As cheesy and cliche as it is, I want to use this last blog post as an opportunity to reflect on my capstone experience this semester.
Understandably so, I was a little nervous about what this semester would entail. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly excited. I had only heard good things from capstone vets that it's an incredible experience, the lecture discussions are lively and engaging, the work is like nothing we've done before. But I couldn't help but feel a little intimidated.
Upon starting doing work for our individual teams, I was really looking forward to working with my group and everyone involved. I had this idea in my head of what it would be like, keeping an open-mind and staying flexible. When we started getting assigned individual assignments, I couldn't help but feel sad that I wasn't able to work directly with my group mates. We were all busy trying to do what was asked of us, which left little time or room to interact and work with one another. We decided to change things up so we could be in more direct contact with each other, and that certainly helped.
While I enjoyed having the opportunity to work with programs and software I was unfamiliar with, and pushing myself to tackle the assignments we were given, I took away much more than sharpening and developing those skills from this whole experience.
I learned the importance of communication amongst all members of a team; the leader, the supervisor, the ones cranking out the work. Proper communication ensures that everyone is on the same page. It establishes trust.
I learned to speak up when something doesn't seem right. I've always had a hard time doing so. I'm pretty shy by nature, and I always fear that I'll sound stupid or that I'll bother the person I'm confronting. But after multiple experiences of feeling like something wasn't going right, or that I wasn't being treated fairly, I knew I had to stand up for myself. I knew nothing was going to change if I didn't, and that no one could voice my opinion for me.
I learned what it means to be a team player. It means having someone's back when they're struggling. It means making sure everyone is in the loop. It means doing whatever you have to do to ensure that things function smoothly, whether that means helping someone with their assignment, or sending group texts at all hours of the morning/night.
I learned about respect. I found that once my group members and I started working together more frequently and forming a tighter bond, our respect for one another grew. We respected each other's opinions, their ideas, the work they were doing. I learned about respecting myself in the sense that I won't let anyone make me feel inferior or take advantage of my shy and reserved nature. I learned that while it's important to show respect to your higher-ups, the dynamic of the team simply cannot function at its best if the respect isn't reciprocated.
I'm pleased with my capstone experience. All I wanted from it was to walk away having learned something and having developed and sharpened my skills, and I did. I had the opportunity to work with students that I hadn't worked closely with before. I'm walking away from my capstone feeling excited to see how I can put what I learned to use.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
An Example of What Not To Do When Covering Suicide
When reading this article from the Business Standard, I
could hardly make it past the first sentence, let alone the headline, without feeling
disgusted. However, I wanted to write about this article as to use it as an
example of what not to do when
covering suicide.
The article began by explaining that a young woman, mother
of two, took her life by jumping into a well with her two young children.
Shortly after, her husband also took his life.
It continues on to explain that the husband and wife had had
a verbal altercation on Thursday, prompting the wife to take her and her
18-month old and 6-month-old with her as she ended her life.
It went on to include a quote from a police officer about
the details of the incident, as well as how the bodies were dealt with. It was
a short article, but it nonetheless screamed volumes about how best not to
cover suicide.
Based on my research and insight from various sources on covering
suicide, there is no real benefit in including speculations as to why someone may have taken their life.
We will never really know, and drawing conclusions and making assumptions does
nothing for the grieving and healing process for those who’s loved ones were
lost. Blaming it on a verbal altercation between the husband and wife is a
blatant assumption, and can only distract family and friends from mourning
their loss and appreciating the life and in turn puts the focus on anger and
obtaining justice.
It’s also a red flag to me that this journalist included a
quote from a police office. While it might be important to get information from
a first responder as far as understanding the gist of the situation, it is not
their place to speculate and make statements about why this tragedy may have
occurred. They are experts of the law, but they are not experts on mental
illness and what may lead someone to take their life (at least, I can safely
and confidently assume.)
This article also included some details that while they
weren’t directly graphic, they definitely painted a picture in my head as I
read it, and it wasn't pretty. It’s quite the tragedy that this woman took her
two young children with her as she decided to end her life; that is certainly
newsworthy. But I felt uncomfortable about them including the names of the
children. You wouldn’t normally include the name of young children unless given
specific permission to do so, and I don’t think it was necessary. Nor do I
think it was necessary to include that, “the bodies were pulled out from the
well last night and handed over to the family members,” because no one needs
that visual, and saying that they were “handed over” to family members makes it
sound like they weren’t even human beings; they were garbage being tossed
around.
I don’t want to believe that this is considered a
respectable piece of journalism, or that it was purposefully published to serve
as an example of how not to cover suicide in the media. I don’t think this
article did these people justice, and it painted their deaths in such a
glamorized and entertainment-like way that dehumanizes them. The most important
part about writing on suicide is remembering that this was a person. A person
who had emotions, who had loved ones, who lived. It’s important to focus on
these aspects of the story as opposed to narrowly discussing the details of the
event itself.
Covering Violence: Writing the Trauma Story
Our reading from this week in "Covering Violence" focused on the process of writing a trauma story. While I've been getting more and more comfortable with the the principles of covering trauma, I was still uneasy about how to actually go about writing the story itself.
There were a handful of important take-aways from this chapter, but there were two that I wanted to reflect on specifically because I think they're very much related: accuracy and details.
Storie on trauma are difficult to cover in the first place- mentally, emotionally, sometimes even physically- but even more damage can be done if the details of the event aren't completely accurate. It paints a different picture from what actually occurred and can glamorize things in a way that is completely insensitive to those impacted by the trauma. Something as seemingly minute as misspelling someone's name, an inaccurate description of their job or career, or the chronology of the event can be incredibly harmful to those grieving from the event.
Accuracy is important in any, in every news story rather, but even more so when emotions are at the peak of devastation and heart ache. As a journalist, it is our job to be accurate, to tell the story as it happened, to represent the event and the people involved in the most sensitive and respectable manner.
But what about when was is accurate is too graphic and painful to include? How can we go about telling the story in the most accurate way if we have to be mindful of the harm the details of the event can do? The chapter suggested that, "Sometimes, sadly, it is impossible not to report critical details details of a crime without adding to the grief of families of friends. Journalists often must be the bearers of bad news, like it or not," (Simpson and Cote, 124).
It's a fine line to walk in regard to what kind of information is important in the coverage of a traumatic event and what kind of information will provoke horror or devastation. A lot of it is about personal judgment and reflection: Is this really necessary? What good does this information do for this story? I think as journalists, we need to remember that these stories are about people, and that we are people, and to think about the purpose of the information that is included and how it will contribute to the narrative of the story.
There were a handful of important take-aways from this chapter, but there were two that I wanted to reflect on specifically because I think they're very much related: accuracy and details.
Storie on trauma are difficult to cover in the first place- mentally, emotionally, sometimes even physically- but even more damage can be done if the details of the event aren't completely accurate. It paints a different picture from what actually occurred and can glamorize things in a way that is completely insensitive to those impacted by the trauma. Something as seemingly minute as misspelling someone's name, an inaccurate description of their job or career, or the chronology of the event can be incredibly harmful to those grieving from the event.
Accuracy is important in any, in every news story rather, but even more so when emotions are at the peak of devastation and heart ache. As a journalist, it is our job to be accurate, to tell the story as it happened, to represent the event and the people involved in the most sensitive and respectable manner.
But what about when was is accurate is too graphic and painful to include? How can we go about telling the story in the most accurate way if we have to be mindful of the harm the details of the event can do? The chapter suggested that, "Sometimes, sadly, it is impossible not to report critical details details of a crime without adding to the grief of families of friends. Journalists often must be the bearers of bad news, like it or not," (Simpson and Cote, 124).
It's a fine line to walk in regard to what kind of information is important in the coverage of a traumatic event and what kind of information will provoke horror or devastation. A lot of it is about personal judgment and reflection: Is this really necessary? What good does this information do for this story? I think as journalists, we need to remember that these stories are about people, and that we are people, and to think about the purpose of the information that is included and how it will contribute to the narrative of the story.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Adventure Fifteen: Bad things happen to good people
I came across an article today from EliteDaily.com titled, "Bad Things Don't Happen To Good People, Bad Things Create Good People."
Wow, way to give it all away right away. Regardless, I decided to skim through the article to see what it had to offer.
It began with a heart-warming introduction about what makes a person good, how experiences in life shapes people, yadda yadda yadda. It continued with a list of reasons why/how bad things create good people and ended with the cliche, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" quote. I absolutely lost it.
Yes, I believe that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Yes, I can appreciate the optimistic approach this author had when writing this piece, because I like to think of myself as an optimistic person. But what I could not get on board with was the complete and total disregard for the fact that when bad things happen, people are impacted. And it's tough. I want to take a look at what the author had to say about when bad things happen, and fill in the holes they neglected to acknowledge.
"Accidents don't deter good people; they reinvent them."
I'm not even entirely sure what the author meant by "accidents" or how they would define them. It makes it difficult to analyze this assertion, but I digress.
"Rejection doesn't make them hard and cold; it makes them appreciative and grateful."
I've faced my fair share of rejection; academically, romantically, socially, professionally-- and I'm sure many people can relate. We all face rejection at some point in some regard. And I would be incredibly surprised to meet someone who didn't feel a little bitter after the fact. Of course it sucks. It's discouraging, it feels like a personal jab, and it takes a toll on confidence. The author continued on to say, "So what if someone rejects you? Who f*cking cares?" I have to stop it right there, because you know who cares? I do. And so does that person who got rejected. And that person. The victim cares, and it's just wrong to negate that.
"Toxic relationships don't poison them; they make them immune to bulls*t"
I have such an issue with this one. I have witnessed the impact of toxic relationships on people. I was involved in a relationship that turned incredibly toxic, and it was poisoning. It influenced the way I conducted myself in relationships afterward, how I felt about myself, how I viewed relationships in general. Being involved in a toxic relationship bruises the psyche in a daunting way and it's ignorant to ignore it.
"Failure doesn't frustrate them; it motivates them."
I don't want to make assumptions as to whether or not this author has failed something before. However, I'd be incredibly surprised to meet someone who just received an F on an exam or project that wasn't pissed. Putting the effort into producing a product or studying only to receive a failing grade in return is frustrating as all hell. Time feels wasted, effort seems unappreciated, confidence dwindles. Failure sucks.
"Mistakes don't break them; they teach them."
Similar to the point on accidents, "mistakes" is undefined and incredibly vague. The severity of a given mistake is largely dependent on a variety of factors, but in the most serious of interpretations, mistakes are crushing. Sometimes they require something as simple as an apology, but even in that sense, one must consider the person or people who were impacted by said mistake. Maybe they don't want to accept the apology, then what? Relationships can crumble at the hand of one's mistake, and that thought is terrifying.
"Losing someone doesn't make them question life; it makes them live it up."
I'm going to confidently make the assumption that everyone reading this has lost someone at some point in their life. If so, you might agree that there are few words to accurately describe the pain and heartache that death inflicts. When my close friend passed away in a car accident when she was 15, I couldn't help but question life. All I could/can think about are the why's- Why them? Why a car accident? Why so young? Why my friend? Of course, you question life. Because life, and death, are complex. I believe it's part of the mourning process, and that's okay.
"Hitting rock bottom doesn't make them give up; it makes them work harder."
To lighten this up a bit, I'll refer to one of my favorite movies- Bridesmaids. If you haven't seen it, please do because it's hysterical. But to sum it up- girl has sh*tty job, sh*tty living situation, sh*tty love life, you name it. When her best friend gets engaged and asks her to be her maid of honor, another chick comes in and tries to take her place and "steal her bff." Things escalated and eventually, the main character loses her job, gets kicked out of her apartment, is totally screwed over by the guy she liked, and was revoked from her duty as maid of honor. She spirals into a depressive slump and finds difficult in pulling herself out. Rock bottom is not pretty, and it's completely discouraging.
"Suffering doesn't defeat them; it teaches them what's worth fighting for."
The author doesn't specify what kind of suffering they are referring to, which makes it difficult to analyze their thought. However, suffering is powerful and complex. Getting through tough times is challenging, and the most severe cases of suffering can be difficult to overcome based on a variety of circumstantial variables.
"Breaking up doesn't make them lose faith in love; it makes them look for something better."
I experienced a nasty break-up during the beginning of my freshman year of college. It was my high school sweetheart and, while I was young and naive, I saw a future with them. When things ended, I became bitter and discouraged at the thought of love. I was heartbroken, I felt betrayed, and I wasn't sure how to go on. Even when it's a mutual break up, it's difficult to imagine ever feeling that type of way again, or to have faith in the relationships all around.
"Betrayal doesn't make them trust other people less; it makes them trust themselves more."
Sorry I'm not sorry, but what kind of person doesn't have a tainted perception of trust after being betrayed? Betrayal, as I understand it, is intentional. An accidental screw-up that causes someone pain is one thing; an intentional screw-up, a betrayal, is another. Moving on after a betrayal is difficult; you find it difficult to trust others and yourself. Betrayal seems so easy for some people to carry out, to disguise as sincerity. How can we be sure we're not being fooled?
"Being alone doesn't make them lonely; it helps them figure out who they are."
Loneliness can be painful. Looking beside you and realizing no one is there, that you're alone, can be extremely devastating. It becomes difficult to reach out for fear of bothering others, or of rejection. There's a dire thirst for interaction and for affection because often times, we find ourselves through out interactions with others, through conversation and discussion.
I felt extremely compelled to address the points in this article because they're things we have to consider. We can't overlook the hardship that people go through when bad things happen. Their feelings are real, the hurt is real, the struggle is real. It's completely insensitive to act like these emotions and experiences aren't real, because we've all felt them at some point, or will in the future.
I realize my critique was a bit harsh, so I want to clear the air- like I said, I appreciate the optimism the author had. I know they wrote this with good intentions. And to be quite honest, I agree with almost everything they said in regard to how these bad things make good people. My only real critique, I suppose, then, is that there needs to be recognition of the time it takes to overcome these obstacles. It's not a quick or easy process. It takes time and support. Given time, yes, bad things do make good people.
Wow, way to give it all away right away. Regardless, I decided to skim through the article to see what it had to offer.
It began with a heart-warming introduction about what makes a person good, how experiences in life shapes people, yadda yadda yadda. It continued with a list of reasons why/how bad things create good people and ended with the cliche, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" quote. I absolutely lost it.
Yes, I believe that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Yes, I can appreciate the optimistic approach this author had when writing this piece, because I like to think of myself as an optimistic person. But what I could not get on board with was the complete and total disregard for the fact that when bad things happen, people are impacted. And it's tough. I want to take a look at what the author had to say about when bad things happen, and fill in the holes they neglected to acknowledge.
"Accidents don't deter good people; they reinvent them."
I'm not even entirely sure what the author meant by "accidents" or how they would define them. It makes it difficult to analyze this assertion, but I digress.
"Rejection doesn't make them hard and cold; it makes them appreciative and grateful."
I've faced my fair share of rejection; academically, romantically, socially, professionally-- and I'm sure many people can relate. We all face rejection at some point in some regard. And I would be incredibly surprised to meet someone who didn't feel a little bitter after the fact. Of course it sucks. It's discouraging, it feels like a personal jab, and it takes a toll on confidence. The author continued on to say, "So what if someone rejects you? Who f*cking cares?" I have to stop it right there, because you know who cares? I do. And so does that person who got rejected. And that person. The victim cares, and it's just wrong to negate that.
"Toxic relationships don't poison them; they make them immune to bulls*t"
I have such an issue with this one. I have witnessed the impact of toxic relationships on people. I was involved in a relationship that turned incredibly toxic, and it was poisoning. It influenced the way I conducted myself in relationships afterward, how I felt about myself, how I viewed relationships in general. Being involved in a toxic relationship bruises the psyche in a daunting way and it's ignorant to ignore it.
"Failure doesn't frustrate them; it motivates them."
I don't want to make assumptions as to whether or not this author has failed something before. However, I'd be incredibly surprised to meet someone who just received an F on an exam or project that wasn't pissed. Putting the effort into producing a product or studying only to receive a failing grade in return is frustrating as all hell. Time feels wasted, effort seems unappreciated, confidence dwindles. Failure sucks.
"Mistakes don't break them; they teach them."
Similar to the point on accidents, "mistakes" is undefined and incredibly vague. The severity of a given mistake is largely dependent on a variety of factors, but in the most serious of interpretations, mistakes are crushing. Sometimes they require something as simple as an apology, but even in that sense, one must consider the person or people who were impacted by said mistake. Maybe they don't want to accept the apology, then what? Relationships can crumble at the hand of one's mistake, and that thought is terrifying.
"Losing someone doesn't make them question life; it makes them live it up."
I'm going to confidently make the assumption that everyone reading this has lost someone at some point in their life. If so, you might agree that there are few words to accurately describe the pain and heartache that death inflicts. When my close friend passed away in a car accident when she was 15, I couldn't help but question life. All I could/can think about are the why's- Why them? Why a car accident? Why so young? Why my friend? Of course, you question life. Because life, and death, are complex. I believe it's part of the mourning process, and that's okay.
"Hitting rock bottom doesn't make them give up; it makes them work harder."
To lighten this up a bit, I'll refer to one of my favorite movies- Bridesmaids. If you haven't seen it, please do because it's hysterical. But to sum it up- girl has sh*tty job, sh*tty living situation, sh*tty love life, you name it. When her best friend gets engaged and asks her to be her maid of honor, another chick comes in and tries to take her place and "steal her bff." Things escalated and eventually, the main character loses her job, gets kicked out of her apartment, is totally screwed over by the guy she liked, and was revoked from her duty as maid of honor. She spirals into a depressive slump and finds difficult in pulling herself out. Rock bottom is not pretty, and it's completely discouraging.
"Suffering doesn't defeat them; it teaches them what's worth fighting for."
The author doesn't specify what kind of suffering they are referring to, which makes it difficult to analyze their thought. However, suffering is powerful and complex. Getting through tough times is challenging, and the most severe cases of suffering can be difficult to overcome based on a variety of circumstantial variables.
"Breaking up doesn't make them lose faith in love; it makes them look for something better."
I experienced a nasty break-up during the beginning of my freshman year of college. It was my high school sweetheart and, while I was young and naive, I saw a future with them. When things ended, I became bitter and discouraged at the thought of love. I was heartbroken, I felt betrayed, and I wasn't sure how to go on. Even when it's a mutual break up, it's difficult to imagine ever feeling that type of way again, or to have faith in the relationships all around.
"Betrayal doesn't make them trust other people less; it makes them trust themselves more."
Sorry I'm not sorry, but what kind of person doesn't have a tainted perception of trust after being betrayed? Betrayal, as I understand it, is intentional. An accidental screw-up that causes someone pain is one thing; an intentional screw-up, a betrayal, is another. Moving on after a betrayal is difficult; you find it difficult to trust others and yourself. Betrayal seems so easy for some people to carry out, to disguise as sincerity. How can we be sure we're not being fooled?
"Being alone doesn't make them lonely; it helps them figure out who they are."
Loneliness can be painful. Looking beside you and realizing no one is there, that you're alone, can be extremely devastating. It becomes difficult to reach out for fear of bothering others, or of rejection. There's a dire thirst for interaction and for affection because often times, we find ourselves through out interactions with others, through conversation and discussion.
I felt extremely compelled to address the points in this article because they're things we have to consider. We can't overlook the hardship that people go through when bad things happen. Their feelings are real, the hurt is real, the struggle is real. It's completely insensitive to act like these emotions and experiences aren't real, because we've all felt them at some point, or will in the future.
I realize my critique was a bit harsh, so I want to clear the air- like I said, I appreciate the optimism the author had. I know they wrote this with good intentions. And to be quite honest, I agree with almost everything they said in regard to how these bad things make good people. My only real critique, I suppose, then, is that there needs to be recognition of the time it takes to overcome these obstacles. It's not a quick or easy process. It takes time and support. Given time, yes, bad things do make good people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)