You may paraphrase what experts tell you
Another option is to include some quotes from the "experts" on what they think about Minnie Wright, and then contrast this with what Mrs. Hale says. Side note: As a reporter, am I allowed to include pictures of the witnesses? Extra research is needed to find out which pieces of information I can and cannot share. Preferably under Iowa law
As a beginning reporter, limit yourself to no more than 3 on-camera interviews
Possible interviews/quotations include (1) Martha Hale, (2) the Sheriff, and (3) George Henderson (county attorney).
You can also listen to your interviews for compelling pieces of information that you were too preoccupied to notice when you first recorded the interview (yes, this happens).
*Important step to READ OVER interviews and dialogue...Note to self: Read through Trifles* and highlight specific phrases/words that point to "compelling pieces of information"
soundbite
(noun) "a short extract from a recorded interview, chosen for its pungency or appropriateness"
Ideally what is being said and what we see onscreen throughout your story will correspond in a way that makes sense.
Basically, try to match what the viewers see to what the viewers hear. Include some "footage" of the crime scene, broken jars of jam, pots and pans, etc..
they’ll typically tell you a little bit about the story that’s about to come, enough to generate suspense about what they’re going to tell you after the commercial break, but without fully revealing it
This aspect of TV news shows reminds me of true crime entertainment-- in both cases, they use feelings of suspense to "capture" the viewer.
A lot of the functions that news used to perform way back when in hunter-gatherer times, in preliterate societies, it’s no longer performing regularly. Yet our itch to be aware, to know what’s going on around us, remains. That itch expresses itself in tabloid newspapers, in silly television shows, in lists on Buzzfeed.
Like Mr. Dubner, I am generally quite skeptical of evolutionary arguments. Sometimes, it seems like people (scientists included) are so desperate to "find answers" and "make deep connections" to life's big questions that they end up over-thinking even the simplest aspects of human nature. However, I would agree with the second highlighted statement, and go even further to say that the main reason why we follow the news is because it is a "form of entertainment, of diversion" (Stephens). Perhaps the human psyche is not as complicated as we make it out to be-- maybe we just like to be entertained!
Although TV was a new medium, it actually had the effect of reducing the political information people were getting
I wonder, do today's new "mediums" like Instagram and Snapchat create the same effect? I admit that I see a lot of garbage in my search feed, and although there is a political element to much of the humor, I haven't seen much action on the part of other app users (including myself) as a result. What are your thoughts? Do you think that social media platforms like Snapchat and Instagram help us become more "politically informed", or do they have the opposite effect? Feel free to explain in a comment below. There's no right or wrong answer; I'm just curious. ;)
But if voting is about just deciding how to just divide up the spoils between your class and the other social class, then more debatable whether you’re making the world a better place by finding out what’s the best way to tilt things in your group’s advantage and voting in that way
I find this attitude of "divvying up the spoils" to be particularly evident in today's politics. In fact, if I had to describe the current political situation in the United States, "divided" would be one of the first words to come to mind. Perhaps this is another example of the "team" mentality that was mentioned by Mr. Frankel.
politics is essentially a sport, or at least some phases of politics
I've heard it said that politics is a game-- there are winners and losers, and (sometimes) a little bit of cheating involved. This section reminded me of that comparison, although in a much broader context.
truisms
"an undoubted or self-evident truth"
that blames the news as opposed to the lack of interest in news when it’s not entertaining
YES! This is SUCH an important point. I am so glad that the podcast addresses this!!! As viewers, we can go on and on about how we "need" to watch the news to "become better global citizens" (which is extremely important, don't get me wrong), but *what if it addressed the same problems every single day*? Think about this-- A new report announces that over half a million Americans are homeless. When the data first comes out, (insert name here) TV station includes a 10-minute story about this on the 6 o'clock news. It's a very pressing issue that doesn't get a lot of media attention, so (insert name here) TV station decides to report about it again the next day. And again. And again. The news station interviews different people in different locations, but the number of viewers quickly drops between 6:00 and 6:10 pm. Why? Because it has lost its dramatic appeal, or as some might say, its quality of "breaking news". I know that this a rather drawn out scenario, but it shows how much of the fault lies not just with "news" and media, but also our own interests as an audience. Something to think about the next time we turn on the TV.