Before our second panel discussion in our Intro to Journ class we talked about the corruption on media an the corruption of media. It was a shocking and interesting discussion and made us think twice about becoming real journalists. Yet interesting as that was I couldn't help but be a little side tracked. After all what kept running in my head was our report on children, since it was me and my group's turn to be the main panel in the class' panel discussion later that meeting.
Of course, I had read the article by Cecille A. Balgos in her book, a Reporter's Guide the Child With a Fish for a Twin, on reporting on children. The article focused on how children and their issues or rather the issues that concern them, should be a more prominent discussion in the news and media. And how media practitioners should go about reporting on them. The article argued that kids need a voice, for though they occupy a large percentage of our population they are often silenced by matters we deem to be more important. Yet, in truth we should listen to what concerns them as these articles/stories will reveal much about our own society and more importantly since they are our future.
When I read the article I couldn't help but agree as I took into consideration what it said and meant. Stories on children do concern our own welfare and future so why do we not take the pains to report on them? But then again, how should we report on them without adding sensuality to the data and at the same time being sensitive enough the subjects of our story?
The article on children gave examples of reports on children to show how important these issues are and how we are to report on them to answer these questions it originally posed. Hence, my group mates and I divided these sub-articles amongst ourselves since there were five articles and five of us in the group. I ended up getting the first article. And so other than discussing the sub-article, I was assigned to discuss and explain the first part of the main article. So while my group mates read and re-read their cue cards as our other classmates prepared to listen and rebut our discussions, I found myself staring into space thinking about how to phrase my report. I did not look at my cue card at first, since I was afraid I had written too much for me to say within four minutes. Instead I used what I had written as a guide to organize my thoughts.
But when it was time to get the ball rolling our professor announced who our main peanut gallery was going to be. And lo and behold it was none other than the group me and my other group mate's close friends! Everyone else in the classroom knew that and I'm almost certain the thought on everyone's mind was, This is going to be interesting. And though I had sort of wished my friends' group would be our peanut gallery I was in for a surprise as me and everyone else saw just how interesting the discussion got.
I expected them to understand what I was talking about since I had already somewhat explained the article to them before class when they asked me to clarify. I think I did explain my main points clearly enough (which were basically the points I stated at the beginning of this entry). But as for organizing my thoughts, I got caught in my web of words once again. I knew what my friend from the peanut gallery meant when she rebutted one of my statements (not without a little help from our professor, mind you). And it later occurred to me, when I got the point (though a little too late) that is, that her point wasn't far from my statement. It's just that I had stated it differently which made it rather unclear as to what my implication really was and thus somewhat altered what I had meant. For, I did not really disagree with what she said, in truth I agreed that numbers do mean something in an article. Yet my statement implied that I did not think them as important and that the reporter should explain what it meant to the readers because the readers were likely to disregard numbers or the numbers were likely not to affect them. Which is a stereotypical view, really, if you think about it. And what I believe I had really meant was that the reporter himself or herself must know what it means in order to dig deeper. For if he or she is interested in his or her assignment than they are more likely to hook the readers in and get their work featured or published. But I got caught because I guess I hadn't fully organized my thoughts specifically when I made the actual statement in the first place.
And that's where I learned to mind what I say when making a public statement especially one that would be made under the scrutiny of others. And it's an important point to remember as a future media practitioner because what we say will be most, if not all of the time be under the scrutiny of others and will be likely to be discussed. And most of the time we'll only have one chance to make our statements, so we should make should they are clear and understood.
The rest of the discussion followed the pattern of the first. Our peanut gallery was so thorough as to refute every statement they found questionable or unclear. I found however their arguments to be oftentimes on the same track as ours. It was rather funny really, as we knew these girls and their ideologies quite well. Not only that but their line of thinking was more or less the same or in agreement with ours. Sometimes I found we were going round and round because they thought we opposed their views or vice versa when we were really trying to make the same point. It was yet another classic example of the eccentricities of communication that were oftentimes the product or result of miscommunication.
However, similar though our views, that did not make our discussion and arguments pointless. In fact it made things more interesting as had been predicted above. And it was really intense. For about an hour and a half the scenario in the classroom seemed to revolve around these two groups of friends and all else seemed to disappear or fade into the role of an attentive audience. Yet this only made our discussion more thorough and exhaustive. Which suited the topic which was one that was not to be easily trifled with.
News in which children are directly and extensively involved or affected is really a rather delicate yet relevant matter. And I don't just mean news items where children are mentioned. I mean real news that is all about them and not about a crime committed against one or more of them. For, these stories more often than not turn out to be cultural or societal issues. Hence we should be aware of these stories both as future media practitioners or recipients of the news. We should consider the amount and importance of the data yet at the same time realize the relevance of the issue and more especially what both these aspects of the article show. And we should be discerning enough to listen for the children's voice in the matter, for this reveals how they are affected and what it could mean for our future. Hence, whether reading or writing an article on children we should remember it is more than just reading material, more than just an assignment.
Of course, I had read the article by Cecille A. Balgos in her book, a Reporter's Guide the Child With a Fish for a Twin, on reporting on children. The article focused on how children and their issues or rather the issues that concern them, should be a more prominent discussion in the news and media. And how media practitioners should go about reporting on them. The article argued that kids need a voice, for though they occupy a large percentage of our population they are often silenced by matters we deem to be more important. Yet, in truth we should listen to what concerns them as these articles/stories will reveal much about our own society and more importantly since they are our future.
When I read the article I couldn't help but agree as I took into consideration what it said and meant. Stories on children do concern our own welfare and future so why do we not take the pains to report on them? But then again, how should we report on them without adding sensuality to the data and at the same time being sensitive enough the subjects of our story?
The article on children gave examples of reports on children to show how important these issues are and how we are to report on them to answer these questions it originally posed. Hence, my group mates and I divided these sub-articles amongst ourselves since there were five articles and five of us in the group. I ended up getting the first article. And so other than discussing the sub-article, I was assigned to discuss and explain the first part of the main article. So while my group mates read and re-read their cue cards as our other classmates prepared to listen and rebut our discussions, I found myself staring into space thinking about how to phrase my report. I did not look at my cue card at first, since I was afraid I had written too much for me to say within four minutes. Instead I used what I had written as a guide to organize my thoughts.
But when it was time to get the ball rolling our professor announced who our main peanut gallery was going to be. And lo and behold it was none other than the group me and my other group mate's close friends! Everyone else in the classroom knew that and I'm almost certain the thought on everyone's mind was, This is going to be interesting. And though I had sort of wished my friends' group would be our peanut gallery I was in for a surprise as me and everyone else saw just how interesting the discussion got.
I expected them to understand what I was talking about since I had already somewhat explained the article to them before class when they asked me to clarify. I think I did explain my main points clearly enough (which were basically the points I stated at the beginning of this entry). But as for organizing my thoughts, I got caught in my web of words once again. I knew what my friend from the peanut gallery meant when she rebutted one of my statements (not without a little help from our professor, mind you). And it later occurred to me, when I got the point (though a little too late) that is, that her point wasn't far from my statement. It's just that I had stated it differently which made it rather unclear as to what my implication really was and thus somewhat altered what I had meant. For, I did not really disagree with what she said, in truth I agreed that numbers do mean something in an article. Yet my statement implied that I did not think them as important and that the reporter should explain what it meant to the readers because the readers were likely to disregard numbers or the numbers were likely not to affect them. Which is a stereotypical view, really, if you think about it. And what I believe I had really meant was that the reporter himself or herself must know what it means in order to dig deeper. For if he or she is interested in his or her assignment than they are more likely to hook the readers in and get their work featured or published. But I got caught because I guess I hadn't fully organized my thoughts specifically when I made the actual statement in the first place.
And that's where I learned to mind what I say when making a public statement especially one that would be made under the scrutiny of others. And it's an important point to remember as a future media practitioner because what we say will be most, if not all of the time be under the scrutiny of others and will be likely to be discussed. And most of the time we'll only have one chance to make our statements, so we should make should they are clear and understood.
The rest of the discussion followed the pattern of the first. Our peanut gallery was so thorough as to refute every statement they found questionable or unclear. I found however their arguments to be oftentimes on the same track as ours. It was rather funny really, as we knew these girls and their ideologies quite well. Not only that but their line of thinking was more or less the same or in agreement with ours. Sometimes I found we were going round and round because they thought we opposed their views or vice versa when we were really trying to make the same point. It was yet another classic example of the eccentricities of communication that were oftentimes the product or result of miscommunication.
However, similar though our views, that did not make our discussion and arguments pointless. In fact it made things more interesting as had been predicted above. And it was really intense. For about an hour and a half the scenario in the classroom seemed to revolve around these two groups of friends and all else seemed to disappear or fade into the role of an attentive audience. Yet this only made our discussion more thorough and exhaustive. Which suited the topic which was one that was not to be easily trifled with.
News in which children are directly and extensively involved or affected is really a rather delicate yet relevant matter. And I don't just mean news items where children are mentioned. I mean real news that is all about them and not about a crime committed against one or more of them. For, these stories more often than not turn out to be cultural or societal issues. Hence we should be aware of these stories both as future media practitioners or recipients of the news. We should consider the amount and importance of the data yet at the same time realize the relevance of the issue and more especially what both these aspects of the article show. And we should be discerning enough to listen for the children's voice in the matter, for this reveals how they are affected and what it could mean for our future. Hence, whether reading or writing an article on children we should remember it is more than just reading material, more than just an assignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment