Lou Grant Episode 1

Watching Lou Grant, I find it to be very interesting. I almost wish that I were alive during that time to do journalism that way.  I like the old-school way of things, how everything is print, the journalists are so committed, and the inside sources.

Watching it, I learned about how much controversy journalists actually have to uncover. I had no idea how much digging journalists really had to do and how much time they really had to put into their articles. It's almost as if they don't have time for a social life because the new and world never stops for you.

Good leads vs. Bad ones

BAD

"SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea claimed on Tuesday to have missiles that can reach the American mainland, and it said that the recent agreement between Washington and the South Korean government to extend the range of South Korean ballistic missiles was increasing the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula." 

• The New York Times published this article today, and immediately the lead got my attention, but that was only because I am afraid of North Korean missiles.  I feel that there is too much information in the lead, or the sentence is too much of a run on.  It is a very wordy lead, as picky as that makes me sound, and Korea is said so many times I forgot which one I was supposed to be afraid of.

"ROSWELL, N.M. (AP) — Plans for extreme athlete and skydiver Felix Baumgartner to make a death-defying, 23-mile free fall into the southeastern New Mexico desert were on hold Tuesday morning due to winds, but his team was still hoping the weather would clear after sunrise in time to make the jump."

• I can't figure out what it is about this lead that I don't like.  It might be that there is too much information.  I think that they could have put "but his team was still hoping the weather would clear after sunrise in time to make the jump." in the second paragraph considering it is not vital information to the reader.

"On the occasion of being named the Sexiest Woman Alive by Esquire Magazine, Mila Kunis reiterated her pro-Obama, anti-GOP views."

• Putting all of my love for Mila Kunis aside, (I clicked on the article for her), I hate the lead. It doesn't tell me enough. It doesn't tell me specifics. It's very bland. I wish it said what she was so opposed to, what kind of view. As an uninformed citizen I don't even know what an anti-GOP view is.

GOOD

"About 13,000 people may have been exposed to the tainted steroid that has been linked to a growing outbreak of fungal meningitis, a spokesman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Monday. The outbreak has killed 8 people and sickened 97 others in 23 states. More cases are expected."

• The New York Times published this article on October 8th.  I think that this is a really good example of a good lead.  It gives hard numbers which readers like, it tells you the who, what, when, where and why and it gives the reader a reason to keep reading.

"BELLEFONTE, Pa. — Jerry Sandusky has been sentenced to at least 30 years in prison in the child sexual abuse scandal that brought shame to Penn State and led to coach Joe Paterno's downfall."

• The Record, a North Jersey newspaper that I just so happen to be addicted to, published this article about Jerry Sandusky.  I love this lead because the reader doesn't even have to go any further with the reading... I didn't. I know all that I need to know with this lead and (happily) exited out of the article.

"(Reuters) - The U.S. government filed a civil mortgage fraud lawsuit on Tuesday against Wells Fargo & Co, the latest legal volley against big banks for their lending during the housing boom." 

• I like this lead. It's straight forward and tells me exactly what they are going to talk about.  It gives you the 5 W's, just the way it should and is extremely concise.

UMass Hinders First Amendment Right

FIRE- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, called out UMass as being one of the worst Universities for the policies put into place hindering students First Amendment Rights.

UMass has put policies on rallies that FIRE thinks to be absurd.  The first aspect of the policy is that students need to plan rallies 24 hours in advance.  FIRE feels that this limits the students to be able to react to the current world. 

Personally I do not know if I fully agree with FIRE on that because I know that the University is looking out for the students best interest. Yes, it does alter the students reaction time, but the University just wants to be able to have security there to keep from something absolutely tragic happening.

FIRE has a problem with UMass' definition of rallies- "events where people freely assemble around a common cause(s) and/or point(s) of advocacy." Obviously UMass made the definition so broad because of the many cases where they may have to defend themselves against rallies.  As a UMass student, I see both sides as to why the school would need to restrict the rallies, especially after seeing the rally videos post-superbowl. 

I do agree with the fact that UMass cannot restrict the students to where they protest or rally.  Only giving the Student Union steps to the students during a certain number of hours is not enough.  The steps are large, but they aren't that large.. With over 20,000 students, where do you expect all of them to stand. What if the majority of the school actually wants to participate in a specific rally? That is just making the steps an extremely dangerous place for the UMass students, isn't it?

So... Burning an American flag is ok?

In the Supreme Court Case of Texas v. Johnson, I couldn't imagine ruling in favor of Johnson. Johnson had burned a flag in protest of the Reagan administration policies. If Americans begin to disrespect the symbol of our country and our freedom, how will other countries, especially our enemies view us?

I personally feel that if you want to live in America, and exercise the rights that you have, you should have more respect for your country.  Burning an American flag is an enormous slap in the face to the countless people who died fighting for the right that you are abusing. It is one thing to exercise the freedom of speech and it is another to abuse.

Knowing the amount of lives that were taken in order for you to be able to burn a flag, you should at least have the decency to not burn the symbol of them.  People to this day are dying in order to protect the rights that you feel so privileged to.

Clearly I have an extremely biased opinion to this topic, and in my class discussion others were removing themselves emotionally and looking at it as a right to petition.  For some reason, I just cannot remove my feelings from this, and feel that the law should have favored with Texas.