TV news structures

Finals 4 all

Journalism Finals

Gil
School news 400-500 words
World news 400-500 words Moscow Train Bombing
Sports news 400-500 words
Film Review 500-600 words Avatar
Editorial/Commentary 700-1000 words Ban Internet at ZIS
Magazine article 3-4 Pages
Source

Nick
School news 400-500 words Nepal trip in danger (interview Doubt)
World news 400-500 words Terrorism Bill in US
Sports news 400-500 words US Bball team in Geneva
Film Review 500-600 words
Editorial/Commentary 700-1000 words Terrorism Bill in US
Magazine article 3-4 Pages
Source Sports Illustrated

Mash
School news 400-500 words Bandstand
World news 400-500 words Response and knowledge of ZIS kids (especially Brits) to election
Sports news 400-500 words Rose, Spurs over Arsenal
Film Review 500-600 words White Chicks
Editorial/Commentary 700-1000 Election
Magazine article 3-4 Pages Something about player/manager and tactics
Source 442

Haran
School news 400-500 words 5 aside 4 Ghana
World news 400-500 words Greece bankruptcy
Sports news 400-500 words ZIS tennis in Greece
Film Review 500-600 words Disaster Movie
Editorial/Commentary 700-1000 Greece bankruptcy
Magazine article 3-4 Pages Bayern, how can such a bad team advance so far...
Source 442

Philip
School news 400-500 words
World news 400-500 words silence broken in A'dam
Sports news 400-500 words - Teachers team establishes dominance over students in weekly Friday floor hockey
Film Review 500-600 words - Big Lebowski
Editorial/Commentary 700-1000 - your cool enough
Magazine article 3-4 Pages
Source

Final assessment file

homework for thurs

write your four paragraph story with appropriate headline.

Be sure to put the banner of your chosen paper with your article

ALSO: have a contentious school related issue to talk about

news analysis

Take the top story from one of the following papers...

Guardian
Independent
Times
FT
Daily Mail
Daily Express

Analyse the story in terms of ...

language
structure
syntax
intent/angle
the audience


details on your specific paper are here


http://mediadepths.blogspot.com/2010/03/newspapers-in-uk-introduction.html


http://www.britishpapers.co.uk/


use them in your analysis of intent/angle and how the article serves the audience

4 Thurs & Friday

Complete your recordings if necessary. You have 15 minutes.

Now form into groups of 4 (or possibly three)

In your groups...

• go over the upper school announcements from the last two weeks

• choose eight for your group to turn into radio stories (2 may be sport)

• write them up

at least two must be with a correspondent, two with a talking head, and one with a man in the street

All stories to be written edited and recorded over Thurs/Fri

Be great

Three story report topics

Julius

• Families of Soliders Vs Brown announcer
• Toyota recall talking head
• Cappello praises Terry correspondent

Jess

• Road wave
• man jailed for pushing woman on track
• stuff

Haran

• int
• hum
• Dali lama twitter

Marie

• obama steamrolls health care narrative + talking head
• families vs Brown
• Carla Bruni sans bra

Radio, Three Story Report

remember to make use of ...



Fear, Desire, Titillation, F.O.A.



Loaded Language, Naming, Strong Active Verbs, Sophisticated Language































Due completed including broadcast at end of class Monday

Radio

comparison - paradox

Tuesday Homework

When next we meet...

be sure to have your two annoted pieces posted in your blog,


as well as your article/feature from last week

have begun, or have a clear idea of your next piece

Features Review

Feature Story

Paragraph 1
Hook
• Anecdote
• Quote
…with explanation

Paragraph 2
Introduction of topic
What you are writing about
(Tied to a specific individual?)

Body
Tell your story, either linear or non-linear

Middle
Some interesting background
• About individual
• About larger or smaller/issue

then,
Return to your story

Conclusion paragraph
Wrap it up
With a note of
• Hope
• Despair
• Irony

movie review

exemplar


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998

Times Editorial

Authority against liberty

Times 14 Jan. 2010

Google’s decision to pull out of China is the right one. Any company committed to free expression will find difficulty doing business in authoritarian nations

Confucius is often called up in support by the champions of authoritarian capitalism but his advice to Zilu when asked how to serve a prince is a summary of the exact opposite: “Tell him the truth even if it offends him.” The truth is that the model of authoritarian capitalism, in which markets are free but people are not, poses a serious question for Western companies.

Google has, rather late in the day, decided to tell China the truth, even at the cost of giving offence. After discovering attempts to gain access to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, Google has decided to pull out of China. Until now, Google had been prepared to compromise its corporate manifesto of free expression by accepting the content filters mandated by the Chinese Government. There is no genuine freedom of expression when the filters eliminate the following offensive words: Tibetan independence; the Dalai Lama; the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

It is true that a few references did sneak through on Google, unlike on Baidu, its much bigger competitor. In March, YouTube, which is owned by Google, was blocked because it was carrying videos of Chinese soldiers beating Tibetan monks. But Google had made a not wholly reputable bargain with the authorities in which unfettered freedom of expression was traded for commercial possibility. There was a reputational risk for Google in being in China, just as there is an obvious business risk in not being in China.

Not that Google has walked away from an obvious pot of gold. No foreign company can yet claim to have cracked the Chinese market. Microsoft is struggling and Yahoo! has more or less pulled out. Although Google had been working on the launch of a music service in China, the dominance of Baidu and the intransigence of the political authorities mean there was no guarantee of commercial success. All the same, it must have been an agonisingly difficult decision to write off $350 million in revenues in a land of 300 million users, the biggest web market in the world.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The decision to withdraw was taken after Sergey Brin, one of the company’s two founders, and an evangelist for free expression, prevailed over the comparatively cautious chief executive, Eric Schmidt. Some measure of the gravity of the decision can be taken from the fact that it was immediately referred to Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who increased the stakes by suggesting that President Obama may now be ready to take a harder line against Beijing.

A tougher line on questions of liberty is to be welcomed. But this is no small matter. As large and as iconic a company as Google is, this dispute is about a lot more than who helps the Chinese organise the internet. Far from yielding to pressure, diplomatic or commercial, the Chinese Government believes itself to be the custodian of a model of capitalism that is a competitor to the form found in the Western liberal democracies. The belief that freedoms and rights are mere luxuries that hamper economic growth has, since it was first formulated by Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore, cemented authoritarian capitalism as an alternative route to prosperity. A shift from a Western to an Eastern model is currently taking place in Russia.

The evidence that either model is intrinsically more productive is not yet conclusive but, in time, the creativity permissible in open societies will surely triumph. Besides, freedoms have a value in themselves, something that the Chinese people have shown they know too. This is a contest between two incompatible accounts of the future and never the twain shall meet. Google’s withdrawal from China is the model of liberty declining the model of authority. It might be commerically painful but it is the right decision.

Editorials

Editorials/Leaders
The four basic forms:

Explain or interpret: Editors often use these editorials to explain the way the newspaper covered a sensitive or controversial subject.

Criticize: These editorials constructively criticize actions, decisions or situations while providing solutions to the problem identified. Immediate purpose is to get readers to see the problem, not the solution.

Persuade: Editorials of persuasion aim to immediately see the solution, not the problem. From the first paragraph, readers will be encouraged to take a specific, positive action. Political endorsements are good examples of editorials of persuasion.

Praise: These editorials commend people and organizations for something done well. They are not as common as the other three.

500-600 words should be your goal

Leader/Editorial Structure
• Introduce topic
• State your position
• Give good reason (with example)
• Give another good reason (with example)
• Make concession to opposing opinion
• Destroy concession with brilliant response which is you final and best reason
• conclusion

Vacation articles