12 out of 4000

Tragically, the death toll in Iraq has reached a new milestone--4000 American soldiers dead. That is a number you will see in almost every major news outlet, reported in the same way as the 2000 dead mark. However, a number you might not see is 12. 12 is the number of soldiers who have been electrocuted to death by faulty wiring on US army bases in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Maseth was killed on January 2nd while showering on a base in Baghdad. His family was informed of his death and were told that he was electrocuted but were given no more details.

The New York Times article states,

"An Army investigation found that his death was due to improper grounding of the
electric pump that supplied water to the building, (Rep. Henry) Waxman said.
Maseth died after an electrical short in the pump sent a current through the
pipes, the California Democrat wrote in his letter."

In some cases, the families of the soldiers were given incorrect information regarding the manner of their loved-ones' death. Maseth's mother was originally told that her son was killed with a "small electrical device in the shower."

The electrocutions are being investigated, but the Army is denying any responsibility.

I love marine mammals

While I realize that this video is not "journalism" and has almost nothing to do with class (besides the fact that it's multimedia and on YouTube) I can't resist sharing it. It's really amazing the things that marine mammals can be trained to do, and this is really just a fun video. Did you know that one of the Harbor Seals at the New England Aquarium can talk? And his great grandfather used to yell at people when they went by. Listen to the clip, that really is a seal. And check out the dancing Sea Lion:

Links for class presentation

http://iraq.reuters.com/ This is the link about the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War from the perspective of those reporting on it. This is a really interesting view of the reports coming from over there with some good video to go along with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/abcnewsnow This is the online video section of ABC news. My major issue with this site is the abundance of entertainment news. It almost seems like this would be more fitting on the ABC network site instead. The really interesting concept is the i-Caught section with the Talk Back function. This is one of the few times I've seen an opportunity to respond to broadcast news and really put a face to your comment. This allows the network to see the real people who are watching their news and see what they think about it. This segment has a bit of the same problem as NewsNow with a bit too much sappy fluff, but still a great idea.

9neighbors

www.9neighbors.com is a collection of news from many sources, including readers, that is then rated and put in order of the most popular stories. Unfortunately, I just don't get it. If this site hadn't been explained to me in class, I would have no idea what was going on. The About Us section is 3 sentences long and gives a vague idea of what the site is about:

9Neighbors is a community-ranked news site for the Boston area. Stories here are
submitted and voted on by users. The site is edited and moderated byRick Burnes.

Even still, I'm left with a lot of questions. Do I HAVE to join or can I post without being a member? How do I vote? What are the communities and what do they have to do with the site? Are they they only places the news comes from? Are the top streams daily? weekly? overall? On Monday there was a link to the 9neighbors blog prominently at the top of the site and at least the blog had a bit more in depth explanation, although you really had to hunt it down. Now the link is teeny and all the way at the bottom of the page.

Although I feel that the concept of this site holds potential, it still needs a lot of work. At the moment I think that the editors have forgotten to look at this site from the perspective of someone who has never seen anything like this. In my opinion everything needs to be clarified and explained somewhere in the site.

Some questionable editing?

As a journalism student, I realize that editing errors happen. After you've been looking at an article for a few hours, you tend to just skip right over those little misspellings and word mis-uses. However, I would tend to expect a little more from a professional news outlet. I signed onto Boston.com the other day and looked at two articles. There was really no reason for why I picked those articles, I just clicked on an interesting headline. And within those two articles, I found 3 editing errors. And they were big errors, errors that made the sentence not make sense. These are the typos:

"Much *or* Baghdad must be seen from behind the safety of armor."- The Long Way-Iraq After Five Years

"Abu Samer (second from left), head of the reconciliation committee of Aamel, walked *the of the* Rashid district of Baghdad with soldiers from the US Army's 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment."- The Long War Iraq After Five Years

"She tells of being raped day and night for three months, and then being dumped *her* by the side of the road, her internal organs severely damaged."- In Congo, confronting legacy of rape

The way I figured it, if there were three errors found that quickly, the site must be packed full of them. So I e-mailed the Globe and let them know about it. I got this in response:

Good Morning:
Thank you for writing to Boston.com. We have corrected the typos you noticed at the following addresses:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/gallery/Iraq_fifth_anniversary_special_coverage/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/gallery/Iraq_fifth_anniversary_special_coverage?pg=8
http://www.boston.com/news/world/blog/2008/03/rape_weaponized.html

In addition, we have forwarded your comments about this to our editorial team.

Kind regards,
Customer Support
Boston.com

I suppose that's a satisfactory response, although I question whether my comments will make any kind of a difference to the editorial team.

Web has unexpected effect on journalism

I feel that this article really speaks to our class. I'm not going to summarize, I'll just let you read the article for yourself. However, this section was particularly interesting:

News is less a product, like the day's newspaper or a nightly newscast, than a
service that is constantly being updated, he said. Last week, for instance, The
New York Times posted its first report linking New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to a
prostitution ring in the early afternoon, and it
quickly became the day's
dominant story.

Only a few years ago, newspaper Web sites were primarily considered an online
morgue for that day's newspaper, Rosenstield said.

"The afternoon newspaper is in a sense being reborn online," he said.

A separate survey found journalists are, to a large degree, embracing the
changes being thrust upon them. A majority say they like doing blogs and that
they appreciate reader feedback on their stories. When they're asked to do
multimedia projects, most journalists find the experience enriching instead of
feeling overworked, he said. The newsroom is increasingly being seen as the most
experimental place in the business, the report found.

So, even though reporters are embracing the new tools available to them, their story choices have narrowed greatly, which is a very interesting development.

Reporters....watch your rears!

This is what happens when reporters get too involved in their subjects. It almost seems like real life Jerry Springer.




They make a good point about ethics towards the end of the clip but they don't specify what set the family off. It makes me wonder what the reporter was asking questions about; whether the family was just very upset or if the reporter stepped over the bounds. Has anyone heard anything about this?

"New sins" from the Vatican

Everybody look out! Whatever you're doing, stop! Especially if it's fun! Coming from someone who is not religious at all, Catholicism can seem a little silly. Often, it seems as if they're saying "If it's fun, it's a sin!" However, the Vatican has come out with a list of "new sins" including things like polluting and genetic research. Some of them, I really can't argue with. Polluting is bad, don't do it. So are drugs. Don't do those either. So here is the grand list:

Polluting

genetic engineering

obscene riches

taking drugs

abortion

pedophilia

causing social injustice

As we all know, genetic engineering has been debated for quite some time, especially by the current administration. However, while I can't say cloning would be the best addition to the world, what about the good things that would come of stem cell research? And the general idea the Vatican is going after is that embryos have to be destroyed to do this research, so wouldn't that fall under abortion? Also, calling abortion a sin is stupid. But that's just my opinion.

I would like to know what the Vatican means by "causing social injustice." Isn't that rather broad? I feel like they could really throw anything in there. Cutting in line could be a social injustice. Anybody have a more specific definition for this one?

And for those of you who have forgotten, the original 7 deadly sins are: Wrath, gluttony, greed, sloth, lust, envy and pride.

Is it just me, or are the new sins warmer, fuzzier sins? Nobody talks like they used to either. When was the last time someone used the word "wrath" in day to day speech? Maybe the sin of pedophilia will stop all those priests...

McSame As Bush