outsourcing...

I was thinking about this week’s topic in lecture: outsourcing. And I am not really sure how I feel about this. But I do think that from the business aspect of this, it makes a lot of sense to outsource to India. Because the whole point of business is to turn a profit and without outsourcing some newspapers might now be able to survive. However, that brings up the question of: is it really worth it to outsource just to stay in business? I think that the answer to this completely depends on who owns the paper and what their real motivations for being in the newspaper industry are.

Additionally, I think that when copy goes abroad there are a lot of things that stand in the way of it from being perfect. I think that because there are so many cultural differences and the way that people talk and form sentences in other countries is so different that it could cause a problem in editing. For instance, even though in both the United States and in England English is spoken, it is spoken differently. There are different words and terms used. So when the copy is outsourced something that might make sense in American may not make sense in another country.

Next, because the people who are doing the editing are in another country they will not be physically in the area that the article is being written for. And because of that a lot of mistakes can get into the paper. For instance, the example that was used in lab – I would not have caught those mistakes. And I don’t think that there is any way that someone now even from this area would even think to double check that information.

I know that there is currently a lot of controversy regarding this issue and whether or not it should happen. And I really do not know how I feel on this matter. Because I think that if the newspapers could find a way to make it work and be very successful then they should. Even though it really will lose a lot of American jobs, I think that this is just the trend that is currently happening in many businesses. I think that the newspaper industry is going to need to learn to change with the times and learn to survive in the current economy.

Journalism Today

For this week’s blog entry I read The Quality-Control Quandary by Carl Sessions Stepp. It can be found here.

I think that this article was very interesting. It was about the news industry and how it is currently changing. Because of the economy and the changes in how news is being handed there have been many cutbacks in editors. However, because editors are being lost, the quality of some of the work is diminishing.

I think that although this is very true, I think that it is very unfortunate. I know that the journalism industry is changing, but I do not think that they have learned how to change with it. I think that when they figure out how to make money off the internet and how to work with the cutbacks, the industry will survive.

But currently, I think that it is going to be really hard for editors to do what they need to do when there is less time and less of them. With fewer eyes looking at each article, it is going to be easier for mistakes to get past them. In addition, the fact that the news is going online and being part of the 24-7 news cycle it is hard to deal with. Because news needs to be immediate and online first it is harder to check and double check every copy thoroughly. I think that this pressure is really getting to the editors. The reporters are still doing the same work that they always have and even though they do not want to make mistakes they are, and because of that they are still letting mistakes get by them that they think the editors or going to catch. But since the editors have less time and less manpower they assume that the reporters are going to catch the effort, so the mistakes are still going to get into the news.

I think that the saying “accuracy, accuracy, accuracy” and "Get it first, but first get it right” are very good mottos for editors to live by. Because regardless of how much time they have, it really is not an excuse to not be accurate. Furthermore, I think that I know that people want to get their news immediately and at any time of the day, I think that editors and reporters need to write their stories well and proofread them thoroughly. I think that this is the only way to guarantee that everything is correct in the articles.

This article was very well written I thought because it is very accurate regarding what is happening in today’s world. But I believe that once the news media learn how to change with the times then everything will be just fine.

Using Quotations

This week’s topic in lecture is called “Writing about talking: How to handle quotations.” I read the articles for lecture and actually found them very interesting.

This topic is about using quotations and when to change what someone says and when to quote them exactly how they said it. Personally, I do not think that a quotation should ever be changed. I think that a person should always be quoted exactly how they originally said it; otherwise you are not reporting the truth and what exactly happened. I think that if the original wording is so bad and would not be understood then it should be paraphrased.

I think that it really upsets people, both the speaker and the average reader when a journalist changes what was said.

I think that the way someone talks is a good example of the kind of person they are. I mean I do not think it is good to make someone look bad or stupid but if that is how they speak then that is how they should be quoted.

One of the articles talked about a man who interviewed a Parkinson’s patient. He said the man stumbled over his words. So the reporter asked the man if he wanted him to edit out the stuttering or they didn’t have to do the interview. The reporter said he ended up editing out the stuttering. He said his reasoning was that the story had nothing to do with Parkinson’s so it didn’t need to be in the story. I actually disagree. I think the fact this man has Parkinson’s and is still able to do everything he does is newsworthy. Maybe though the quotes were hard to read if the stumbling was in the quotes and that is why he took it out. However, I think the reporter could have paraphrased what the man said. Or if he really wanted to put it in quotes then he should make sure that he says that there was originally stuttering and stumbling in the interview. I think that if you do not say that he has Parkinson’s then the whole story is not being told.

(this was the website about the Parkinson's patient: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4212)

Finally, I think that reporters really should try to quote the person exactly as they said it. While there might be some exceptions and very rarely, I think it is important ethically to say it exactly. I think that it is part of the reporter’s job to quote someone correctly and if they cannot make the story make sense without changing someone’s words then they are not a good writer and just being lazy. I think that it is ethically important to quote someone the way they said it. Otherwise just paraphrase it. I think that when the line gets hazy and is not definite, then that is where trouble may arise.