newsrooms

«It’s Show Time!»: Новости, которые действительно хочется смотреть.

Давно я не посвящала посты сериалам. После долгой паузы длительных просмотров, наконец-то нашлась та многосерийная история, о которой мне хочется вам рассказать. Герой этой рецензии — сериал Аарона Соркина«Служба новостей» (он же «The Newsroom», он же «Отдел новостей», он же просто «Новости»).

Что говорить про сюжет? Он посвящён закадровой, офисной жизни отдела новостей выдуманного телеканала ACN. Что привлекло меня в сюжете? Журналистика. Мне она нравится и всегда интересовало, что в ней происходит за кадром. Несмотря на предвзятое отношение большинства к ней и её представителям, я всё же продолжаю верить, что, как и во всех других профессиях и отраслях, в журналистике есть и будут честные люди, серьёзно и с любовью относящиеся к своему делу. Может, они и внесены в Красную Книгу, но они всё-таки есть.

Журналисты в данном сериале – именно такие. Конечно, их концентрация велика, из-за чего выдуманный телеканал выглядит где-то немного утопическим. Но на то он и выдуманный. Нельзя винить создателей в чрезмерной идеализации журналистики и прессы, так как я не думаю, что они преследовали эту цель. Очевидно, что данный сериал посвящен именно тем редким представителям из Красной Книги — тем, которые заслуживают стать примерами для начинающих журналистов и репортеров.

Наблюдать за работой отдела новостей действительно увлекательно: срочные новости, подготовка материала, съёмки эфиров, поиски достоверной информации и источников, казусы и ошибки, а также, их исправления. «Службу новостей» не получится включить и смотреть где-то на фоне, параллельно занимаясь делами – вы рискуете потерять всю нить повествования и ничего не понять. Сценаристы, как и команда журналистов из сериала, верят в свою аудиторию, в своего зрителя, представляя ей невероятно умный и богатый на размышления сценарий. Тут есть очень длинные сцены с диалогами, но их смотреть не скучно, а спектр обсуждаемых событий широк: от политических вопросов, до обычных житейских проблем. Если вы в курсе мировых событий, то сериал смотреть вам будет ещё любопытнее.

Каст великолепен. Я открыла для себе много талантливых актёров, которых ранее нигде не видела, а смотря на Джеффа Дэниелса, напрочь забываешь, что это он играл одного из главных героев в фильмах «Тупой и ещё тупее». За его исполнение роли телеведущего Уилла МакЭвоя, он получил не одну престижную награду, что абсолютно заслуженно. Понравилось, что романтические линии не поставлены ярко на первый план, но они есть и прописаны хорошо, а замечательных примеров дружбы просто предостаточно.

Мне очень полюбился сериал и я его непременно пересмотрю. Уверена, что с каждым разом буду находить что-то новое. Сезонов и серий не так много, что, наверно, даже хорошо — нужно уметь заканчивать истории вовремя, на хорошей ноте, пока они не сдулись.

Прекрасная работа от HBO и Аарона Соркина. Для тех, кто любят умные шоу и смотрят сериалы не только для траты своего свободного времени. Желаю вам приятного просмотра!

Фото: kinopoisk.

Lack of female sources in NY Times front-page stories highlights need for change

In an analysis of 352 front-page stories from the Times in January and February 2013, we found that Times reporters quoted 3.4 times as many male sources as female sources.

Read more at Poynter

3

Cable on Climate Science

Via the Union of Concerned Scientists:

CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in the U.S. Their coverage of climate change is an influential source of information for the public and policy makers alike.

To gauge how accurately these networks inform their audiences about climate change, UCS analyzed the networks’ climate science coverage in 2013 and found that each network treated climate science very differently.

Fox News was the least accurate; 72 percent of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was the most accurate, with only eight percent of segments containing misleading statements.

Read the overview here, or jump to the study here (PDF).

Images: Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science, via Union of Concerned Scientists

6

New York Times reporter James Risen, via Twitter.

James Risen recently won the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Journalism Award for excellence in journalism.

The Pulitzer Prize winning national security reporter has long been hounded by the US Justice Department to disclose his confidential sources from his 2006 book State of War.

As the Washington Post wrote back in August, “Prosecutors want Mr. Risen’s testimony in their case against Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA official who is accused of leaking details of a failed operation against Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Risen properly has refused to identify his source, at the risk of imprisonment. Such confidential sources are a pillar of how journalists obtain information. If Mr. Risen is forced to reveal the identity of a source, it will damage the ability of journalists to promise confidentiality to sources and to probe government behavior.”

While accepting the Lovejoy Award, Risen had this to say:

The conventional wisdom of our day is the belief that we have had to change the nature of our society to accommodate the global war on terror. Incrementally over the last thirteen years, Americans have easily accepted a transformation of their way of life because they have been told that it is necessary to keep them safe. Americans now slip off their shoes on command at airports, have accepted the secret targeted killings of other Americans without due process, have accepted the use of torture and the creation of secret offshore prisons, have accepted mass surveillance of their personal communications, and accepted the longest continual period of war in American history. Meanwhile, the government has eagerly prosecuted whistleblowers who try to bring any of the government’s actions to light.

Americans have accepted this new reality with hardly a murmur. Today, the basic prerequisite to being taken seriously in American politics is to accept the legitimacy of the new national security state that has been created since 9/11. The new basic American assumption is that there really is a need for a global war on terror. Anyone who doesn’t accept that basic assumption is considered dangerous and maybe even a traitor.

Today, the U.S. government treats whistleblowers as criminals, much like Elijah Lovejoy, because they want to reveal uncomfortable truths about the government’s actions. And the public and the mainstream press often accept and champion the government’s approach, viewing whistleblowers as dangerous fringe characters because they are not willing to follow orders and remain silent.

The crackdown on leaks by first the Bush administration and more aggressively by the Obama administration, targeting both whistleblowers and journalists, has been designed to suppress the truth about the war on terror. This government campaign of censorship has come with the veneer of the law. Instead of mobs throwing printing presses in the Mississippi River, instead of the creation of the kind of “enemies lists” that President Richard Nixon kept, the Bush and Obama administrations have used the Department of Justice to do their bidding. But the effect is the same — the attorney general of the United States has been turned into the nation’s chief censorship officer. Whenever the White House or the intelligence community get angry about a story in the press, they turn to the Justice Department and the FBI and get them to start a criminal leak investigation, to make sure everybody shuts up.

What the White House wants is to establish limits on accepted reporting on national security and on the war on terror. By launching criminal investigations of stories that are outside the mainstream coverage, they are trying to, in effect, build a pathway on which journalism can be conducted. Stay on the interstate highway of conventional wisdom with your journalism, and you will have no problems. Try to get off and challenge basic assumptions, and you will face punishment.

Journalists have no choice but to fight back, because if they don’t they will become irrelevant.

Bonus: The NSA and Me, James Bamford’s account of covering the agency over the last 30 years, via The Intercept.

Double Bonus: Elijah Parish Lovejoy was a minister in the first half of the 19th century who edited an abolitionist paper called the St. Louis Observer. He was murdered by a pro-slavery mob in 1837. More via Wikipedia.

Images: Selected tweets via James Risen.

Why Not Occupy Newsrooms?

Almost two weeks ago, USA Today put its finger on why the Occupy Wall Street protests continued to gain traction.

“The bonus system has gone beyond a means of rewarding talent and is now Wall Street’s primary business,” the newspaper editorial stated, adding: “Institutions take huge gambles because the short-term returns are a rationale for their rich payouts. But even when the consequences of their risky behavior come back to haunt them, they still pay huge bonuses.”

Well thought and well put, but for one thing: If you were looking for bonus excess despite miserable operations, the best recent example I can think of is Gannett, which owns USA Today.

The week before the editorial ran, Craig A. Dubow resigned as Gannett’s chief executive. His short six-year tenure was, by most accounts, a disaster. Gannett’s stock price declined to about $10 a share from a high of $75 the day after he took over; the number of employees at Gannett plummeted to 32,000 from about 52,000, resulting in a remarkable diminution in journalistic boots on the ground at the 82 newspapers the company owns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/business/media/why-not-occupy-newsrooms.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

8

Please don’t transfer one of us. We don’t work together enough, but the little we do works. And if you ask Sloan to choose between me and her job, you wouldn’t be able to get that sentence out before she said her job. And I really like her and I’m trying to be good enough and this here is the best thing that I do.