I did a story from nicar.org entitled, 'Failures in electronic record systems may pose danger to patients." It was basically a short little blurb about how Food and Drug Administration finding failures in electronic medical record systems that actually may have caused death or serious injury to patients. I am not really sure how the reporter used computer assisted reporting, I assume he just had to look through all the records and some of the hospitals systems to figure out how they work. Actually I am not really sure how you could possibly not use computer-assisted reporting with anything. You are always going to have to use a computer to do background research for a story, for example I have to use it to get into the MN legislative library and pull out the legislation for alcohol use at TCF Bank Stadium, and to do other various background research on the topic. I guess I just don't realy understand what this analysis is asking me to do.
Recently in Analysis Category
For my first news organization I looked at Kare 11.com. My favorite part of this site is that they have video on the website, like most news organizations, but you can also read the stories underneath most of the videos. I don't know if anyone actually ever watches the video and reads the story but it is probably the most intense way to engage with the news. It is nice because while the writing is pretty straightforward, the video adds some images and voice to the story you have just read, or are going to read. They also also have lots of places where you can comment. This is almost always informal writing, and I do not think they complement stories because they are usually biased, angry, and take away from the story.
The second site I picked was the Star Tribune, which has almost exactly the same options as Kare 11. There are a lot more advertisements that are interactive, I am not sure if that even matters for this analysis, but I think it does take away from the stories a little bit, because there is so much crowding. Also, the Star Tribune uses a lot more pictures than Kare 11, which can be good or bad. Good in a sense that they provide images for a story, and bad that they may not provide a voice.
I actually watched this entire press conference before reading the news story written about it so I assume that would count as, "getting the press release." The news report that I chose to analyze is a story done by MTV news, who obtained remarks from a PR professional for their own analysis. I think for the purposes of this story, the reporter had the advantage of assuming that many people had already watched the press conference, and so it was was interesting to me that the story revolved almost entirely around whether or not the PR professional thought that Tiger "did the right things" at the press conference.
The story spend a very brief amount of time on the things Tiger actually said, and it was very compressed. There was a short paragraph that said, first apologized, addressed the most pressing questions, acknowledged his affairs, and had harsh words for the media. For the most part, this is correct, but if you weren't one of those people that watched the press conference, you wouldn't really have any idea of what exactly Tiger said (there were one or maybe two direct quotes). I think in this case, MTV News did a perfectly fine job by just putting an expert opinion on the record and analyzing the things Tiger said and how he said it, because if they are correct in assuming that most people had watched it (which I believe they are) then just writing a hard news story about what was said would not attract many readers.
You can watch the press conference in it's entirety here
In a story by the Star Tribune about a fatal snowmobile crash, the lead the reporter chose to use was a straightforward, hard-news lead. I believe anytime you have a story about a death the lead should be a straightforward, hard-news lead, but in a death of a public service official, such as an Officer, it was especially important, if not necessary, for the STRIB to take such an approach.
The elements in the lead included "who" (an off-duty Alexandria police officer), "when" ( Friday Night), "what" (in a snowmobile crash), and "where" (Douglas County). The STRIB does not include in the lead the name of the officer, any history about him, or details about the crash. It also does not include any information about the second victim or his conditions.
This lead works very well for this story because there is very important information for the public to know in that an officer was killed, and the STRIB gets the important elements out in the first sentence, and leaves the details for the paragraphs below the lead.