April 8 reading

I sincerely hope I never have to write headlines again after I graduate.

But anyway, I found the commentary on the bad headlines we read really funny.

Some favorites: Iraqi head seeks arms. Someone HAD to have been chuckling at that in the newsroom. SOMEONE noticed the double meaning, I know they did.

Prostitutes appeal to pope. Eye drops off shelf.

But some of these seem really avoidable - they are just bad headlines in general. Kids make nutritious snacks. War dims hope for peace.

I think the article we read, "Astronaut soars across headlines," was interesting and definitely valid. The fact that this twisted love triangle became such a media spectacle was really ridiculous. From the Post and the Daily News, you sort of expect those sensational headlines, but for the CBS Evening News to take the story so seriously is just a joke itself.

It's interesting how different all of the financial bailout headlines were at papers across the country. My least favorite, by far, was 'No love for bailout.' Beside the fact that it's sort of making light of a serious situation, it doesn't really say anything! What does that mean?

I liked 'Markets convulse as House rejects bailout,' by the Wichita Eagle. It's concise, it's accurate and informative. Also, it emphasizes the effect the rejection will have on Main Street, which is what most readers care about.

First of all, I didn't know there were so many newspapers in Illinois. As for their coverage of the Blagojevich scandal - it was interesting to see how varied it was. I think the Daily Chronicle did the best job. The front page looks very appropriate. They haven't lessened the seriousness of the crime but haven't sensationalized it either. The photo is appropriate (in some photos on these fronts, it looks like Blagojevich might actually be about to crack a smile) and I like the quote in the headline - I think it really draws readers in.

Some of the other fronts were interesting as well. I actually really liked the Chicago-Sun Tribune. It was just nice to see someone try something different. I'm sure plenty of people picked that up to see how they were approaching the story with a front like that.

April 1 reading

I'm glad I got this section of The Times' ethics guidelines because I found it really interesting. I think it was very smart of the Times to regulate freelance work and other copyright sort of issues. It's something I wouldn't have thought of if I was creating my own publication but now something I'll definitely keep in mind.

What I found particularly interesting was that the Times asks reporters who maintain personal Web sites to adhere to the same ethics guidelines there that they do when they are publishing for The Times. It really shows the amount of attention the Times pays to its reputation. The company believes that any one associated with it should be of a certain ethical standard, even in their personal space. This same idea applies to the fact that Times employees are not supposed to accept freelance work at publications that are not of the same moral code as The Times.

In my own publication, I would also definitely encourage employees to pitch any outside freelance work to our own publication before looking elsewhere. (This was the general gist of pages 28-33) I think it creates a sense of community among employees that you are interested in their work and ideas and flexible in what you can offer them. On top of that, if an employee is good enough to work for the publication in some capacity, why wouldn't you want to look at other work they've done? It would seem silly to let someone else have it.