g. Tory childcare plan

2. List of questions that I would want to know before writing a story on the release:

Why wasn’t it already “formalized?”

What does this mean for our citizens? What are the possible ramifications?

Is anything being cut to fill the money void for this fund? If so, why that one?

What if it wasn’t formalized? Then what would it mean? What are the ramifications in that case?

What does this mean for parents in the past? Are they reimbursed? How will damage control be put in place? Because people will challenge the bill in some way

Where are the child care institutions that yield to the Child Care Spaces Initiative?

Why is 6 years old the deadline? Is there any stat that makes the child more capable at seven years old? Why isn’t the cutoff age 16?

6. Possible interviewees:

Local daycare managers.

-Find the state of the daycare.

-How many kids are at the daycare now?

-Can they afford to give up space in their institutions? Will the kids still get the same treatment/instruction?

-What will this mean for existing students?

-Do they expect more enrollment?

-How will increased enrollment affect your practice?

Possible candidates:

YMCA @ 143 Wellington St., Brantford - 519-752-6568 ext100

Montessori House Of Children @ 85 Charlotte Street, Brantford - 519 759-7290

Three Bears Preschool @ 160 Brantwood Park Rd, Brantford - 519-759-8890

West End Y Daycare @ 30 Bell Lane, Brantford – 519-759-1701

Board of education minister:

-Ask what the ramifications of this Plan will wreak on education of the province, how it will change his job, what he’ll do because of

Any parent, past, present, or future- Get respective take

8. / 9. Note sources used / issues raised, add / change questions as more people are interviewed, have more information to base questions on.

- Jesse Ferguson

e. Bad story example

e. Bad story example

Jesse Ferguson

In my opinion, a “good story” should be easy to pick, because that is just what newspapers intend to do, report good stories.

I had a difficult time finding stories that did not abide by the basic guidelines; whether it be unspecified or improper sources; or stories that did not answer the “five Ws” (what, where, who, when, why, and sometimes how). Unquestionably, the improper sourcing will be easier to find than uninformative stories, I believe, because of a few things that prevent uninformative stories from happening: one, these are professional writers that probably have written a few stories in their life. It is their job to make sure the sources are not incorrectly supplied in the first place; and two, editors are not new at this either. It is their job to make sure that stories come without these errors, therefore he or she will not allow there to be errors in their paper. For these, errors are hereby discrete.

(However, sometimes it is intentional that not the whole story is told. Intentionally leaving out selected these words is more intriguing, as it is a direct result of intention to spin a story. Spin is utilized to cast a different light on the story.)

Also, it is important to look at the quality of sources. Is the source credible, or is “the source” just the bum on the street corner talking a bunch of trash, rambling to anyone willing to pretend to listen? How many different sources does the author use? It is important to make sure that the writer did not use a possible misquote; or either the writer or the quoted person had an off moment, and did not really mean what they said.

Journalism is supposed to complete the primary questions of what, where, who, when, how, and most importantly, why for the reader. These selected words encompass any article. These are answered so the reader has no difficulty in understanding the story. They are what allow the story to read and make sense. This also works to narrow the issues. However problems occur when one or more of these keywords are left out of the article, whether it be intentional or inadvertent. Inadvertent comes from or human errors, which do happen; or it could be just bad journalism.

In my opinion, the little blurbs on the side of the paper, like the ones in the sports section, are particularly useless because they are so uninformative. The story needs the “five ws” answered; and usually the quicker they are answered, the better. Probably the first paragraph is a good spot for this, or directly following the lead, because you want to catch the reader’s questions just as they are wondering them. Writing is funny like that, you kind of have to stay one or two steps ahead of the reader, or they will just stop reading it.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/071028/n102832A.html

I think this article is not so good, just because it does not state the relevance of it to us, Canadian readers.

“Stephen Harper is hoping to forge a political as well as a personal friendship with the Dalai Lama this week…” Do they care to explain what if he doesn’t? Any repercussions? What exactly would that mean as repercussions for us Canadians? We would like to know the potential results. If this is such a big thing, then explain why.

If this is the topic, ‘how Harper will meet with the Dalai Lama,’ then it gets too off topic, way too deep into how the meeting went with George W. Bush. This story is two-in-one, and is not clear-cut.

It probably should have started addressing the five-W’s. What, Who, When are all supplied, but—with exception to which—the main question of why is just not answered for us in the nick of time necessary to keep the reader involved. Finally, at the eight paragraph of the release, we are told why this may make any relevance to us Canadians.

The hook or “lead” of this story is good, for it in fact comes a bit of a shock that the Dalai Lama “loves him as a human being,” “him” being President George Bush, and that Prime Minister Harper can actually learn from how Bush dealt with him is a bit shocking.

I think this story could have used some shifting around. The lead is appropriate and effective, but following it should have come why it is a goal that Harper makes a good impression on the Dalai Lama. Bush made a good impression and how he did so should be considered secondary to the main topic.

The story made the news because the Dalai Lama had already met with Bush. However, then they should have separated it into sub-stories with headings. Or at the least, they could have separated it up a bit. Like so:

____

The Dalai Lama had this to say about the man he met Sunday: "I love him, really, as a human being. Very nice man.”

Who could he be speaking of?

Stephen Harper is hoping to forge a similar political as well as a personal friendship with the Dalai Lama this week. He may want to consider the example of none other than President George W. Bush.

That is just who the Dalai Lama was referring to when he said “I love him.”

Harper is hoping to begin a good relationship with him for a few reasons. The domestic controversy over Harper's own war-fighting policies in Afghanistan top the list. Harper would also like the Dalai Lama’s blessing in

1C- Neighbour Profile of Brienne Torley with ALTERNATIVE LEAD

ALTERNATIVE LEAD ;) Scene-setter

On a cold crisp January night in 1989 at Mississauga General Hospital, no one was concerned about the weather.

Not in the room delivery room of Mrs. Torley.

Nurses and doctors are running around in a frenzy. Mr. and Mrs. Torley, in a state of confusion, are fighting off tears of worry the best they can. Her mother is not successful, though, despite Mr. Torley’s valiant effort.

Mrs. Torley is heard shouting among her tears in the suddenly busy room: “What’s happening? Is my baby all right?”

Mr. Torley is in the same chaotic state, but does not want to show it, as his wife's condition is the most important and she needs the calming as it is, without his negatively-contributing to her state.

He finally decides she is calm enough hands for him to go find out what is happening.

He approaches the lead doctor outside grabs his arm, and pulls him outside the room.

“What’s happening in there, doc?”

“Sir, your daughter’s umbilical cord is wrapped around her neck. Now, we have seen this before, though it is rare. All we can do is try and shape her correctly, so she can come out in good health.”

“Okay. But she will be delivered successfully?”

“Sir, I cannot guarantee anything. I do think if I am allowed to work, she will pull through. But there is that chance.”

“She may die?”

“Yes sir. I better get in there.”

“By all means,” Mr. Torley said quickly, as he gave way to the doctor to the entrance of the room. “You first,” he instructed.

He followed the doctor in, and looked at his wife. She stared right back at him, looking for good news. All he wants to do in keep the crazed sensation he feels on the inside, and not let Mrs. Torley see the panic in his eyes, so she can remain as calm as possible and be an agonist factor in the delivery.

- By Jesse Ferguson

1B- Neighbour Profile (Brienne 300w)

Can't Please All of Them
By Jesse Ferguson

“Who cares about that kid?” Brienne Torley retorted rhetorically, speaking after-the-fact about the student who downplayed her story at birth.

Upon delivery, Brienne’s umbilical cord came wrapped awkwardly around her throat, nearly suffocating her before she took one gasp of fresh air, shocking everyone in the Mississauga delivery room, notably the doctors attempting to deliver her.

Her story did not impress this student. It is provocative enough for most, surely.

As he obliviously carried on obnoxiously, she probably wanted to reach over and deliver a backhand to him as he sat directly beside her, but instead of reacting harshly, she sat quietly beside him, not saying a word.

Apparently, she has utmost poise. Her style is contemporary and individualistic, but not so much so that it borders strange. She is a pretty girl, and uses that to rake in tips at Applebee’s restaurant in Cambridge, though her personality comes foremost ahead of looks. She seems of an intellectual breed, but she is a contemporary girl, who seems very multidimensional, making a short profile impossible.

This has not been Brienne’s only brush with death. She has had three experiences that she has narrowly escaped. “I firmly believe that I am here for a reason, that I have a purpose in life.”

This young lady with perspective goes to school at Laurier Brantford with the hopes of one day journalizing. She lives in Brantford during the school-year, but typically resides in Cambridge, Ontario.

(I imagine a cartoon at the bottom of the article, again in the delivery room, with every doctor and nurse freaking out, and the male student up front in the picture with the utmost nonchalant-ness saying, “Seen it a hundred times. Seen it all before, all too often”)

-Jesse Ferguson

d. Al Gore blog

It is unclear as to what we are supposed to write about. On the lab handout, it says just to form an opinion. However, it is on the list of assignments to be posted on our blog. I provide my notes from the lab for that day.

Does Al Gore deserve Peace Prize?

If the question is, “Does Al Gore deserve the recognition of the prize?” there is not many who would debate it, and those who did, would have a tough time in backing it up.
That is not the question though.
A “Peace” prize though?
Nobel has widened the definition of “peace” though, for the award.
However, this award is normally given to scientists and researchers, not just a spokesman.
This award makes the Nobel seem almost like a political award; or worse, a popularity award. That is not science.
However a prerequisite for the Nobel Prize is to just make a difference. Gore has undoubtedly done this, and maybe for this, he is most deserving of the award, ever.
Gore in a statement said he was "deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."


Deserves recognition:
He released a movie all about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, which educates the public on such a relevant issue, and spoke to the masses (public spokesman).
Without a credible and recognizable figure to bring awareness to the issue of climate change all of the work done by the worlds' scientists is merely academic.
It’s well deserved recognition for having the courage to tackle a problem of this magnitude
The peace prize is appropriate considering he was the only major U.S. political figure to speak out forcefully against the Iraq war, even before it began.
Shows how to rebound, after he got “f---ed out” of the presidency
Gore’s win will likely add further fuel to a burgeoning movement in the United States for him to run for president in 2008, which he has so far said he does not plan to do. Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it more likely that he will seek the presidency.
Gore said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

http://www.thestar.com/Speakout/Voices/article/266947
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

FLAK- backlash… questioning personal motive- running again?,

f. FAULTY SOURCES

Journalism is supposed to complete the primary questions of what, where, who, when, how, and most importantly, why for the reader. These selected words encompass any article. They are answered so the reader has no difficulty in understanding the story and are what allow the story to read and make sense. This also works to narrow the issues. However problems occur when one or more of these keywords are left out of the article, whether it be intentional or inadvertent. Inadvertent comes from or human errors, which do happen, or it could be just bad journalism. However intentionally leaving out of these words is more intriguing, as it is a direct result of intention to spin a story. Sometimes, they whole story is not intentionally told. Leaving out these selected words can put a different spin on a story. Spin is just that, a device utilized by authors to cast a different light on the story. Lots of time though it is not wrong, it is just not as correct as it should be.

It is also important to look at the sources. Is the source a credible person, or is it just from the bum on the street corner talking a bunch of trash, rambling to anyone willing to pretend they are listening? How many different sources does the author use? It is important to make sure that the writer didn’t just misquote the person, either the writer or the quoted person had an off moment, or what have you.

This assignment was tough to complete. I had quite a difficult time finding stories that did not abide by these basic guidelines. Unquestionably, the improper sourcing will be easier to find than uninformative stories, but I believe they are because of two major things: one, these are professional writers that probably have written a few stories in their life, and since they want to keep their job, unintended errors are uncommon. Intentional ones aren't common either. It is the writer’s job to make sure the sources are not incorrectly supplied in the first place. Two, their editors are not new at this either. It is their job to make sure that stories come without these errors. For these two ideas, errors are discrete if there at all.

-Jesse Ferguson

TOBACCO INDUSTRY ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY MESSAGE TO PUBLIC

TOBACCO INDUSTRY ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY MESSAGE TO PUBLIC

BY JESSE FERGUSON

Brantford

The tobacco industry’s message to the public is captured in Jason Reitman’s new full-length film “Thank You For Smoking.” Aaron Eckhart stars as lead character Nick Nayler, who plays a lobbyist on behalf of the tobacco companies. The film opened its screening at The Carnegie Building on the Wilfird Laurier, Brantford campus for their students to check out.

It is a film that provokes much thought. Throughout the movie it is unclear where the bias is intended to be placed. It appears to be free of bias for nearly the duration of the film. Adding to the uncertainty of the film’s direction was the title of the film. It appears in the syllabus erroneously as “Thank You For Not Smoking” multiple times. This caused some students to wonder naively if this was just a typo, or if the teachers had correctly identified the bias.

Nevertheless, bias detection is not straightforward through the body of this piece, as the message is carefully massaged in. At the very beginning of the film, it seems the bias will be shown against the big smoking haunchos as Nayler is beat up on the talk show. This is a fairly accurate frame as smoking in the public eye has a very negative light cast on it. However, by the end of the film, it is all made clear for the viewers. It makes simple sense of the major smoking controversy. The viewfinder is in place courtesy of the tobacco industry. From the film, via Nayler, is their standpoint. It is this:

Smoking is in fact bad, but everyone knows this. Thus it should be the people allowed to make choices for themselves as to how they form an opinion on smoking.

No one is denying that it is bad for you, not even Nayler.

But is he actually correct in what he is claiming?

He is not wrong in conveying this message. However, this does not necessarily mean he is right, either. This is just his opinion. More knowledge is needed to make an informed decision.

Most directly, the film portrays the life of Nick Nayler. While being a lobbyist for the much-hated tobacco industry, Nayler understands that he is a role model for his son. He sees he should be a positive one, rather than negative. To do so, he must through responsibility. This nearly paradoxal balancing act he calls his life induces much chaos. By completing this task, the film touches all bases on the controversial issue of smoking. Less directly—though it is intended to appear discrete—it gives the above message of the tobacco industry.

Reitman uses spin by utilizing the fronting character of Nayler as a very likable man. His job, as a lobbyist on behalf of the tobacco industry, is not generally likeable though.

Nayler has the luck of any ordinary human being. This is portrayed by revealing some of his issues. They include marital problems, a complicated relationship with his son, and the showing that he has a hardass boss. Ordinary people have these types of problems. This is a good perspective for Reitman to use because it gives Nayler the humane feeling of sympathy. This character is one that for sure resonates in our world, thus his case is made appealing for the viewer. Yet this character is validated by making him appear more resonate.

More than this though, his problems shows that reality, the same kind that everyday people like you and me deal with, is apart of the lives of the people involved in the smoking industry as well. This also gives Nayler’s character validity. If Nayler seems credible, then so does their precious message. In turn, so does the industry. Reitman uses this frame of the story to precision as the viewer is molded to see the story through the eyes of Nayler, or as someone adjoined to the smoking industry.

Nayler comments on his job like so: “Every person deserves fair trial, so does every corporation.” As a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, he takes the proactive role of “defending the defenseless.”

Spin doctors intend to cast a certain ‘light’ on stories. This is Nayler’s job as a lobbyist. More appropriately, in this case, his job is to cast a certain ‘shadow’ over the light. However, it is not until the very end of the movie that the message becomes clear-cut evident. This is effective because it maximizes the effect on the viewer. By the courtroom scene at the end of the film, the viewer feels objectively neutral because they are not jabbed to be pulled either way. This is the beauty of Reitman’s piece for the smoking industry. The viewer is left agreeing with the Nayler’s testimony because of the trust that has inadvertently been built-up. This bias towards Nayler also inadvertently backs up the message of the tobacco industry.

It is likely intended for no real bias to be evident to give the film validity, to persuade the viewer to believe that Nayler, and foremost, the tobacco companies, are real.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what a lobbyist, or anyone for that matter, has to say. Everything that culminates into a decision on the topic is dependant on the specific person’s own responsibility as to how they form an opinion on smoking. If it is from common knowledge of what they hear that their standpoint is derived from, or if they actually try it, is up to them and their own free will. If it is from what is said, it is pretty gullible. This is the ultimate message being massaged throughout this piece.

This approach is true to liberty, and Nayler lets us know this.

In spite of everything portrayed in this movie, it displays only one side of the story. Certainly, health advisers would have something different to say on this issue.

There are two sides of every story, “Thank You For Smoking” covers itself perfectly, but there is no rebuttal. Anyone can argue with themselves and win.

- Jesse Ferguson