Readings #3, with 3 Readings

This week I read 3 different passages for homework, and each one gave me some new insight to further my journalism training.

One short passage I read was on the importance of timelines when covering a topic with a long time span. In his blog the author illustrates (literally) how animated timelins especially help online reporting becsause of the ability to easily organize dates and events without having to write a long article that gets too boring or too reptative. I dont think I've ever used timelines in writing (except maybe history homework) so putting it into practice may be difficult. Maybe i'll acquire the usage the more i use my computer to write.

Another article was from a webpage made by the Poynter Institute who seems to be a pretty well-versed leader in the writing world, in terms of usage and studies. This specific article dealt with "e-tidbits" and the flow of information online. It showed how one site with a small environmental news feed can effect (affect?) several different institutions on a very large scale. From a broader standpoint, it goes to show you how online journalism has such a long reach in society and how information knows no bounds when it comes to internet accessibility.

My final reading was from the textbook, namely Chapter 4 on interviews and quotes. A good portion was common knowledge or past teachings like correct questioning and when and when not to use direct quotes, but one topic was a little iffy to me (and the writers apparently). The section in question was when it talked about editing quotes to fix grammar or speech. Now, I don't know how much of a change they allow, but some of the sources they used said it was ok to edit. This could be as simple as changing "I dunno" to "I don't know," but i'm not sure if this is fair to the speaker. I mean if i was interviewing a southerner who talked with an accent, am i allowed to change his "y'all" to "you all" or should I leave it as is? The chapter says to give everyone the courtesy of proper grammer to treat people fairly, but I'm not totally conviced. I'd rather give the readers a true sense as to who they are "listening" to (in print). I guess it's debatable. If I ever come across a problem in this field I guess I'll make the decision then.