Today’s class reflected a few interesting points that were impactful. When discussing quotes and interviews, it was beneficial to hear about breaking them down to be more “digestible” for the reader to rake in and understand. As writers, we may want to incorporate as much as we can for credibility, so integrating multiple perspectives and getting directly to the people most involved with our topics is vital for us as journalists. On the other hand, we also need to know when to cut out unnecessary particulars or overly explanatory details where we may lose the reader.
Another constructive comment came from Nick during Zak’s discussion about including that reliability when examining Maine colleges. In his piece, he compares the parking situation to Massachusetts colleges, but if it is kept locally in Maine, it may be easier for readers to compare apples to apples. I liked this particular comment as it helps with the scope of our writing and how one must stay on topic as well as be aware of their audience. These comments are beneficial for the writers because once they are so involved in a piece, it becomes challenging to identify these particular flaws.
Today’s class included a very lively discussion, and both comments that I chose were posed to me. I found these comments more useful than other comments, as they were particularly tailored to my article.
The first piece of advice given to me that I found to be helpful was given by Finn, and he advised me to add more information about UNE into my article. I think that following this advice will help me to find my focus, and to cut out unnecessary information. The class suggested that a way I might do that is to add another UNE centered interview, possibly with an alumnus.
A second piece of advice that I found particularly useful today was to add some information about the Portland campus, and possibly add an interview from a student there. This addition would give more of an insight into the daily life of a college student on a more urban campus, rather than our quiet campus in Biddeford. The article would be more inclusive and well-rounded with the addition, and I think it will give me a lot more credibility.
There were so many good and insightful comments made in class today. But the two that stuck with me. Was one from Elia about how if you have so much information, and how to comb through it and break it up into smaller more digestible paragraphs, like working through it pinpointing what works and what doesn’t work in the paragraph. I think this is important because deciding what you’re writing about and what you are going to focus on for the story. Is very important you don’t want all kinds of board information that doesn’t really have a direction or focus in a story. Then the second comment I wanted to focus on from Zak about making a headline that makes sense. Even though it’s such a small detail it is in no way minor to the aspect of writing a feature in journalism. The title makes a rough outline for the reader to know what the story is about. It introduces it and gives the reader an idea and context on what is going on in the story. I believe that these two points were very important to focus on in the discussion today.
In today’s class, there were a few really strong pieces of advice that stuck out to me. Specifically, Zak’s advice to Finn about “finding the story” was especially insightful, as I also sometimes find it hard to keep one focus in mind. Additionally, I think this advice was especially profound, as it was something that Finn had provided to another peer before today, so I think that it was especially resourceful of Zak to use relevant and familiar information to help a classmate.
Similarly, another piece of useful advice given was from Elia to Nick about some minor formatting errors. I think that, sometimes, the smaller aspects of revising can be harder to solve than some major issues, so getting assistance in fixing those small details can ultimately make or break a story.
From class today, I picked up on a few bits of advice that I could see myself using in the future. The first came from workshopping Nick’s draft from Kristen discussing concision. She mentioned that who we are interviewing is crucial, not why we are interviewing them. This means the reader needs to know why they are relevant but does not need all the nitty-gritty details of the interview itself. As the conversation continued, it was stated that the behind-the-scenes information is not needed; this stuck with me in keeping ourselves, as journalists, out of the narrative.
The second comment arose from Kayleigh while contemplating Finn’s feature. She questions his subheading, as it feels like questions for drafting, which is more behind-the-scenes work than what would be in a final feature. Professor Miller talked about the process of cutting and revision in journalism. As a perfectionist, it can be challenging to let parts you believe to be good go, but since they may stray slightly from the angle, they must be removed to fix the focus. Journalism is the process of obtaining and filtering that information, which can be a lengthy process, but is critical for creating a well-thought-out and well-rounded feature story.
The peer review workshop today touched on a lot of helpful and recursive themes that have come up throughout the process. One moment that stood out to me at the beginning of class was when we workshopped Tony’s piece, and Kristen offered the advice, “Take the journalist out of the journalism.” Not only is it a very clever and succinct way to sum up her constructive point in finding focus and honing in on reporting style, but it also allows us all to think about how essential it is to maintain that separation from ourselves and our beliefs from what we aim to report and highlight other voices. Another key comment from our peer editors was Kayliegh’s comment to Finn on how since his story is on rugby and could be more “punchy,” there could be a less formal tone and things like limiting the questions to self within the story that pulls the reader out. Kayleigh also had some great points earlier in the class on storytelling and how, for instance, when Tony found his angle at the conclusion of his article, bringing that in from the start can really help the reader understand the greater importance and want to continue reading.
During the last editorial session on Friday, 3/1, there were a few comments that stood out to me as being most helpful. I thought that Kristen’s comment about the specific grammar of certain phrases, as well as concision, were helpful, as it was pointing out specific points to improve the article. She also made a comment about a certain sentence that wasn’t helping move the article forward, which I thought was especially relevant. As journalism students, we should try to be concise and precise with our words, so the ideas she brought forward were helpful as a point of reference for anyone trying to be more concise in their writing. Another suggestion that I thought was helpful was made by Professor Miller, where he discussed the importance and specific structure of AP formatting. He mentioned that attributing quotations using parentheses was not AP format, as well as going more into detail about how attribution should be made. He also mentioned that paragraphs specifically should not be more than 3-4 sentences in length, which is a useful guideline to keep in mind while writing in a journalistic style. Overall, I think there were multiple helpful comments made in this editorial session, and hopefully it will help those who were reviewed to improve their feature story drafts.
During class on Friday 3/1 a few things stood out to me that will help in the editorial process of my article and others. To start, Kristen and I both pointed out the importance of reading your work out loud. Not only is it helpful in highlighting what may not flow well but the structure of our work. Making a statement or sharing information that doesn’t connect with the next sentence adds confusion, and as a writer, it can be hard to notice mistakes in your own work. Taking a step back from the details and reading out loud can help restructure the article and find places to break the words. Professor Jesse also made some points about this. When it comes to using quotes, it can be difficult to organize a connecting sentence before or after. Gently editing quotes helps it fit into the piece and aids in the information flowing better for readers. Professor Jesse also discussed a three-sentence policy for potential paragraphs. An attractive article to readers seems manageable to skim through and has multiple breaks. Three sentences are the perfect length for readers. The last piece of advice I took away from the class is to take the journalist out of Journalism. It’s easy for us as writers to put the information down in a way that makes sense to us because we are well-versed in the topic. However, context may be left out leaving the readers confused. I think this was the best piece of advice from the day and I will keep that in mind when writing future articles.
During the last class on 3/1 there were some editorial pieces of advice that I really liked. I thought that Kristen’s comment about the specific grammar of certain phrases, as well as concision, was helpful and I think it really cleared up a lot of things for a lot of us. Kristen also offered the advice to Tony about taking the journalist out of the journalism and I thought it was clever and insightful. Another comment that I liked during class was Elia informing Nick of some minor formatting issues that she noticed throughout his piece. I liked this because we are all still young in the process of being journalists and so I think having the advice to remember things like this is crucial in seeing our pieces improve over time.
In addition to the valuable feedback provided during the last class on March 1st, I found the multiple comments on the specific grammar of certain phrases and the importance of concision, particularly enlightening. Her insights not only clarified numerous points for many of us but also provided a solid foundation for refining our writing skills. Kristen’s clever suggestion to Tony about removing the journalist from the journalism was very thought-provoking, offering a fresh perspective on storytelling. Furthermore, Elia’s attention to detail in pointing out minor formatting issues in Nick’s piece underscored the importance of meticulousness in our work. As budding journalists, receiving guidance on such nuances is invaluable for our growth and development in the field.
Journal #11: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #3(focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 several people talked about how to make the piece more digestible for readers, especially when it comes to quotes. This is very important because as a journalist it is sometimes hard to decide what information to include and what information to not include. It is important to remember that not everyone is going to be as educated on the topic as you or the people that you are getting quotes from so try to keep that in mind when you are writing and use universal language that most people will understand. #2 the second critique that stood out to me was take the journalist out of the journalism which was a very clever way to put that which also relates to a comment that I made to Finn there were multiple sections where he included the questions of the (who, what, when, where, why) and instead of including those in your piece those are good questions to be asking yourself while drafting the piece and kind of takes you out of the piece therefore removing yourself and your thought process out of the story.
12 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 11”
Today’s class reflected a few interesting points that were impactful. When discussing quotes and interviews, it was beneficial to hear about breaking them down to be more “digestible” for the reader to rake in and understand. As writers, we may want to incorporate as much as we can for credibility, so integrating multiple perspectives and getting directly to the people most involved with our topics is vital for us as journalists. On the other hand, we also need to know when to cut out unnecessary particulars or overly explanatory details where we may lose the reader.
Another constructive comment came from Nick during Zak’s discussion about including that reliability when examining Maine colleges. In his piece, he compares the parking situation to Massachusetts colleges, but if it is kept locally in Maine, it may be easier for readers to compare apples to apples. I liked this particular comment as it helps with the scope of our writing and how one must stay on topic as well as be aware of their audience. These comments are beneficial for the writers because once they are so involved in a piece, it becomes challenging to identify these particular flaws.
Wrong one – oops!
Today’s class included a very lively discussion, and both comments that I chose were posed to me. I found these comments more useful than other comments, as they were particularly tailored to my article.
The first piece of advice given to me that I found to be helpful was given by Finn, and he advised me to add more information about UNE into my article. I think that following this advice will help me to find my focus, and to cut out unnecessary information. The class suggested that a way I might do that is to add another UNE centered interview, possibly with an alumnus.
A second piece of advice that I found particularly useful today was to add some information about the Portland campus, and possibly add an interview from a student there. This addition would give more of an insight into the daily life of a college student on a more urban campus, rather than our quiet campus in Biddeford. The article would be more inclusive and well-rounded with the addition, and I think it will give me a lot more credibility.
Journal 11
There were so many good and insightful comments made in class today. But the two that stuck with me. Was one from Elia about how if you have so much information, and how to comb through it and break it up into smaller more digestible paragraphs, like working through it pinpointing what works and what doesn’t work in the paragraph. I think this is important because deciding what you’re writing about and what you are going to focus on for the story. Is very important you don’t want all kinds of board information that doesn’t really have a direction or focus in a story. Then the second comment I wanted to focus on from Zak about making a headline that makes sense. Even though it’s such a small detail it is in no way minor to the aspect of writing a feature in journalism. The title makes a rough outline for the reader to know what the story is about. It introduces it and gives the reader an idea and context on what is going on in the story. I believe that these two points were very important to focus on in the discussion today.
In today’s class, there were a few really strong pieces of advice that stuck out to me. Specifically, Zak’s advice to Finn about “finding the story” was especially insightful, as I also sometimes find it hard to keep one focus in mind. Additionally, I think this advice was especially profound, as it was something that Finn had provided to another peer before today, so I think that it was especially resourceful of Zak to use relevant and familiar information to help a classmate.
Similarly, another piece of useful advice given was from Elia to Nick about some minor formatting errors. I think that, sometimes, the smaller aspects of revising can be harder to solve than some major issues, so getting assistance in fixing those small details can ultimately make or break a story.
From class today, I picked up on a few bits of advice that I could see myself using in the future. The first came from workshopping Nick’s draft from Kristen discussing concision. She mentioned that who we are interviewing is crucial, not why we are interviewing them. This means the reader needs to know why they are relevant but does not need all the nitty-gritty details of the interview itself. As the conversation continued, it was stated that the behind-the-scenes information is not needed; this stuck with me in keeping ourselves, as journalists, out of the narrative.
The second comment arose from Kayleigh while contemplating Finn’s feature. She questions his subheading, as it feels like questions for drafting, which is more behind-the-scenes work than what would be in a final feature. Professor Miller talked about the process of cutting and revision in journalism. As a perfectionist, it can be challenging to let parts you believe to be good go, but since they may stray slightly from the angle, they must be removed to fix the focus. Journalism is the process of obtaining and filtering that information, which can be a lengthy process, but is critical for creating a well-thought-out and well-rounded feature story.
The peer review workshop today touched on a lot of helpful and recursive themes that have come up throughout the process. One moment that stood out to me at the beginning of class was when we workshopped Tony’s piece, and Kristen offered the advice, “Take the journalist out of the journalism.” Not only is it a very clever and succinct way to sum up her constructive point in finding focus and honing in on reporting style, but it also allows us all to think about how essential it is to maintain that separation from ourselves and our beliefs from what we aim to report and highlight other voices. Another key comment from our peer editors was Kayliegh’s comment to Finn on how since his story is on rugby and could be more “punchy,” there could be a less formal tone and things like limiting the questions to self within the story that pulls the reader out. Kayleigh also had some great points earlier in the class on storytelling and how, for instance, when Tony found his angle at the conclusion of his article, bringing that in from the start can really help the reader understand the greater importance and want to continue reading.
During the last editorial session on Friday, 3/1, there were a few comments that stood out to me as being most helpful. I thought that Kristen’s comment about the specific grammar of certain phrases, as well as concision, were helpful, as it was pointing out specific points to improve the article. She also made a comment about a certain sentence that wasn’t helping move the article forward, which I thought was especially relevant. As journalism students, we should try to be concise and precise with our words, so the ideas she brought forward were helpful as a point of reference for anyone trying to be more concise in their writing. Another suggestion that I thought was helpful was made by Professor Miller, where he discussed the importance and specific structure of AP formatting. He mentioned that attributing quotations using parentheses was not AP format, as well as going more into detail about how attribution should be made. He also mentioned that paragraphs specifically should not be more than 3-4 sentences in length, which is a useful guideline to keep in mind while writing in a journalistic style. Overall, I think there were multiple helpful comments made in this editorial session, and hopefully it will help those who were reviewed to improve their feature story drafts.
During class on Friday 3/1 a few things stood out to me that will help in the editorial process of my article and others. To start, Kristen and I both pointed out the importance of reading your work out loud. Not only is it helpful in highlighting what may not flow well but the structure of our work. Making a statement or sharing information that doesn’t connect with the next sentence adds confusion, and as a writer, it can be hard to notice mistakes in your own work. Taking a step back from the details and reading out loud can help restructure the article and find places to break the words. Professor Jesse also made some points about this. When it comes to using quotes, it can be difficult to organize a connecting sentence before or after. Gently editing quotes helps it fit into the piece and aids in the information flowing better for readers. Professor Jesse also discussed a three-sentence policy for potential paragraphs. An attractive article to readers seems manageable to skim through and has multiple breaks. Three sentences are the perfect length for readers. The last piece of advice I took away from the class is to take the journalist out of Journalism. It’s easy for us as writers to put the information down in a way that makes sense to us because we are well-versed in the topic. However, context may be left out leaving the readers confused. I think this was the best piece of advice from the day and I will keep that in mind when writing future articles.
During the last class on 3/1 there were some editorial pieces of advice that I really liked. I thought that Kristen’s comment about the specific grammar of certain phrases, as well as concision, was helpful and I think it really cleared up a lot of things for a lot of us. Kristen also offered the advice to Tony about taking the journalist out of the journalism and I thought it was clever and insightful. Another comment that I liked during class was Elia informing Nick of some minor formatting issues that she noticed throughout his piece. I liked this because we are all still young in the process of being journalists and so I think having the advice to remember things like this is crucial in seeing our pieces improve over time.
In addition to the valuable feedback provided during the last class on March 1st, I found the multiple comments on the specific grammar of certain phrases and the importance of concision, particularly enlightening. Her insights not only clarified numerous points for many of us but also provided a solid foundation for refining our writing skills. Kristen’s clever suggestion to Tony about removing the journalist from the journalism was very thought-provoking, offering a fresh perspective on storytelling. Furthermore, Elia’s attention to detail in pointing out minor formatting issues in Nick’s piece underscored the importance of meticulousness in our work. As budding journalists, receiving guidance on such nuances is invaluable for our growth and development in the field.
Journal #11: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #3(focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 several people talked about how to make the piece more digestible for readers, especially when it comes to quotes. This is very important because as a journalist it is sometimes hard to decide what information to include and what information to not include. It is important to remember that not everyone is going to be as educated on the topic as you or the people that you are getting quotes from so try to keep that in mind when you are writing and use universal language that most people will understand. #2 the second critique that stood out to me was take the journalist out of the journalism which was a very clever way to put that which also relates to a comment that I made to Finn there were multiple sections where he included the questions of the (who, what, when, where, why) and instead of including those in your piece those are good questions to be asking yourself while drafting the piece and kind of takes you out of the piece therefore removing yourself and your thought process out of the story.