Wisdom of Crowds (Med&Gov)

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/

I liked all of the questions posed at the home page on the website. Yeah, why is that quart of orange juice waiting for me??

But, basically what is being said is that the wisdom of crowds is a theory that groups of people can solve certain types of problems better than a single expert.

Also, I thought the four qualities of smart crowds were interesting and made a lot of sense when you thought about them. To be a smart crowds, they have to be diverse, decentralized, have a way of summarizing their decision(s), and be independent of the larger group at the same time (I assume to not be easily swayed by others' opinions).

I also like that bias and paying too much attention to what others think can lead to group stupidity. This shows that you need to figure out what you think but still consider others' opinions on something. You can't not include someone's thoughts just because they don't agree with yours. I think that's why our nation is so f***ed up - no one will stop and consider anyone else's opinions if they aren't just like our own. They need to realize that this will ultimately lead to stupidity or self-destruction. Yes, being an intolerant, biased a**hole is very self-destructive behavior. This could end up killing us all.

So groups are good at solving factual problems and compromising? I suppose that's understandable. But, I'm defintely not letting even a smart crowd fly me to Greece next year or perform surgery on me.

I liked this quote: "And in a broader sense, I think the book suggests that the more diverse and free the flow of information in a society is, the better the decisions that society will reach." This is because they have more information and more accurate information at their disposal when making critical decisions that affect all people of their nation. And, in doing this, I think they would be more likely to take other's opinions into account and perhaps overlook their own biases.

All together we will know more than the individual because everyone in thei group has their own diverse information and experiences to bring to the table - i.e. they are adding to the flow of information in our society.

My feature story idea

My feature story will revolve around one or two expectant mothers whose babies will both be born under the next president of the United States. It will either be one or two, depending on if one allows me to interview her or not. Either way, I will definitely interview Elizabeth Kerns, who teaches part-time at SC-BU. She has a 10 month-old son who was born under the Bush Administration. I want to focus my article on who she wants her next child to be born under and why. I will also do a comparison of who was President when she was born compared to the current president and to Obama and McCain. I think this story will be interesting as it can look at a lot of different issues from the prospective of an expectant mother while also seeing how our nation has changed, struggled, and thrived since she herself was born. I think it will be a good feature story because it will be able to look back at our nation’s history and at our nation’s future as we are in the midst of an historic presidential election.

Thoughts on "In Search of Rational Voters" (Med. & Gov)

"In Search of Rational Voters" by Alan Ehrenhalt said a lot in only three pages. However, I think one of the most important things that was said was that " . . . the vast majority of voters go to the polls with only the haziest of notions about what the candidates plan to do." I think this is an extremely valid and true point. As it was documented in the 1960s, I still feel that it is true nowadays. But, this election could have sparked more of an interest because of its historical significance. Ehrenhalt also quoted another author who said that "we peiece together scraps of knowledge gleaned from personal events, historical events, media coverage . . . "

I think all of this relates back to what Postman was saying in his book: that we, as Americans, are receiving only bits and pieces of information that only hurt our decision making process. We also are only unlikely to know about anyone thing in depth. We don't actually have a completel understanding of things. Therefore, we often have misconceptions about important social, political, or economic events. And these misconceptions can lead to skewed voting at the polls.

Postman blames television for this, and he may not be far off in his theory. Ehrenhalt lends credence to this by explaining what author Rick Shenkman found in his new book Just How Stupid Are We? Shenkman found that "the American electorate harbors more misconceptions about public life than it did a generation ago, or at almost any period in American history." But what causes these grave misconceptions by so many? A main cause, Shenkman says, is TV spot ads.

So, I agree, television is most probably melting American minds into a pool of misconstrued and misguided fragments of information. And people are willing to make judements about an event just because they've heard something about it, however slight and fragmented that tid-bit of information may be.

Read. People. Please.

(www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/readdum.jpg)

Feature Story Links (Adv. Journalism)

I found my articles in the St. Petersburg Times.

Link to award winning articles from St. Petersburg Times writers. I talk about a couple stories in particular below and discuss why I think they make good feature stories.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/09/Floridian/Award_winning_work.shtml

These articles were written by Kelley Benham who "won first place in feature writing for a portfolio that included her obituary of Terri Schiavo, the story of a foster child who had a child of her own, and her profile of the New Orleans police chief in the days after Katrina."

The one that I think does the best job at featuring a "spin-off" of a larger event would be the article about the police chief in New Orleans. It takes the larger event and shows it from the perspective of one person.

Benhan's story about Terri Schiavo is exceptionally poignant with a striking introduction that tells a story about Terri. This article puts the larger, national event of her stroke and death into perspective by focusing on her life before that tragic event. I think it was a wonderful feature piece because it looked at Terri's life in a way that showed everyone who she was before the accident. It took the focus off of controversy and simply talked about who Terri was as an individual person, that I think many could relate too. It made us all remember that she is a human being, not simply a controversy.

LINK TO TERRI SCHIAVO STORY: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/01/Tampabay/Elevated_life_from_hu.shtml

However, I think this article by second place winner Lane DeGregory had a great story-inside-the-story lede. It is very descriptive and well-written throughout. I can definitely see why he won an award for his work. The article brings you into the event.

LINKS TO PARTS 1 AND 2 OF DEGREGORY'S MURDER STORY:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/18/Floridian/The_saint.shtml

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/19/Floridian/Part_Two__The_Saint__.shtml

Other articles by DeGregory:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/09/Floridian/Award_winning_work.shtml

Obama and McCain Articles (Advanced Journalism)

As of now, Friday around 2:30, the SCI homepage is down, so I can not get to the Mackerel Wrapper or the links to the Obama and McCain articles. I read them in class and was going to come back and write them up now. So, from what I remember about the questions on the blog:

With the Obama article, I think the author defiantely filled pages of his notebook with descriptions of the event, where it was held, what the stadium was set like, etc. And, I am not entirely sure that he wrote much else down. Sure, he threw in some quotes so he was talking to different types of people like Murray suggests. It seemed like he was fixated on the setting and backdrop of the convention. And he didn't really seem to metion this in the McCain article.

In the McCain article, the author focused on what McCain and others said. So, he took down a bunch of qoutes in his little reporter's notebook, with only a brief mention of McCain's setting. He did talk about some hecklers in the crowd. So, I think he looked for and reported on what he didn't expect, like Murray suggests.

The ledes for the stories were completely different. With Obama, the author played to the senses and painted a picture - to be taken positively or negatively depending. With McCain, it started with a paraphrase of McCain's speech and dwelled on about McCain and his "maverickism." He also focused on how the majority of speeches talked about how Obama was wrong.

All in all, the satrizing for Obama's was more overt about the setting, while the McCain article's satire was more subtle. Perhaps, Milbank just focued on the setting for satire with Obama because he felt that was the only thing wrong with the speech that was worth satrizing. The McCain satire was about his speech, satirzing more his substance - where you have to know something more to understand it.

Some answers are there; the rest is just me. (Advanced Journalism)

Don Murray means that surprise is a contradiction or seeing something you didn’t expect to see or find. It’s your angle or edge that you didn’t think of before the reporting or that you didn’t expect to find in the reporting.

To me, surprise is basically the same thing. But, it is a totally positive thing when you find that one edge that sets you and your work apart. But, to me, surprise is a mix between something you may stumble upon and something you have to be looking for. If your eyes are not open, you will not see. Also, surprise is cool because it can give a reporter the opprotunity to step back and consider something from a different perspective. And, this is never a bad thing.

But what does surprise have to do with writing? Surprise is what is going to get you and your work noticed from the hundreds of similar stories and pieces out there. Looking for surprise can open up new vantage points and experiences that can only expand your horizons and abilities as a writer. Surprise can also expand your ability to be able to come up with new and fresh ideas on stale stories as well as see new ideas for stories before anyone else.

Reporting and writing are linked in some ways, yet entirely different in others. I believe it is possible to say, with justification, that reporting is a craft while writing is an art form. Journalism as a craft can be taught while writing as an artform is perhaps more of an innate ability within the writer. I can write journalistically. While I was taught basic formats, structures, etc. So, I can do it, but I feel that the writing I do otherwise is more of an art form rather than a craft. My journalistic writing is a craft, while my personal writing is an art. To me, anyway. Whatever - I just want to write. I just have to! (I also think there is a difference between a "craft" as a noun and craft as a verb, crafting. But, that's for another blog. Maybe.)

Murray, however, links the two together in that you are writing and reporting at the same time. In reporting, Murray wants you to be able to hold on to your voice in being able to write what you have reported on.

Craft and art are similar in that you can teach someone the craft but the art has to come from the person and is more innate and not necessarily learned.

I think surprise has to be looked for in a variety of ways. You have to have an open mind and try new things. And, in trying new things, I think you need to do that in a variety of ways such as reading different magazines, walking or riding a bike some place instead of driving, or attempting different styles of writing. If ever you get the change to read or try something new, do it! This will expand your knowledge and background information on different topics and open you up to new possibilties and experiences. For example, I bought a bike this weekend and rode to two different places downtown. I LOVED it. I was able to experience so much more than I do when driving. And my experiences were so different.

(And, of course, my first thought was how I could write about this. Oh wow, writing is like my cocaine.)

I am an addict.