#thisisjournalism

Here's how to write a good piece of journalism: irony.

Also, Notice the way numbers are thrown around.

What is the impact of "the 5,000 barrel spill" versus "an estimated 84,000 gallons" versus, in another article here, (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/04/11/todays-report-on-exxon-mobil-oil-spill-in-mayflower) for instance:

"Exxon's Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas, was shut after the leak was discovered late Friday afternoon in a subdivision near the town of Mayflower. The leak forced the evacuation of 22 homes.

In this piece, written as an op-ed for Al Jazeera, Mark Weisbrot uses some statistics to point out discrepancies in other instances of journalism, which also quote stats.

When you're consuming information in any form - newspaper, TV, blog, emails from your instructors, ask questions. How is the author using 'authority' (such as statistics) to persuade you of an argument? If you're convinced, try to pause. Is the piece written toward your own biases?

"Last Tuesday, on April 2, the Associated Press announced it would no longer use "illegal immigrant" to refer to people living in a country without permission."

"What matter? As addicts often do, Mr. Bissinger felt helpless, caught in the grip of a compulsion that fuels not only Gucci’s bottom line, Dr. Benson said, but also global economies. “Don’t forget we had a president who, after 9/11, said ‘We cannot let the terrorists stop our nation, so I want you to go shopping,’ ” she said. “He didn’t tell us to go out drinking or taking drugs.”

Hey, give this a listen! Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a Lang professor of education studies gives a great interview for Research Radio, a New School endeavor...

Eli Nadeau ([email protected]): So, Peep, I hope you had a good Spring Break. I liked the White reading, "The Art of the Primary" and it got me to thinking about recent campaigns. In particular, I found this article, (http://web.archive.org/web/20090103192805/http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051704_news_election_roundup.1d1202a0b.html) archived from 2004, about the Oregon primary, which I found after searching for information about Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich has been one of the truly radical voices to emerge from the left in electoral politics, and I can't help wondering how things might have been different for the conversation in this country (particularly the media spin about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the discourse(s) around national security). What do you think might have been different had someone like Teddy White, Norman Mailer or David Wallace taken up Kucinich's campaign and written about it? Anonymous Person ([email protected]): Hi Eli, Spring break was great, thanks. I dig your question, even though I have always thought Kucinich was a bit of a kook, myself. Tom Hayden wrote about the Presidential primary in New Hampshire, and put out a call ending "Who then will be calling for peace if this worst of all worlds comes to pass?" (http://www.thenation.com/article/anti-war-lessons-new-hampshire) but Kucinich's call never produced him as a viable candidate. I wonder if he faced the problem of Humphrey, which White describes this way "There was missing a restraint, and always present a friendliness too easily given." p. 89 or whether it's something deeper, something like a national forgetting. Hayden starts his piece with a harkening back to 1968, which, as we'll recall from Mailer and Wills, was a time animated by revolution and counterrevolution. Is it possible that Kucinich's problem was just a matter of timing? It's hard to know. His anti-war platforms and criticisms of politics-as-usual warmongering have aligned him with Ron Paul, who has seemed at times to be taken more seriously by supporters, if campaign finances are any indication. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m/)