It is said no one can predict what happens tomorrow. But I think I can - for one thing only.
I'll update my blog today, or I'll lose some 33 dollars tomorrow. :-)
Right after returning from Florida, I was asked to write a short story. It's a routine story on Minnesota's export decline in the first quarter. I did it routinely.
One small tip for my training plan may be that I learned from the editor that I need to add some background information to the story. I know that, but sometimes I forget to do it, which is unforgivable.
So I added a small paragraph about Minnesota exporters' performance last year to provide a context and comparison for the readers.
After the story got published, I got a message from my China Daily editor that I should fly to Washington D.C. to cover the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue. I asked for a leave from Katie and my host newspaper editor and flew to the D.C. It's a two-day event, but I've been there earlier to attend some pre-dialogue seminars as a preparation for the coverage of the formal meeting.
During the event, I published several pieces both for the newpaper and the website (some under the name of Bao Daozu, which literally means "reporting team" - we had three reporters, including me, in D.C this time). The real challenge is to rush to write stories within a short time. And it once again reminded me of the need to get knowledge of necessary background information before you start to write any story.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The past two weeks (till July 15)
The past week at Poynter is so interesting that I almost forget what I did in the first week (forgive me).
In early July, I published a very short story on an economic index indicating the bottoming out of the mid-American economy. It has become a routine job for me, since I've done a similar one when the monthly index came out in early June. Not much to learn from it, also because it's too short. No space for me to write more and think more.
Before I left for Poynter, as usual, I read the newspapers, both print and online, when I had nothing to do. What I have focused was the Xinjiang incident in China, where the Uighurs and Han people were involved in mass killing. I read various reports from US publications to see from what angle they have tackled the topic and whether they have been "balanced" and "unbiased'. It's very important not for that I want to criticize them for alleged "bias" or "imbalance", but to learn from them how to avoid any problems in my future writing when it comes to such topics as Sino-US relations.
I found that many reports simply were technically flawed by quoting only one side and ignoring the other. Sometimes they quote the underquoted side simply to rebutt it by following it with more quotes from the opposite side. It's not only a bias; it's a purposeful technical crafting so as to achieve a result tilted towards one side.
Reflecting on my own writing in the past, I also made the same "mistake". Indeed, I made similar "mistakes". For example, I sometimes quoted those, although unconsciously, who support China's policies more than those who support US policies when reporting Sino-US economic relations.
Journalism would not promote peace, or virtually anything, in this world if journalists are biased by their own stances.
The reflection is good for both my training goal of business story writing and multimedia reporting, because without being balanced and unbiased, one could neither do good business stories nor quality multimedia reporting. While they try to grasp sophisticated, state-of-the-art techniques and tools, journalists sometimes simply ignore some basic and core values of journalism.
In early July, I published a very short story on an economic index indicating the bottoming out of the mid-American economy. It has become a routine job for me, since I've done a similar one when the monthly index came out in early June. Not much to learn from it, also because it's too short. No space for me to write more and think more.
Before I left for Poynter, as usual, I read the newspapers, both print and online, when I had nothing to do. What I have focused was the Xinjiang incident in China, where the Uighurs and Han people were involved in mass killing. I read various reports from US publications to see from what angle they have tackled the topic and whether they have been "balanced" and "unbiased'. It's very important not for that I want to criticize them for alleged "bias" or "imbalance", but to learn from them how to avoid any problems in my future writing when it comes to such topics as Sino-US relations.
I found that many reports simply were technically flawed by quoting only one side and ignoring the other. Sometimes they quote the underquoted side simply to rebutt it by following it with more quotes from the opposite side. It's not only a bias; it's a purposeful technical crafting so as to achieve a result tilted towards one side.
Reflecting on my own writing in the past, I also made the same "mistake". Indeed, I made similar "mistakes". For example, I sometimes quoted those, although unconsciously, who support China's policies more than those who support US policies when reporting Sino-US economic relations.
Journalism would not promote peace, or virtually anything, in this world if journalists are biased by their own stances.
The reflection is good for both my training goal of business story writing and multimedia reporting, because without being balanced and unbiased, one could neither do good business stories nor quality multimedia reporting. While they try to grasp sophisticated, state-of-the-art techniques and tools, journalists sometimes simply ignore some basic and core values of journalism.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Journalism and human nature
1. I'm all for a free press; it's the damned newspapers I can't stand. - Tom Stoppard
2. Western journalism is western; universal journalism exists only in theory. It is in reality very often distorted when people try to practice it.
3. When it comes to international journalism, journalism sometimes is but a tool to demonize countries which those who own the media dislike or want to collapse.
4. If communism is a devil (it is, isn't it?!), there's a bigger, much powerful devil in the west called journalism.
5. Human beings (including me) are fundamentally bound and guided by their bias no matter how democratic or open-minded they claim to be.
6. Borders exist also in the MIND (not only the eyes) of human beings.
7. Men are born equal, in theory; they are born different, in reality. DIFFERENCE: We must respect it instead of trying to eliminate it.
2. Western journalism is western; universal journalism exists only in theory. It is in reality very often distorted when people try to practice it.
3. When it comes to international journalism, journalism sometimes is but a tool to demonize countries which those who own the media dislike or want to collapse.
4. If communism is a devil (it is, isn't it?!), there's a bigger, much powerful devil in the west called journalism.
5. Human beings (including me) are fundamentally bound and guided by their bias no matter how democratic or open-minded they claim to be.
6. Borders exist also in the MIND (not only the eyes) of human beings.
7. Men are born equal, in theory; they are born different, in reality. DIFFERENCE: We must respect it instead of trying to eliminate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
