The Merits of Listening to Super Cute Kids

The “article”: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/nyregion/20091108_KIDSAUDIO.html

Meaghan Cloherty: Okay! So, what did you think of the people being interviewed?

Me: The kids are so cute! The adults had good advice, and it really helped that there was a kid actor-adult mentor pair within the soundslide. I would’ve liked the pictures to coordinate better with the kids though, and it seemed like the article was on the same topic as the multimedia but the two didn’t really mesh.

Meaghan Cloherty: Maybe, but it’s cool that we got to hear the people that we read about (since they aren’t people that you normally WOULD hear from).
I loved that layout, though! I’ve never seen anything like it before
and I enjoyed the automatic picture changes and audio clip changes

Me: I’ve seen it before, but it’s not used nearly as much as it should. It really adds another element to the story that words alone can’t convey.
Yes! Without the automatic switch over after the end of each clip, I would’ve gotten annoyed and not bothered to keep clicking

Meaghan Cloherty: Yeah, it was quite nifty. Also, since it was an audio clip, I didn’t feel obliged to watch little kids talk. It’s just as easy to walk around a room and hear the interview without feeling like you’re missing much.
Very true. That’s what I like about This American Life. It’s pretty much a super long article, but spoken in podcast form, so it’s very digestable. There’s something about the spoken word that appeals to our generation that written word alone just doesn’t fulfill.

Meaghan Cloherty: Definitely. It’s just that when we turn to television, it’s so easy to just sit there for the rest of the day….

Me: I don’t think it’s just because of the convenience, though there is no debating that listening to something is easier than reading it, but there’s this intrinsic quality of sound that completes the total story. No one can put into a sentence the exact way one kid laughs as compared to another one.
We get an emotional reaction from sound. That’s why music is so popular after all.

Meaghan Cloherty: And we got to hear the kid’s cute voices.  They sounded so mature. Obviously, the older actors they were paired with were impressed by them.
It was good to hear the kids’ take on everything, and then adults’ reactions.

Me: Definitely. They paired up the clips well.
What did you think of the length of the clips?

Meaghan Cloherty: I think that if I had been interested in hearing from these people beforehand, I would’ve been disappointed, but as someone just reading random articles, it was just fine. And you?

Me: I think they weren’t too long, and they actually could have been longer. I was a little disappointed after reading the article though. Some of the kids the reporter talks about a lot aren’t in the clips at all. I know that the multimedia and the article are controlled by two completely different people, but it would’ve been nice for them to collaborate.

Meaghan Cloherty: Oh, I meant that the clips were alright, but if I had been interested in the people, I would’ve definitely wanted them to be longer. That’s unfortunate about them not matching up… It also reminds me of the first speaker we had in class and how his video was so good that someone had to rewrite the article on the same subject.

Me: Yeah, me too  It should always be like that. Who says print should have priority when multimedia is the future?

Meaghan Cloherty: Well, not us, if there are cameramen as great as him.

Me: Exactly. And if the print is better the media should change to be more like the print. In this case, the multimedia needed to be more like the article.

Meaghan Cloherty: Yes. I’m just happy to see this layout, because I didn’t even know it existed!

Me: See? Now you know!

Reviewing A Review

Today, Meaghan Cloherty, a fellow freshman journalist, and I review a book review on science and stupidity.

Me: So what’d you think about the book?

Meaghan Cloherty: I think it’s good that he skipped evolution and addressed other interesting things that people don’t talk about nearly as much. I’m a little interested in seeing what he says about organic food, since I’m used to hearing that it’s wonderful. It could be good for me to read about another opinion. What about you?

Me: I understand why he avoided THE hot topic of the day (after all that would require the book to be twice as long), but I feel as if he overlooks a lot of the benefits of organic food. I mean yes, it probably isn’t any “better” for us than genetically processed foods, but we’re certainly better off without the pesticides used, as are the farmers that work first hand with the crops. I would be interested to see what data he has behind the segment on organic vs synthetic pesticides. He seems to accost the reader though.

Meaghan Cloherty: Mm-hmm. No additional nutrients, but we avoid things we don’t want in our bodies. And yes, it does seem like a bit of an attack. What did you think of the review itself?

Me: I thought the review was fair. It didn’t assume he was correct scientifically (“Here is what they would have done instead, if Mr. Specter correctly captures the motifs that shape the stubbornly anti-scientific thinking”) nor was he thrown him out as a madman. The reviewer just gave a nice overview of the book, just enough to peak one’s interest but also gave those of us that don’t want to read it a diverse excerpt.

Meaghan Cloherty: True. I expect more opinion in book reviews, but that must be from reading so many in Entertainment Magazine (my family got it for free, and it was pretty hard to resist). Everything’s given a letter grade. It just seemed like the author was made out to be reliable, then a little goofy, and respectable again by the end of the review, sort of like it was an argument for his reliability.

Me: I really didn’t see much bias, which I agree is a nice surprise. What do you mean by “arguement for her reliability?”

Ok, I sort of see what you’re talking about after looking through it again. She talks about the author stepping on toes, and picking absurd food items in Whole Foods to discuss, but then she goes on to talk about bigger topics in his book, like medicine.

Meaghan Cloherty: Yes, Maslin starts off by describing the book respectfully. It goes on like any argument, though: support, presentation of the opposing argument, refutation/more support (without so much refutation, I suppose.)

Me: I suppose that was the point. The book hasn’t been out long, so there hasn’t been much time for scholarly back-lash.

Meaghan Cloherty: She says that the author stomps on toes and refers to his “targets,” making his arguments seem like attacks (possibly in a negative way)
Aah, the paragraph I was thinking of starts off with ““Denialism” weighs the available facts…”
It seems like she’s trying to say that none of the information he’s fighting for can really be proven correct.

Me: She says its a “hotly debated yet data-filled diatribe.” That pretty much sums up everything. He has facts, but he’s almost violent with his argument.
What did you think about the title of the book?

Meaghan Cloherty: Hah, it’s quite a mouthful.

Me: The book or the article?

Meaghan Cloherty: The book’s title. I think he might be overstating things. He may be talking about food, but he’s arguing against NOT consuming pesticides, so I’m not sure if he’ll have much luck convincing anyone of anything. Then again, from the way he writes it, I think nearly everyone that reads it already agrees with him.

Me: I think it’s supposed to be an all-encompassing title directed at what he perceives to be public stupidity in the field of science.

Meaghan Cloherty: Absolutely. Since he already seems really annoyed about the issue, I think it’ll just make like-minded people even more frustrated.

Me: True.

A Conversation on Corruption

A fellow journalism blogger and I decided to take a new route with our news journal. Our idea is for each of us to read a news article and then we have a conversation about it. Here goes nothing.

The article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093002302_pf.html

Sierra Mision: I wish there had been more definitive statements, more examples. I mean the article mentions that he “went beyond the fabric of the constitution,” and mentions his desire to reduce the number of polling sites (which, I find slightly ironic. A U.S. citizen calling for reduced polling. I get his intent, but still.), but outside of that, there’s no concrete images. Like, his record is ignored. I would have liked to have known Galbraith’s record with the UN.

Meredith Rutland: I would have liked to have actually heard the conversation, or at least more of it than was recorded. It made it into a good-guy-protecting-justice-vs-bad-guy-wanting-to-allow-injustice situation, which I do not think was exactly the case.

Sierra Mision: Right. The article seemed kind of…disjointed. Like, it has an idea, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t latch onto a specific goal. It starts to when it mentions the issue that erupted over the Afghan election, but after that, it simmers…weakens the intent. But that’s just me.

Meredith Rutland: I think it’s far too vague, but perhaps because they simply don’t know much yet. But there’s no mistaking that there was fraud in the Afghan election (we almost expect it by now) and someone who wanted to stop it was fired.

Sierra Mision: Vague! That’s the word I wanted. But yeah, I agree. It’s a good starting article, but there should be a follow-up with more details, preferably soon.

Meredith Rutland: I sure hope so!

Meredith Rutland: I feel bad for Galbraith. I mean he probably went overboard a little, but I would as well if I had the authority to clear up the insanity that is Middle Eastern elections.

Sierra Mision: I don’t think he went extravagantly over the top, but again, not all the details are there. He was vocal…and a little naive in his approach, maybe, but good intent was there.

Meredith Rutland: Exactly. He must have meant well. After all, look what he was fighting for: transparency.

Sierra Mision: Yeah…kind of funny how that ended up. The UN is all about promoting cooperation to keep nations from more or less slaughtering each other, but then they go and slaughter a guy for speaking up. It’s not like he was calling for a revolution or anything.