Ed Wasserman

Before Ed Wasserman came to FIU I read his bio, an interview, and a couple of stories he wrote for the Herald.  He was an obviously interesting guy who valued his own opinion, which I respect.  Also, since he is a researcher, it was clear he was smart.  I was interested to hear what he'd have to say to a bunch of college student about Ethics, and what way he would take to get through to us.  
When he started his speech I couldn't really follow him.  I didn't really know where it was going but I figured it was his introduction to the point.  But as I struggled to listen, more and more I realized I had no idea what the guy was talking about.  For a brief moment he started to give the example of a college student who did a story on her professor and fellow classmates without them knowing, and I thought he had finally started on ethics.  But he left that subject quickly and continued to spit out wordy sentences really fast.  I sat there for 45 minutes completely confused.
Maybe I'm an idiot.  Maybe he spoke too fast.  All I know is I was actively listening, and  he was saying something of possible substance, and somewhere in between we were lost in translation.

Arnold Markowitz

After watching Arnold Markowitz struggle in a tough interview, even with all of his experience, it made me think about what I would have done.  Before he entered the house of the step-grandfather who just lost his grandchild hours before, he offered condolences.  I know that I would do the same, and it would probably be before I said anything else.  I wouldn't be able to ask someone for the favor of interviewing them before showing them that I sympathize with their situation.  I think the best thing to say would be something along the lines of: "Mr/Mrs. _____, I'm Elizabeth Velez from the Beacon.  I can't imagine what you're going through right now, but I'm hoping you would give me a couple of minutes to talk about what happened."  However, after Markowitz gets the interview, he mentions the organization that helps people overcome the loss of a murdered child.  I found the mention of the word "murder" to be a step to far, even as someone who was just watching the interview.  It wasn't offensive, just too shocking for the moment.  I learned from that to keep the human side to a minimum, and mostly stick to the interview you came for.

Front Page Worthy?

Every morning I read the Miami Herald with my breakfast.  I'm usually more drawn to the front page or local news, but lately I've felt like the Herald reporters haven't found anything interesting to write about.  The last straw was the front page article about MTV's new web application that let's you give yourself plastic surgery.  It's called "Heidi Yourself" after a reality TV star who is more plastic than my Tupperware.  Seriously, that's what the Herald considers front page worthy?  I looked through the rest of the paper to see if I could find an article that I thought was more front page worthy, even an ad!  Soon after I started looking I found a perfectly interesting story on page 9.  One year ago three U.S hikers were arrested along the Iraq-Iran border.  Though their families say they were trying to enjoy Iran's scenic areas, Tehran's chief prosecutor says they had equipment and received training.  Hmm, boys scouts training, maybe?

While two of them will soon be put through spy trials, one of them, Sarah Shourd, will finally be released after a $500,000 bail is paid.  The two men who are still detained, however, may face prison sentences of up to 10 years.  I don't know about other Herald readers, but I found that article a lot more interesting than a website that can show me what I would look like with an unnecessary face-lift.

A Well-Written Article...Or Was It?

I find this article well written mostly because it’s highly informative.  Every sentence has an important fact, and every paragraph touches a new idea.  However, the writer, Jay Weaver, stays focused on the court settlement, and doesn’t go off on a tangent about the con artist’s personal life.  Also, many of the facts are concrete, and the article doesn’t exceed its necessary limit.  It kept me interested throughout its entirety, despite the article’s inverted pyramid approach.

            I think the lead is well written because it wasn’t a mouth full, yet it introduced a detailed article.  It also showed that Weaver did his research, making the rest of the article more compelling.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/30/1799861/restitution-ordered-but-pot-limited.html

Now that I have more information on what makes good writing and journalism, I still think the article is well-written from the informative aspect, but I can see that it's missing some important characteristics.  A majority of the quotes Weaver used didn’t add substance to his piece.  For example, when he quoted Edward Pozzuoli, a lawyer to one of the fraud victims, it was information that was obvious and already included in the text.  Weaver also wasn’t “fair” enough to get different sides of the story.  He mentions that certain victims that weren’t the common wealthy investor were going to receive their entire investment back, unlike the others.  However, Weaver didn’t get any quotes from one of those 40 victims.  Instead he only quoted a wealthy investor, therefore he didn’t succeed in giving “a voice to the voiceless.”