Throughout the interview, Barbara Frum keeps her cool even after she was told that there were assassins on the to kill her and everyone who murdered the environment at that time. If Barbara didn't get a real answer (she rarely did), she would asked the question again in a different way. She also responds to all the answers she gets calmly.
If she had of been more aggressive, I think Lynette Fromme would have hung up earlier. Towards the end you can tell Barbara is starting to become frustrated and therefore more aggressive, and Lynette then hangs up.
I think the most effective question was when she asked why and was told that they were murdering people because these people were murdering the trees and the environment because I really think that it shows that shes insane.
From the interview, I think I learned that aggression is not the way to go. I know being assertive is part of interviewing but not everyone can tolerate it. I also think that I know how to respond to a wild interview.
I don't know a particular person I would like to interview, but I would like them to be fairly normal and give normal answers or answers that I could expect or anticipate. The interview would be pretty easy and wouldn't end up as the most popular interview ever, but I wouldn't be risking anything in the process.
Frums interview can be found at: http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/media/topics/368-2086/
Monday, November 22, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Caught in Lies
Before reading about the Stephen Harper wafer incident, I never considered news could be fake when newspapers make such a big deal and pride themselves on giving their consumers the real information. I do think some news is based off a persons opinion and can be somewhat biased.
I was actually surprised proffesional journalists would completely make up an article just to get their news more attention. That wouldn't make much sense to make up a controversial story and say it's true only to publish it and give it nation wide attention. It's like he told Mr. Harper a rumor he made up about him and expected him to take it. I don't think he put much thought into what he was doing. I feel differently for Janet Cooke's "Jimmy" story. This one was created for a good reason and she did do the right thing and confess that she made it up, eventually.
I totally agree with Jack Shafer in saying that "most liars make things up for the simple reason that they don't have the talent or the ability to get the story any other way" because of the word most. Lying in journalism is an easy way out. It takes no work and is rather lazy. Sometimes, such as in the Jimmy article, it is forgivable because it was for a good cause but it was still lazy of her because she couldn't find a child described like Jimmy but plenty of cases of children similar.
I don't really think it's the college's and school's job to root out people who aren't up to par journalists and it should instead fall onto the newspapers and publishers. If they don't want to do the work, the publisher would be the one to notice and should be the one to take action.
I think an ombudsman would certainly help, but that some of that responsibility should fall on the writer. I also don't see how a single ombudsman would be able to answer all the question fairly and unbiased. I think it should be more of a job that should gather a general opinion of a panal of people to decide. This would help to keep everything unbiased and fair.
I was actually surprised proffesional journalists would completely make up an article just to get their news more attention. That wouldn't make much sense to make up a controversial story and say it's true only to publish it and give it nation wide attention. It's like he told Mr. Harper a rumor he made up about him and expected him to take it. I don't think he put much thought into what he was doing. I feel differently for Janet Cooke's "Jimmy" story. This one was created for a good reason and she did do the right thing and confess that she made it up, eventually.
I totally agree with Jack Shafer in saying that "most liars make things up for the simple reason that they don't have the talent or the ability to get the story any other way" because of the word most. Lying in journalism is an easy way out. It takes no work and is rather lazy. Sometimes, such as in the Jimmy article, it is forgivable because it was for a good cause but it was still lazy of her because she couldn't find a child described like Jimmy but plenty of cases of children similar.
I don't really think it's the college's and school's job to root out people who aren't up to par journalists and it should instead fall onto the newspapers and publishers. If they don't want to do the work, the publisher would be the one to notice and should be the one to take action.
I think an ombudsman would certainly help, but that some of that responsibility should fall on the writer. I also don't see how a single ombudsman would be able to answer all the question fairly and unbiased. I think it should be more of a job that should gather a general opinion of a panal of people to decide. This would help to keep everything unbiased and fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)