John McCain picked her to be his vice-presidential candidate.  Now, almost a year later, she is still just as unqualified to run for any type of political office.

If she were serious about becoming a dominant force in GOP politics, she should have kept her job as Governor and used the coming years to study the issues.  Given her past performances, it is amazing she has any following.

Sarah Palin, as a future GOP candidate and person, is best summed up in the following video clip from MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Objectivity in journalism assumes that truth is equidistant from two competing viewpoints.  Without a vacuum available for journalistic objectivity to operate, the sword of sensationalism wields its sharp edge on truth and skews perceptions of reality.  Search for objectivity in today’s news media environment quickly leads to confusion and bewilderment for the casual observer.

Bias from the Left?

Do you remember who won the 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?

All major pollsters, regardless of alleged or stated political bias, showed Joe Biden won the debate. 

Bias from the Right?

Reporting bias on FOX News and CNN are commonplace.  Examples include lightening rod environmental problems like climate change where CNN and FOX News differ dramatically in their reporting; or the socially charged issue of government taxation and spending that played out via “tea partys” on April 15th, 2009.  Both networks grasp to their own glorified version of objectivity.  So who is right?  I think they both are right.  I just wouldn’t call it journalistic objectivity.  Objectivity has been lost; specifically when it comes to politics and social issues.

Advocacy in journalism is replacing objectivity.  New and diverse means of communication provide a voice to anyone who wants a journalistic license; I use the term “license” loosely.  The voiceless can have a voice; the voice that has gone unchecked now receives balance.  Journalists engaging in stories that evoke personal passion shouldn’t be silent observers, but to what extent should transparency, statement of personal bias, and balanced reporting be a part of the discourse?  An uninformed casual observer can be easily influenced by the current media landscape.

Jason Merckling

As someone who’s considerably less interested in producing a blog, in the conventional sense, than in imagining what, say, the LRB might be like if it only had a single, regrettably lazy, easily-distracted and discernably right-of-centre contributor — nothing wrong with a ‘normal’ blog, by the way, except that I’m simply not cut out for writing one — the very idea of ‘memes’ sends me lurching towards the ‘delete’ button.

On the other hand, reading Gareth Williams’ fascinating post here, with a special definitional supplement here, right before embarking on a half-hour, book- and iPod-free bus journey — and recalling a similar exercise by my old friend Barry Campbell, although I think that was on Facebook rather than Barry’s excellent blog, and hence, perhaps, as unrecoverable as it is now unlinkable — was a recipe for the sort of me-too response out of which the whole obligatory, mock-convivial and hence charmless ‘meme’ thing doubtless originated. And anyway, however much some of our American cousins may raise an eyebrow at this, it really is still too hot in London to think properly.

Hence, without much apology, here are, as per Gareth’s example, ten books which ‘have most influenced [my] thinking, that [I] have found [myself] referring to most often in reflection, speech, and writing’, complete with minimal justification. To the extent that they are ordered in any purposeful way, it’s (roughly) the sequence in which I encountered them.

1. The Book of Common Prayer (various editions). Christened into the American Episcopal Church soon after birth, educated at a refulgently eccentric Episcopal parochial school, an irregular attendee at services during my lengthy spell at Trinity College, Cambridge, confirmed (rather belatedly) into the Church of England in 1996 and now a conventionally devout if not excessively frequent communicant, the liturgy of the worldwide Anglian communion has always been there in the background, incanting its timeless commentary in the face of a lifetime of change.

The Psalms, in particular, are the most perfect poetry we have, encompassing every human mood. Gloomy or flirtatious, contrite or more than ready to smite someone — I’ve returned to the Psalms in all these states, and never failed to find the words I so badly needed to hear. No, more than any other, the Book of Common Prayer is, to crib Gareth’s formulation, a book I’ll never truly ‘finish’.

2. The Collected Poems of W.H. Auden (1945). Heaven knows, as a poet and as a man, Auden had defects. The uselessness of his political judgement was more or less complete. Personally, I find his later poetry unreadably awful. But early on in life, I discovered Auden’s pre-war poetry and became absolutely intoxicated with it — which is to say, intoxicated with the language itself, not particularly with whatever the language was meant to express, which was doubtless silly and mostly wrong. And no, when it comes to his politics, why one earth should one pardon him for writing well?

Still, although there are plenty of poets whose work now seems to me far more impressive, it’s Auden whose phrases still turn up uninvited at the most inconvenient moments, as if the forefront of my thoughts somehow belonged to them, and I rarely have the heart to turn them away. (In this context it’s worth noting that I still, even now, know a disturbing amount of poetry off by heart, meaning that by some measures, this list should be more or less all poetry. But, well, I’ll spare you that.)

3. Flemish Painting: The Century of Van Eyck by Jacques Lassaigne (1957). Is this the book I’m struggling to identify? I’m not entirely certain. It’s a bit nonsensical, obviously, to choose as a ‘memorable book’ a book whose author and indeed title are now entirely lost in the mists of time. What I remember, though, are the tipped-in plates, the production quality, that paper, that typography, the bottle-glass green binding and, of course, the smell of the pages — none of which is yet susceptible to the offices of Google. Anyway, I’ve written enough about this one recently. Suffice to say, this (or one very like it) was the art book that paved the way for all the others, and still, in some profound sense, the one against which all other art books still must stand comparison.

4. The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa (1958). I first read this on an indescribably hot beach in Florida, many years ago. At the time — aged 12, 13? — the scenes in which Angelica and Tancredi explore the countless half-forgotten rooms of Donnafugata, almost but not quite consummating their very passionate yet clearly totally doomed relationship, were by far the most successfully erotic thing I’d ever read. Three decades on, I’m less inclined to condemn that immature judgement, with which I still, as it happens, broadly concur, than to smile at the fact that even then, the dandyish and fatalistic yet clear-eyed, perhaps even faintly cynical ultra-conservatism of Lampedusa’s narrative ’spoke’ to me — as, needless to say, it still does, in tones as seductive and persuasive as ever before, every time I re-read this most elegantly tragic of novels.

5. Ada or Ardour: A Family Chronicle by Vladimir Nabokov (1969). The worst novel of Nabokov’s English language novels? Probably. Over-long, overblown, self-indulgent, near-incoherent, in places downright silly? Clearly so. But maybe the lack of formal perfection — as opposed to Pale Fire, say, or Lolita, let alone the talismanic Speak, Memory! — was part of what I loved about Ada, what made it not only so approachable and so likeable, but also so easy frighteningly easy to assimilate.

Years later, self-exiled to another country, I loaned a copy of Ada to someone I didn’t much like. Her comment on a book she couldn’t finish? ‘But he’s such a snob!’ No doubt Nabokov’s own highly individualistic demi-libertarianism, rooted in the sense that anything else was likely to be poshlost’, made an impact. And certainly my prose, as regular readers can attest, never entirely recovered.

6. Absolom, Absolom! by William Faulkner (1936). Don’t even start. I hold no brief (as Faulkner himself would put it, probably half a dozen times in as many pages) for the ‘Sole Owner & Proprietor’ of Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. His prose is often sagging and lumpy, his plot-lines laughable, his politics worrying, his range narrow, his collapse into the welcoming arms of self-parody more sad, in the end, than funny. Yet until I read Quentin Compson’s meandering account of what he did on his summer holidays, there was something I hadn’t really understood about how people and places intersect with one another, how it is that ‘history’, in its narrative sense, really happens — why it is that the past isn’t dead, or, as far as that goes, even past.

Having absolutely devoured this and its sister volumes in my mid-teens, I hardly need to read them any more, or indeed even like or respect them much — they’ve long since changed the way my mind works, which is something else altogether.

7. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (1869). What a banal choice! Still, this is that rare thing, a book that grows as the reader grows, so that every time I re-read it — every few years, even now — my smiles or grimaces of recognition strike at different points. Few authors have ever managed to enter into the inner worlds of such a disparate cast of characters, placed under the pressure of such astonishing events, with such conviction or, indeed, such success. It’s all here — misplaced intellectual enthusiasms, loves silly and sensible, adolescence, old age, nationalism, patriotism, the various trials of being a child or a parent, books and battles and death. All of which is why I have no intention of pretending I don’t love this book, just in order to make myself seem a bit more original, a bit less predictable in my favourites.

8. The Final Days by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (1976). This is a classic example of the gleeful freedom with which a reader can, if sufficiently motivated, ride roughshod over authorial intentions. The Final Days was, I think, meant to be a sort of tour de force of journalistic self-congratulation, in which our heroes, having cunningly fronted up a judicial coup against a not particularly wicked US president uncovered a great and heinous wrong, pursue their prey to the death. Typically, though, I read it as a tragedy of the most sublime and terrible sort.

The lazier sort of psychotherapist would, perhaps, have found something to say about my defective relationship with my actual father, connecting this unremarkable biographical detail with what would be a lifelong (thusfar, anyway) tendency to form imaginative attachments to fictive father-figures, the more powerful yet also embattled the better. How I would have loved, I remember thinking at the time, to have been one of those Nixon daughters!

Well, fair enough. The odd fact, though, is that The Final Days become, however improbably, a book to which I’ve repeatedly turned in times of trouble, finding in it some sort of oblique consolation, as well as the forerunner of other books that have functioned in a similar way: C. V. Wedgewood’s A Coffin for King Charles or Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen’s Diary of a Man in Despair, for instance. And still, to this day, I find personal disloyalty — the tendency of rats to abandon ships they believe or perhaps simply just hope to be sinking — very nearly the most unappealing quality imaginable.

9. American Visions: Epic History of Art in America by Robert Hughes (1997). I’ve written quite a lot about Hughes already, e.g. here, so there’s no reason to belabour the explanation. Suffice to say that the unpredictable accident by which I casually picked up this book at a friend’s place in the South of France, entirely expecting to dislike it for some sort of notional glibness or cheap anti-Americanism, not only helped nudge me out of the mild depression that followed the completion of my doctoral thesis — ironically so, incidentally, as Hughes by his own account suffered from fairly serious depression during the later stages of American Visions — but also restored to me the world of visual arts I’d abandoned in my rush — unsuccessful, alas — to become a professional historian.

Did I agree with all Hughes’ judgements? Do I agree with them now? Absolutely not. Still, the generosity of his style was particularly welcome after that season of academic texts, his amateurish enthusiasm ditto, while his robust assumption that these cultural and historical issues were the legitimate interest of pretty much any ‘intelligent generalist’ seemed to offer an exit from the cul-de-sac into which I was, at the time, glumly certain I’d stranded myself. Amused and challenged by his reviews, encouraged by his example, I took to producing ‘art notes’ for my own entertainment. And in these, I guess, lie some of the early origins of my writing for Electric Review, and for this blog.

10. Religion and Public Doctrine (3 vols.) by Maurice Cowling (3rd volume published 2001). This, perhaps, as the most recent of my memorable books, is the hardest of all to explain. As a conservative reading History at Cambridge at a time when Mr Cowling’s black light still radiated discernably from high atop Fen Court, I managed to avoid the University’s most notorious conservative historian with a thoroughness absent from most of my academic activities, only encountering him, entirely by chance, when a stray quotation from, I think, the introduction to RPD1 included (c. 2001) part way through an email from someone I used to know turned out, against all expectation, to be by no means the dull, dry, earnest stuff I’d for some reason imagined RPD to be, but rather, instead, a pronouncement at once startling in its oddity yet also, it must be said, obscurely hilarious, too.

Thereupon began an intellectual adventure rich with complication, not all of which I’ve untangled yet. Here, though, is what I’ve discovered so far. First, it won’t do to take Mr Cowling too seriously — that way may possibly lie a metaphysical darkness far too corrosive, anyway, for the safety and sanity of mere non-Petrean mortals. Secondly, though, and equally important, it won’t do to ignore Mr Cowling, if only because once one’s seen things — the world of conventional academic endeavour, for instance, or present-day Conservative politics, or even books about the history of architecture — from within the hypnotically rhythmic cadences of that magnificently indirect prose, it’s impossible to see anything quite the same way ever again. Finally, as much as anything else, RPD reminds me that books — personally important, memorable books — can function as a form of externalised scar tissue, an organic record of some of those scrapes, impacts and traumas that left a mark and, in doing so, made us who we are. Having acquired those Cowling volumes at quite a cost, I might as well enjoy them now.

What can we conclude from all of this? There will be few surprises here, at least to Fugitive Ink’s more regular readers. Clearly, it’s notable to what an extent we’re influenced, particularly in early life, by the reading habits of our parents’ generation, but that’s hardly a new discovery. There was much more fiction on the list than I’d expected, in part because I really never read contemporary fiction these days. And at some points I found myself wishing — rather against my better judgement, as in some sense I don’t really believe in subject specialisation, not least as I’m happy enough to find ‘history’ or ‘politics’ or ‘religion’ pretty much anywhere — that I was allowed ten ‘memorable’ art books, ten books of twentieth century poetry, ten photographic picture books including images of ruins, ten books about Venice, ten books with ‘museum’ in the title. All of which sounds far too much like a meme for another day ….

This list is exactly what it says it is – the Top 10 Movies to Watch on the 4th of July! I picked some of these purely for their entertainment value while the rest speak directly to the guiding principles of this country (or what those principles should be). If you disagree or have a list of your own, let me know. And have a Happy 4th of July!

10. National Treasure

Ok, this isn’t great cinema, but it’s a fun movie and fun is what the 4^th of July is all about. Nicolas Cage stars as Benjamin Franklin Gates (how’s that for patriotism?), a treasure hunter in search of an ancient treasure hidden by the founding fathers. The chase leads him from one historical monument to the next in search of clues, one of which requires him to steal the Declaration of Independence (Don’t worry. It’s only to save it from evil.). What better way to enjoy the 4^th than a trip through American History Lane (historical accuracies notwithstanding)?

9. The Sandlot

There’s nothing more American than baseball, and this movie has plenty to of it. We follow a group of boys and their love of baseball through one summer they will never forget. Smalls steals a baseball belonging to his stepdad signed by Babe Ruth and loses it behind the fence at the back of the sandlot, the home of the child-eating Beast. We watch as they try to retrieve the ball with everything from erector sets to a vacuum cleaner suction system. But in the end it comes down to man versus beast. Oh, to be a kid again.

8. Apollo 13

Only a few countries have space programs and none but America has set foot on the moon. Sadly, neither did the crew of the Apollo 13 mission. This movie brings the reality of America’s space race back to life. Tom Hanks stars as Jim Lovell, captain of the Apollo, as he fights for his and his crew’s survival after their mission has taken a turn for the worse. While we may not be visiting the moon anytime soon, this movie is a reminder of the heroism of those willing to risk their lives in pursuit of knowledge.

7. 1776

Who says history has to be boring? This Broadway musical comedy transferred to the big screen brings some big laughs from the likes of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin as they try to convince Thomas Jefferson to pen the Declaration of Independence. Much of the dialogue and song lyrics were taken directly from the letters and memoirs of the signers of the Declaration. So brush up on your American history while watching the founding fathers dance and sing in this 1972 classic.

6. Saving Private Ryan

Bringing the reality and brutality of war to the big screen, Steven Spielberg gives us a glimpse at what the true cost of freedom looks like. Word has reached Army headquarters that three brothers have all been killed in battle and one brother remains. They send out a squad led by Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) to rescue the last brother, Private Ryan (Matt Damon). The film delves into the seriousness of war and the effects it has on those that fight in them. It is a stunning visual reminder of those that paid the price for our freedom.

5. All the President’s Men

It might seem unpatriotic to watch a movie about an American President’s downfall, but the movie is a perfect illustration of the importance that the founders placed on freedom of the press. The movie centers on Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they uncover the White House’s deep involvement in the Watergate scandal. Their investigation and articles were instrumental in bringing on the resignation of President Nixon. The movie has everything you need in a great thriller – conspiracy, cover-ups, and Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

4. To Kill a Mockingbird

Gregory Peck stars as Atticus Finch in this tale of prejudice and injustice in the American south in our not-so-distant past. Finch is a lawyer called upon to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. The townspeople are horrified that Atticus would represent the man, but Finch holds true to his principles and sees the trial through to the end. His two children, Scout and Jem, see their father take a stand against prejudice, and in the end, they have the chance to do the same. America has come a long way, but Scout’s words still ring true today: “You never know someone until you step inside their skin and walk around a little.”

3. Born on the Fourth of July

This Oliver Stone movie stars Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic, an extremely patriotic kid that enlists in the Vietnam War. Kovic returns home paralyzed from the waist down due to a gunshot wound only to find that America has turned its back on its soldiers. He becomes depressed and an alcoholic. Eventually he is able to turn his life around and returns in full-force as an anti-war activist. Based on a true story and featuring Cruise’s best work, this movie will make you rethink your politics as well as the meaning of patriotism.

2. The Grapes of Wrath

Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns home from a prison sentence to find his family has been forced to move westward. The next day he joins them on their migration to California with thousands of other Okies in search of work and a new life. What they find when they arrive is hardly a life worth living. The movie chronicles Tom’s turn from a sharecropper’s son to a union organizer. John Ford’s great American film will break your heart and inspire you all at once. Ma Joad’s final words are a reminder to us all, “We’re the people!”

1. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Jimmy Stewart as a rookie Senator makes you want to hug the Constitution. Stewart plays newly appointed Senator Jefferson Smith thrust into Washington with wide-eyed naivety. His love for America and the principles it was founded on is incredibly infectious. But Smith quickly finds that not every Senator shares those principles. Corruption is thick and Smith soon finds himself wrapped up in a scandal of his own. His fight to save his name – and the Senate – leads to one of the most inspiring moments in film. Frank Capra’s classic film only grows more relevant with time.

Can a room full of monkeys sitting at typewriters really produce a work of Shakespeare?

What’s the difference between us and William Shakespeare? Or Ernest Hemingway? Or Sylvia Plath? Or any other great writer, either of fiction or nonfiction, in human history? Most literary critics consider these individuals to be giants among men. They are gods of the written word whose writing talents have entertained, enthralled, and enlightened readers from generations past and present. They are, for lack of a better word, immortal.

Immortal in the sense that their work will endure for years far beyond their time on earth. We will be reading Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey for ages to come. No matter how much society changes over time, the stories told by these literary giants will always be relevant and timeless to its audience.

That also applies, to a smaller degree, to great journalists. A journalist’s work is usually read that day and quickly forgotten the following week. Only a selected few journalists will endure in the memories of the general public. Thomas Friedman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and George F. Will are writers who have changed and influenced American domestic and foreign policy just by the stroke of their keyboards. Whether you agree with their politics or not, you cannot deny that presidents ranging from Richard Nixon (who fell victim to Woodward and Bernstein’s now famous Watergate exposé for the Washington Post) to George W. Bush have had their presidencies directly affected by these journalists.

This brings us back to the first question I posed: what’s the difference between us and William Shakespeare? Why were their writing talents above and beyond the talents of Average Joes like you and me? Not too many people remember Shakespeare’s contemporaries. He did have them. Students today don’t read their works because, for some reason no one might be able to explain, their literary skills don’t match up with that of the Bard.

How hard can writing be? Studies have shown that people, both men and women, speak an average of 16,000 words per day. This might dispel the rumor that women talk more than men. Regardless, talking is no big task for the averagely intelligent human being. We think in words, we communicate in words, we process information in terms of words. Without words, it would be very difficult for people to function in society.

Yet, there are only a select few of us who are truly great writers. It is one thing to speak words. It is quite another thing to put them on paper. And it is definitely another thing to write something that people will want to read.

According to the WordPress.com home page, as of this writing, 57,525,799 new words have been written today by all bloggers. It would be prudent to assume that Blogger and other blog sites probably have similar statistics to boast. The world is not short on writers. There will always be people who want their words to be read by as many people as possible. But how about good writers?

Good writers are not as prevalent as one would think. The inspiration for this blog post comes from a few conversations I’ve had with a couple of people about how difficult the art of writing can be to some folks. There are some people who can speak eloquently and clearly but when you put a piece of paper in front of them and a pen in their hand, they could not write a simple five paragraph essay to save their lives. Or maybe a mere 500 word editorial on any subject of their choosing. Doesn’t sound that hard, but to some people, it’s equivalent of running a marathon. Why start when you don’t have a chance of finishing?

Writing does not come naturally. It is a skill that must be learned, practiced, and critiqued. Good writers need teachers who teach them basic skills like sentence structure, outlining ideas, grammar/punctuation, and making sure concepts flow seamlessly. All writers need an editor, regardless of level of experience, expertise, or age. There is no such thing as a great writer who can reach the level of greatness alone.

However, that does not mean learning how to write will guarantee that you become a good writer. Creative writing is not the only form of writing that requires creative talent. All writing, to a certain extent, requires you to generate content that is not there to begin with. A columnist writer like Leonard Pitts Jr. or Maureen Dowd starts with an idea, but they need content to fill it out. They make connections between ideas, come to conclusions based on those ideas, and explain those conclusions in a cohesive and logical manner in a way that a typical reader would understand. Sounds difficult, but they make it look easy.

Maybe writing is a task best left to “left brained” people. According to pseudo-scientific psychological research, people who primarily use the left hemisphere of the brain have a better grasp on linguistic skills like grammar and vocabulary. These same generalizations have concluded that people who are more adept at math and science are “right brained.” Have you ever met a good writer who could also do advanced calculus? If you have, they would be a very valuable asset to a science magazine or in the health section of a newspaper.

If creativity is needed for all forms of writing, then where does creativity come from? Creativity, it seems, comes from the ability to look at the world not just as it is, but what the world can be. Creativity comes from the imagination. Little children have the greatest imagination because there are a lot of activities that they cannot do yet. Kids cannot climb tall mountains, or fight against cowboys and Indians, or travel through space, or play with the dinosaurs. They cannot do these things in the real world, so they do it in the world that they can: the imaginary.

The imagination is a muscle that needs to be continuously toned. When kids get older and they transition into adulthood, they are faced with the need to think linearly and realistically. They need to think about the things of this world, not the things beyond their logistical reach. This is why most people lose their imagination as they get older.

It is also no fluke why famous science fiction/fantasy writers like C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling, and Philip Pullman (of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” “Harry Potter,” and “His Dark Materials” fame, respectively) have their main characters be children. As children, they are more likely to fit into the world of fantasy. And perhaps even deeper, these writers hearken back to the days when they were young and played “pretend” with their friends. I’m sure Clive Staples Lewis pretended to live in a “Narnia” inspired world when he was a young lad. Other writers probably experienced similar childhoods.

Adults who maintain their sense of adventure and awe of the world make the best writers. They can incorporate their child-like fascination with the world with their adult understanding and mastery of language. Nonfiction writers like journalists and essayists are inherently teachers. They write to edify their audience. They write to push an idea across a broad spectrum and force people to think about their world. In some respects, nonfiction writers are probably most inspired by the teachers they had as children. In similar fashion, one’s childhood returns as a determining factor of one’s writing abilities.

Technique is something that can be learned. But real good writing is something that must be passionate. You must be passionate not only for the subject that you are writing about, but the desire for people to read and comprehend it. Good writers do not write just for themselves. They want to change the world. Journalists are politicians with a pen. They make change by the written word, not with votes or legislative bills.

A passion for writing would mean you would want good form and technique. You will be open to criticism and hearing other people’s opinion of your ideas, style, and purpose. Good writers have definite purpose. They write for a reason motivated by the love of something deep. F. Scott Fitzgerald loved life prior to his service in World War I and was passionate for people to know about the “Lost Generation.” The disillusionment writers of the 1920s and 30s – Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and John Steinbeck included – had something important to say. And they said it with gusto and passion. That is why they are considered great.

Ernest Hemingway: Don't let his short sentence structure fool you.

Bad writers often lack direction or a real sense of need. They write because they are forced to (a school assignment, perhaps) or because they have to (a necessity for one’s job). Or maybe they lack formal training. I believe a bad writer with passion can be transformed into a good writer with just a little schooling.

But, at the end of the day, creativity and an open, child-like imagination are the key ingredients for making a great, memorable, and successful writer. They need to be able to formulate concepts in their head, put it into language, and translate them onto paper. Good writers don’t have to think too hard about their craft. It almost comes naturally to them. It has been said that famed songwriter and composer George Gershwin had so many different tunes in his head, it would have taken him one hundred years to write them all down. Gershwin was such a gifted musician that he didn’t have to think about his music; it came naturally to him.

Writing can be a gift. There are writers with a natural knack for language. But that is not a prerequisite for greatness. Great writers get it. They understand what makes human beings tick. They know what drives deep emotional responses out of people. Charles Dickens knew it. So did playwright Arthur Miller. They understood humanity and the human condition. I guess good writing also takes perceptiveness and good observational skills.

But I think what will make you a better writer overnight is to read good writing. Read stories on The New York Times. Read Kurt Vonnegut, J.R.R. Tolkien, or Emily Dickinson. They will inspire you to do what is not even humanely possible. They will show you what simple ink on a page can do to entire nations and people groups. They can show you what real change means.

Making change means looking at the world as more than it is. It means knowing your words can move mountains, bring kings to their knees, and inspire legions of people to take action. It means not only holding up a mirror to society, but challenging society to look at itself and see the endless possibilities. “Romeo and Juliet” is a timeless classic because it tells a simple story of how mankind’s selfish and unforgiving nature can get in the way of true love. Love, the beautiful fabric of life, can be destroyed if society puts enough pressure on it to end. What that play did was challenge humanity to look beyond itself and imagine a world that can be better, more compassionate, and free of hate.

See? There’s that word again. Imagine. Imagination is a powerful tool in good writing. That might answer my question. What’s the difference between us and Shakespeare? I think the connection he makes between his words and our deeply held values can give us some insight.

Just call us the Woodward and Bernstein of Investigative-Journalism-Related-to-Internet-Based-Claims-of-Socially-Conscious-Travel-and-Ecotourism. 

You are no doubt familiar with our previous forays (here and here) into unearthing heinous internet crimes against  socially conscious tourism.  Well, in leaving no stone unturned, we bring you:  Best Eco-Lodges.

We hate linking to the site because it will get them more visitors but it may be the only way you’ll believe how lame it truly is.  As in the past, the site looks good at first:

Best Eco Lodges passionately promotes the top eco friendly hotels and lodges around the world. Discover what genuine environmentally friendly lodging means…

But when you start digging around, some questions emerge.  Their “Requirements to be an Eco Friendly Accommodation” are:
 

• Be energy efficient
• Protect the environment – its flora, fauna and landscape
• Conserve natural resources and environment
• Support, respect and benefit local culture and economy

That sounds good but somewhat vague, right?  It turns out that the “membership form” has a pretty comprehensive list of what these four bullets may include.  However, according to Best Eco Lodges’s disclaimer:

Best-ecolodges.com and its owners, employees or contract workers assumes no responsibility and in no way warrants the quality, safety, legality, truth or accuracy of the information contained in any of the pages provided throughout this website.

And

None of the information contained in any page on this site is confirmed or warranted by any party. Confirmation of information published herein is the sole responsibility of the Client. You are responsible for conducting your own investigation regarding any and all claims made by Owners and Advertisers.

And

Best-ecolodges.com expects Owners and Advertisers to provide truthful and accurate information, but cannot ensure this, or control the behavior of Owners and Advertisers.

Let’s recap, shall we?  Anyone can submit a membership form (oh, did we mention is costs $250 to be a member and 10% of all bookings made through the site?), claim they are eco-friendly in various ways that will never be verified, and the tourist is none the wiser.

Hey, the fact that you’re reading this site makes you an intelligent person (ahem), so you would probably not be taken in by this malarkey.  But what about all the poor little imbeciles running around on the interwebs?  Who will protect them?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Ida Tarbell should be on every short list of investigative greats.

I’m here at the Computer Assisted Reporting Conference in Indianapolis and having a great time.

I’ve been hearing from and talking with luminaries like Adrian Holovaty,  Steve Doig, Jennifer LaFleur and Brant Houston as well as learning about how completely the concept of a private life has disappeared thanks in large part to services like spokeo.com, otherwise known as “Spoo-ke-o.”

Attending the conference is always energizing, and here are some of my favorite investigative works:

1. Ida Tarbell: Portrait of  A Muckraker. This biography by Kathleen Brady tells the story of the woman who took on Standard Oil giant and University of Chicago founder John D. Rockefeller and won.  Brady shows Tarbell’s relentless drive and use of scientific method to press her case and advance her findings in other projects like a biography of Abraham Lincoln.  An accessible, enjoyable and inspiring read.

2. All The President’s Men.  No list of great investigative work during the last century would be complete without the exploits of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose dogged reporting, aided substantially by the late Mark Felt, known for years as ‘Deep Throat’, eventually toppled then-President Richard M. Nixon. David Halberstam’s The Powers That Be shows both that Woodward and Bernstein’s being divorce and separated, respectively, meant that they had time for the work and also explains how other papers got on the story, but were never able to catch up to The Washington Post’s duo.

3. The Jungle.  Upton Sinclair’s classic novel of life in the Chicago slaughterhouses aimed for the heart, but hit the stomach instead, according to then-President Teddy Roosevelt.  Sinclair’s unrelentingly depressing detail about the horrific conditions under which workers like immigrant Jurgis Rudkus  labored was intended to galvanize workers to join the Socialist movement.  It ended up leading to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, and, eventually, to the Food and Drug Administration.

Those seeking to understand a way out of journalism's perilous predicament would do well to read the late David Halberstam's work.

The dire state of the newspaper industry has been in the news constantly in recent weeks.

The New York Times speculated about which big city would be the first without a daily newspaper, while Time Magazine published a list of the 10 newspapers most likely to fold or go digital in the coming weeks or months, but certainly not years.   Time also featured a cover story by Walter Isaacson titled, “How to save your newspaper: a modest proposal.”   While the piece did not contain the suggestion of eating one’s children, as Jonathan Swift’s classic satire did, some said the ideas Isaacson advanced had little real chance of success.

Here in Chicago, veteran journalist Ken Davis convened a town hall to talk about the state of things journalistic that drew 350 experienced, mid-career and new journalists all trying to figure out how to successfully navigate the journalism landscape during a time of wrenching change for the industry.

Those looking to gain an historical perspective on a previous period of dramatic transition would do well to read the late David Halberstam’s The Powers That Be, an authoritative and gripping account of the rise of some of American journalism’s titanic pillars in print, magazine and television. 

I have read about half of Halberstam’s works, and have been repeatedly impressed by their rich detail, clean and varied writing style, and ability to effectively depict the interaction between powerful individuals and the times in which they lived and that they helped shape.

The Powers That Be is no exception. 

For newspapers, Halberstam charts the rise of The New York Times, where he worked as a correspondent in Vietnam, earning a Pulitzer Prize before he turned 30, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.  In each case, a prominent family-the Sulzbergers with the New York Times, the Graham family with the Post, and the Chandlerswith the Los Angeles Times-used a combination of drive, initiative, vision and ruthlessness to carve a distinctive place in the journalistic landscape, and, by extension, in American popular discourse.

Halberstamd also shows the ascendance of Time Magazine, co-founded in 1923 by Henry Luce.  Luce is another towering figure who receives extensive attention in the book.  He also spend time talking about the partnership between Luce and Teddy White that contributed to the magazine’s extending its scope.

Halberstam does not neglect television, either, which played an initial role in newspaper’s decline.  Here he focuses on William S. Paley, who took CBS from a small radio network to one of the foremost radio and, perhaps more important, broadcast networks in the world.

The work is far from an executive-only perspective, though. 

Fans of journalism history will thrill to read about industry legends like Edward R. Murrow, who shot to fame through his broadcasts during World War II, showed moral courage in taking on Wisconsin Senator and red-baiter Joseph McCarthy and the plight of migrant agricultural workers, but found himself feeling passed by as television grew in importance and audience. 

Walter Cronkite is another familiar figure who passes through the pages of The Powers That Be. 

Halberstam shows convincingly that Cronkite’s reserve about voicing objections to the war in Vietnam gave added credibility to when he finally joined the chorus of those who said the war could not be won.  Then-President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America,” after hearing the newsman’s declaration.  Part of Halberstam’s skill is that he both captures the moment’s feel and significance. 

Newspaper junkies looking for a fix from an era when their medium held sway rather than resembled a polar bear stranded on a rapidly shrinking sheet of ice will not be disappointed. 

Halberstam’s description of the Post during the period when Katherine Graham came to power after her husband’s suicide is particularly well told.  He notes that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein both were younger than 30 and either divorced or separated when they first investigated the break in of the Democratic headquarters.  While Halberstam does not go so far as to say that absent these developments Richard Nixon might have served out his two terms as president without incident, this intriguing scenario is possible to at least be the object of speculation. 

Above all, Halberstam shows the innovation, genius, luck and timing of the men and women who contributed to changing the way and amount of information to which the American had access and that they then used as the basis to elect officials and to decide their opinions about vital public policy questions of the day. 

In a time when the ability for people to share information is unparallelled but the survival of mediums to inform the public has never been more uncertain, Halberstam’s book holds more than academic interest.  If published today, the book’s title would likely shift to The Powers That Were, but the change in title should in no way detract from this eminently readable and valuable work.