|
Post by A subscriber on Oct 25, 2003 19:33:48 GMT -5
His/her (I'm thinking her) "ratings" don't make any sense; have neither logic or reason to them, her story title "shattered dreams" is too eccentric for a serious broadcast, and her interviews aren't very good. May she find a successfull career in tabloid journalism where her style is best suited, but I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Concerned Listener on Oct 25, 2003 20:00:11 GMT -5
Yes, his/her interviews are terribly biased.
|
|
|
Post by WorldNews on Oct 25, 2003 20:25:48 GMT -5
I see. Well, boys. If you are better then her. Then please feel free to mount up and do the work. If you think she is doing tabloid journalism, well, then she is doing tabloid journalism after your own taste. Only because she is doing something new that you haven't seen here yet.. is not a reason to condemn her. Besides, her "ratings" was picked up by PW3 first. He did the first ratings. Why aren't you picking on him? Hello Dan? Where are you? They thought your broadcast on ratings was crap. Come here and defend yourself about it. Myself, well I was thinking about doing that to, once atleast. But also interview her about why she did it. Now PW3 did his way of reporting and I didn't get my chance to do my way of reporting. See, different ways. Once again about the ratings. She has thus far only done one rating herself. PW3 was first with it. Regarding biased stories, I think I myself have gotten my share about accusation about biased stories. The NS reporter got one big bombardment of them to. I would appreciate if you took a check and then you would probably see that we are all doing tabloid journalism as you put it in one way or another. Regarding bias.. Well, we try to be civil to the person we are interviewing. Somehow calling Francos spain a moronic as during a interview doesn't help. Besides, there are people who think he is doing something good. If you think he is doing good, fine, have a nice life, if you think he is a moronic as , fine, have a nice life. It is not my mission to really tell you who is the moronic as nor who is the worlds saviour (me). And so the debate took a quicker pace....
|
|
Guy who started thread
Guest
|
Post by Guy who started thread on Oct 26, 2003 5:56:37 GMT -5
It's not exactly the ratings themselves that I don't like; it's that there doesn't seem to be anything to them. No.... what are you rating for, anyways?
I didn't grow up on Fox News, so I like how you guys usually title your stories with a description of what it is you're going to be reporting about. "Shattered Dreams"? I'll open the thread to see what it's about, so someone's happy (rule of journalism: always try to get more readers), but I don't feel great about doing it.
The interview style will need some practice. What, two questions were asked? After the second question she began her part with "Hmmmmmm". But I'll cut her some slack. She's new. That's something that can definitely be learned and picked up, fairly easily sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Twinkles on Oct 26, 2003 6:24:26 GMT -5
His/her (I'm thinking her) "ratings" don't make any sense; have neither logic or reason to them, her story title "shattered dreams" is too eccentric for a serious broadcast, and her interviews aren't very good. May she find a successfull career in tabloid journalism where her style is best suited, but I don't like it. Ratings: Factors considered are: 1) Activity 2) Number of members 3) Purpose 4) World factbook entry All of this data will be compressed into a mark out of 10, and then can be used for whatever purpose you wish! Some have used it in recruitment letters - and It'd be a good thing to have in your world factbook entry.... Mark scheme: 1-2 Poor 3-4 Fair 5-6 Good 7-8 excellent! 9-10 Top! (Please note most marks are given as decimals... such as 3.1, or 4.2) I though PW3 had already written something like that - sorry. My interview was short because the person said a lot of stuff which was not relevant - and rambled on a bit... I didn't think you needed to know about the history of their region, etc, and I cut parts out. Tabloid Journalism is my forte - If you don't like it - sorry... [glow=red,2,300]Twinkles x[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Qantrix on Oct 26, 2003 10:48:03 GMT -5
Twinkles, your great!
Everybody, give her a chance!
|
|
|
Post by Twinkles on Oct 26, 2003 11:34:16 GMT -5
Yes, his/her interviews are terribly biased. In response to the above comment - How can I make my interwiews neutral when the people themselves aren't? Some one against Francos isn't likely to say something like ' Ooh, I hate him - but lets be fair - he's a nice guy...' See where I'm heading?
|
|
|
Post by WorldNews on Oct 26, 2003 11:59:47 GMT -5
In response to the above comment - How can I make my interwiews neutral when the people themselves aren't? Some one against Francos isn't likely to say something like ' Ooh, I hate him - but lets be fair - he's a nice guy...' See where I'm heading? Sure, you have a point there. But you can always try to stay neutral. You give a set of questions to the person you don't like, then give the same or equal questions to a opponent to that guy. Therby you get 2 sets and you file them both. You are only the snoop, the other two battle it out and the readers can make their own mind on who they want to place their bet on.
|
|
|
Post by WorldNews on Oct 26, 2003 12:01:11 GMT -5
Oh, btw. Don't let this thread die. I haven't had a good match for ages since Jenniver and he was swinging christianity as a axe by the end. Very droll.
|
|
|
Post by Twinkles on Oct 26, 2003 12:04:08 GMT -5
Sure, you have a point there. But you can always try to stay neutral. You give a set of questions to the person you don't like, then give the same or equal questions to a opponent to that guy. Therby you get 2 sets and you file them both. You are only the snoop, the other two battle it out and the readers can make their own mind on who they want to place their bet on. Yeah, but I'm young an unexperienced Plus all my interviews so far have either been on short notice, required, or on a one-telegram basis
|
|
|
Post by PW3 on Oct 26, 2003 14:19:36 GMT -5
I'll keep the thread lively Jerome
*cracks knuckles, stretches a bit* OK.
Fine, I will. See, what you critics seem to fail to understand, is that I UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE RATINGS WERE ALL ABOUT, BECAUSE I ASKED TWINKLES ABOUT THEM.[/b] Perhaps if you guys would consider researching things before bashing them, you wouldn't have such a problem. Now, maybe I'm not speaking to an audience who can understand such things, and if that is the case, then I am sorry. But you really shouldn't make fun of something until you know the reason the person who wrote it...well..wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by NuMetal on Oct 26, 2003 17:02:19 GMT -5
*Expresses approval for the n00b reporter*
|
|
Cynical Angels
Lazy reporter
Sitting on the fence, eating a sandwich
Posts: 16
|
Post by Cynical Angels on Oct 28, 2003 0:18:10 GMT -5
How can I make my interwiews neutral when the people themselves aren't? Some one against Francos isn't likely to say something like ' Ooh, I hate him - but lets be fair - he's a nice guy...' See where I'm heading? You can however avoid taking sides as blatantly as you have done in the Francos report.
|
|
|
Post by WorldNews on Oct 28, 2003 12:16:05 GMT -5
You can however avoid taking sides as blatantly as you have done in the Francos report. Of course she could. But as some mods has been saying the past 2 days on the NS forum, "we are only humans" "wry smile, wry smile"
|
|
|
Post by labonia on Oct 28, 2003 18:26:13 GMT -5
I found it interesting that in the middle of the attack on the pacific, twinkles at first claimed she was unbiased and then later claimed that what we were doing was correct.
besides she wasn't smart enough to check her sources for accuracy and cost me a months worth of work.
and frankly in her own words has claimed to be a tablooid journalist and not a reporter. fine. but if that's what she is, can she please be kept to the lifestyle pages, at least until she's grown a bit.
|
|