Ethical vs. Commercial Quality - Tomeka Weatherspoon

Delivering news with authenticity requires journalists to be aware of the way they construct stories. The public depends on us to interpret and re-deliver information. The problem becomes keeping our own interpretations and creativity in check. I think when we try to convey what we've learned, there is a natural temptation to explain in a way which is either more interesting or biased. Editing video includes reconstructing for visual coherence. It requires manipulation, but does not have to involve deception. Artificial effects such as speed modification and adding audio add a tone to the story. Adding as little of these as possible is a way to avoid spreading subtle messages to the viewer.

It can be very difficult to avoid these editing techniques because they can make stories more interesting, which many people interpret as higher in quality. The stories that make it to wider audiences, e.g. on TV, are these types. There seems to be a clear distinction between stories that sell and stories that maintain authenticity. I believe the mainstream media approach is one of the reasons Americans are becoming more uninformed. Advancing technologies have only resulted in more manipulation of the news.

seek truth and report it

I think what it all comes down to is "seek truth and report it."
Which means that even when the truth isn't 100% laid out for you to write down, photograph, record or tape, a reporter should be searching for new ways to find or to present information. If a photographic moment has passed, you'll need a replacement photo that shows what happened afterwards; if a source isn't available for a quote or won't answer questions the way you wished they would, you have to make do with what you have and look for other sources elsewhere; if you can't get quality video that captures an ideal moment you have to get creative B-roll from somewhere else. Journalism is about investigation, creativity and thought.
Staging is unacceptable, whether in photos or in video. And if you're taking a picture with lights and other equipment that affects the visual aspects of a situation, its a photo illustration— and should be noted as such in your work.
Journalistic ethics come down to common sense, really— don't mislead the public, and have honest, well-meaning intentions throughout your work. Not staging visuals is a large part of that.

ethical line

These two articles were very helpful in helping define those shades of grey between right and wrong.  Honestly, I can't believe that the photographer mentioned in the "Staged, Staging, Stages" article actually asked the athlete to recreate his exciting moment for the camera.  I would feel embarrassed to do such a thing, although this must be an extreme example. Dave Wertheimer really seems to go above and beyond in making sure he presents the truth.  Giving the truth means going the extra mile even when it is inconvenient and could cost you time, such as when he went back to the flower shop to get the story as it naturally happened.  Basically, it seems like if you have to say to your subject, "Can you do this?" or somehow influence their actions, it is crossing the line.  The subject should never have to recreate an action or feel like they are being told to act in a certain way.  Wertheimer says he tries to be a "fly on the wall" which seems to be the best way to approach it.  You might end up getting some extra footage, but it is all real and not fixed to appear a certain way to match the idea for a story in your head.  

On another note, "Sliding Sound, Altered Images" really hits the note about how the images a photographer presents to the public can dramatically affect the outcomes of events, families, and individuals.  The article talks about using file tapes sparingly and how even altering the lighting or angle of a photo can present the subject as one way or another, such as in the O.J. Simpson example.  When you alter the mood of something it can easily get into the minds of the viewers or listeners and affect them without them even noticing.

I think Al Tompkins presents a perfect way to help the reporter distinguish is he or she has made an ethical blunder.  If you would feel completely comfortable telling your editor (or teacher) exactly how you edited and got the material for the piece, then you are probably ok.  But if you would be wary to truthfully reveal your methods, then you probably crossed the line somewhere.  

Accidental Staging

I really liked the advice given in the readings about staging and editing our pieces. I found myself thinking about what was ethical and was I pushing the boundaries of journalistic ethics with my audio clip by changing the order of responses from that which I asked them in. While these readings had more to do with video editing and staging, the advice could still be transferred to audio. They also gave me good advice for my video work, how to set things up and how not to go about setting things up. I really wasn't sure even where to begin with my story, and this helped me gather my thoughts and formulate something of a plan. I liked Dave Wertheimer's advice about setting things up, micing the interviewee right away, and then stepping back and just letting things happen without trying to force anything.

"The Front Page Frisk"

In Tompkin's article, Sliding Sound, Altered Images, he asks if "How willing would you be to explain your editing process if the local newspaper called you and started asking you questions for a front-page newspaper story? How willing would you be to reveal your editing techniques to the public?" I had to sit back and ask myself this question - how would I critique my own methods of visual/audio storytelling? Are they authentic, portraying my subjects in their natural light, or unethical and staged (like the photographer covering the NFL draft)?

I'd like to go with the former, but as a young, inspiring journalist, it is easy to ask the subject to do something and to attempt to capture what we want to see (even if this is not the full truth). I look back at my camera assignment, I know I asked my subject to show me specific things. As Dave Wertheimer says in his article, this can be fixed by prefacing the soundbite or adding a caption to a photo that says something to the effect of "'We asked so and so to show us how they .......'". This can give subtlely tell the viewer that what they are seeing/hearing may not have been 100%, but as close to it as the journalists can get to showing what they want. Most people will even overlook this hint, but it is more ethical to put the preface in then leave it out.

As I go out to tape my :30 clip tomorrow night, I hope to keep these principles in mind. Rather then telling my subject what to do, I am going to put a wireless mic on her and observe. Another problem is the editing - I hope to never make the mistake KLAS Las Vegas made in Tompkin's article. I definitely see how putting in false audio for a silen survellience video. I know that my ethical dilemmas may not be this large (or on a high market station), but this little concepts remind me that there is always something important to remember in journalism - seek the truth and report it. An unethical impluse may seem like a good idea at the time, but in the end, it won't pass the "Front Page Frisk."

Editing Psycho

I never realized editing was so psychological. Chapters 2 & 3 of the Eres article opened my eyes as to how editing can almost be considered a science. I learned so many new things about how the audience perceives things and how the eye is sometimes fooled by the editing journalists employ. Journalists need to be careful in how editing is done as not to abandon the key philosophy of not deceiving the audience.

Good video shooting, I found out, must relate to how the eye works. It's fascinating to know that people, when shooting for TV, movies, or news shoot with the knowledge of how the natural eye works, and how best to appeal to that. Establishing the scene, for instance, is what our eye naturally first does, so its nice to know to add a wide establishing shot near or at the very beginning of a piece.

One heading of the chapter read "Composition reveals meaning". After thinking about it for a little bit, I agree with this, in that people or ideas can subliminally be portrayed as inferior or superior simply by where it is in the frame. I found that very interesting.

Journalists tread a fine line between storytelling/interest, and fact, and I think editing practices need to relay a devotion to truth as printwriting does, otherwise people will even more so scrutinize the media.

Sometimes, truth hurts

I felt a bit guilty after reading Al Tompkins' piece on video editing ethics, not because I've tried to deliberately con my listeners but because I wonder, after reading his piece, whether I crossed any lines in my 2:30 audio piece.
While I didn't deliberately try to pair completely disparate interviews and sounds, I did include duplicate natural sound in that piece, and I'm wondering now whether I should have, instead, simply taken the entire 2+ minutes of natural sound I recorded and just run it as one long piece under the various interviews I conducted. I'll plan to use the information I learned here so that I don't make the same mistakes in my video piece.
Dave Wertheimer's piece, "Staged, Staging, Stages," provides a great example of completely unethical behavior — asking someone to replicate their actions as though they were doing it in real life. As he also points out, I've found that people quickly forget they're wearing a microphone and are able to speak freely. I don't agree with his technique of not asking questions (though I'm guessing he does on occasion). While it's good to ask open-ended questions so that people open up about their lives, you can't be so vague that your subjects don't know how to respond to issues relating to the story at hand.
These pieces were worthwhile and helped me solidify what I should and shouldn't be doing.

How far can staging go?

I really liked this short article about staging and the ethics a journalist crosses when he/she decides to stage an event or story. I believe a lot of people think that unless you actually make up an event or create false names that other details of a story can be "fudged" a little. I think this is very tricky ground and that no journalist, no matter what the subject or the minuet detail, can make up anything that does not happen as you see it.
About a year ago my father was on the cover of the New York Times (we were all so proud of him!) in an article about the failing housing market. The reporter wrote that he and my mother were being kept apart (she was in Phoenix at the time, he was in Detroit) because our house wasn't selling. The truth was that our house wasn't even on the market at the time. This was a huge error and an example of improper fact-checking.
I think the reason the journalist chose to say our house was on the market was to make the story more dramatic. The real fact that my Daddy was still in Detroit and my mother was in Phoenix was because my father was still working at GM. But that didn't make a sensational story. I think of this same type of thing when I hear about staging. Chances are the journalist or photographer or whatever isn't actually trying to dupe the reader, but trying to enhance their story. Regardless of your reasons behind making anything up, the bottom line is that a lie is a lie, and lies are never excusable in the work of journalists.

KBIA Stories

These stories were interesting, and certainly done well. But I'm not sure I noticed many of the things we talked about in class for writing for the ear. In fact, I didn't find most of the checklist in the stories, or if items were there wasn't a lot of a particular point (ex: natural sound). I don't think this neccessarily detracted from the stories, but I do wonder if it could have made them better or kept listeners more interested. Perhaps after journalists reach a certain point these guidelines become less important, and while some stories probably don't need any extra help, I still think it wouldn't hurt to throw some in and see if it didn't make the story better.
I like the informal aspect of writing for the ear, and the more I listen to examples of it the more I think I prefer that to newsprint, at least for the less serious aspects of the news or those I don't need to remember direct quotes from at a later date. It makes the journalist feel like more of a person, and more like they're writing (or speaking in this case) for you individually vs for everyone who reads the paper. Basically it makes the story feel more personal, something I think people appreciate in a time when most interaction we have with the media is for mass audiences

developing storytelling styles

These KBIA stories were definitely interesting and really excellent examples of storytelling, but I was surprised to find that they didn't abide by more of the suggestions that we discussed in class. There wasn't a ton of ambient/natural sound, and I didn't notice many "rule of three"s or much alliteration, really- but this made me think, in general, about what are the actual necessities for solely audio-based journalism and storytelling, and I feel like strictly adhering to rules and suggestions can almost detract from good journalism. [Also, someone once mentioned to me that its harder to record audio than it is video, and I'm becoming convinced that while its harder to produce a quality audio standalone story, it can also be more touching or valuable. As a visual person, I never saw this coming, so...this is new for me!] At this point in our journalism careers -- well, as students -- it's a good idea for us to stick with all the suggestions we're given, and try our best to adhere to all given guidelines. But as we become more advanced, the convention of storytelling will start to come more naturally and we won't need to think "okay, I need ambient sound at the beginning and end and to transition here" or "this is what it sounds like to speak in a conversational way,"-- we'll just do it. And as all of that becomes more natural and basic to us, we'll be able to actually develop our own personal conventions and little quirks to storytelling -- discovering what we do best. These stories were all really different in the amount of facts they presented, the types of information they gave and the way the stories were constructed -- but all were really valuable in different ways. It'll be interesting to see how all of our storytellling styles develop over the next few years, too!

Adderall

The KBIA story on Adderall informed listeners about growing issue on campus. More students are taking ADHD medicine without a prescription, which is something that is overlooked at this University because underage drinking and marijuana possession are far more prevalent.
The reporter found excellent sources for this topic. This reporter found a student who was using the drugs without a prescription. This source sang the praises of Adderall’s effects on his study habits. They also found a female student who was distributing the pills illegally. This student also said that the drug is a helpful study tool that should be readily available to all students. These students made Adderall sound fantastic.
On the opposing viewpoint, the reporter brought in some experts, who discouraged the recreational use of Adderall. One of these experts was Kim Dude of the wellness resource center. Dude said that the dangers outweigh the advantages of Adderall. Adderal’s side effects are nausea, increased blood pressure, and mainly supress the appetite. They also brought in a pharmacist who claims that he watches for students who are filling prescriptions more frequently than they should be. Lastly the brought in Donnell Young, director of student legal services, who said that these students might even be suspended from school, if they abuse Adderall.
This story did a superb job of covering both sides of the issue. It provided both the pros and the cons to Adderall use and let the listeners form their own opinion. This is excellent journalism with an undetectable bias. I personally believe that if students need to Adderall to help them study then it needs to be a readily available over the counter drug. College put a lot of pressure on students. The work load continues to expand and make things more difficult, therefore, I support any student doing whatever it takes to succeed in school. Many students pay over $20,000. I’m that they want to pay this money to fail out of school. Therefore, study boosters, like Adderall, need to be legalized.

KBIA Stories

My favorite of the three stories is the Neuticles one. I thought the subject was definitely the most interesting and it was the only story that included ambiance sound with the dogs at the end and in the beginning. I wish that they had been able to talk to someone who had actually given their pet neuticles. The second most interesting was the Mario Manzini story, but it didn't include as many voices or sounds as the neuticles one. I liked the clips of him telling his childhood stories, he has a really good voice and his stories were interesting. They helped draw the attention away from the reporter. I thought the Adderall story was fairly bland. Although it included several different voices, it didn't tell as much of a story as the other two.

All three of the stories included many of the characteristics for writing for the ear that we talked about in class. They were all written in the active voice, the first two put the focus less on the reporter (although the Adderall one seemed to focus more on the reporter's voice). Overall, they sounded good as radio stories, but the ambiance sounds that the last two lacked made them a little less interesting. 

I really enjoyed each of the three KBIA stories.  None of them had a lot of ambient sound, but they were obviously quality pieces nonetheless.  I really liked the incorporation of the dogs barking in the neuticles clip, especially because I tried to do the same thing in my first sound bite.  It was such an interesting story because it was so weird. I didn’t know these neuticals existed!  He had a lot of facts, yet he included them in a comical way.  I was surprised to hear that he interviewed the vet that lives down the street from me at home. It was also perfect that it was a whimpering dog at the end, since he was portrayed as such a prima donna dog who even drinks bottled water.

The story about Mario Manzini was crazy.  The reporter did a great job of storytelling and giving a slice of life.  Manzini’s life is so different from anything I’ve personally experienced.  It was especially interesting to hear how Manzini said he has never been that comfortable in constraint and that sometimes he starts panicking and getting really claustrophobic.  I also found it funny how he said that he might as well die the way he likes…getting out of a straightjacket. 

I liked the Adderall one too.  It was very localized.  He  had a well-rounded group of interviews including students involved in the sales and buying of Adderall, doctors, professionals, and studies.  He probably couldn’t have gotten such honest feedback if he hadn’t had let the student sources be anonymous.  I think he could have included some audio of pouring out pills or shaking them in the bottle though, since that is a pretty distinct sound.

Neuticles - Tomeka Weatherspoon

This story on pet Neuticles is just amusing. Their appearance only matters to us. My dog isn't going to have self confidence issues if I get him neutered. I like how the reporter was able to show many different sides to the story. It sounds as if some of the audio was captured in person and some over the phone. The natural sound is subtle and fits with the story.

"The dog does not care," a female doctor said. "The Neuticles do not change the dog's attitude in any way. Once those hormones are gone, he no longer behaves like a truly unneutered dog, whether there are Neuticles present or not."

No matter how rediculous I thought the idea was, someone was able to justify their way of thinking in a logical way. "Extreme pet owners" could think of their pets as another member of the family. 

"If you're not a pet owner, it's the stupidest thing you've ever heard of," the developer of the product said. He is a male. "But if you are a pet owner and you do have a male dog... and you've got to go have his you-know-what's cut off. They take on a very serious form."

I agreed with the male doctor from Shawnee Mission. He suggested that this product at its basis is about a human male issue, an issue of masculinity. Sizes that range from petite to XXL? Doesn't that sound like other products marketed toward men?

Radio Stories

I listened to all three stories and they all carry some pretty significant similarities and differences that make them work.  That is; multiple sources, abundance of interesting sounds to digest and intriguing stories to boot.  

Like some others have noted, the Neuticles story makes use of the intrinsic humor and comedy that comes hand-in-paw with a story about fake dog testicles.  Natural sound is captured with barking dogs.  The savvy yet quirky inventor and Oak Grove native also adds perspective with unique and confident takes on what positives come of his ballsy enterprise, such as curbed pet overpopulation.  

The Manzini story covers a man from an Italian mafia family turned escape artist.  His character is so interesting that the story thrives on personal accounts of straight-jacket escapes and hand gun birthday gifts.  The more the story rolls, the more intrigued the listener becomes.

In my feeling, the Adderall story is the weakest.  I covers a topic mostly already known amongst my age group.  Kids take ADHD medicine to help them cram for tests.  Big whoop.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an audience.  Abuse of prescription medicine in the United States is becoming more of an issue every day as more meds are given out and people often end up with extra.  Responsible adults store or dispose of the extras, but college students (always in need of cash) just sell if there is a market.  Adderall or not, that's a big issue.

Kevin Ornduff 

I can imagine myself smiling in the driver’s seat of my car

I chose to listen to the Mario Manzini story because it was a name I recognized from an ad I saw in a website somewhere – it claimed that you can hire Manzini for your wedding. The story itself was one where a bit of humor was melted down into the interviews (probably because Manzini is just a very outgoing and funny person), one that might leave you with a faint smile while driving your car.

While listening to the approximately 4:30 story, I had the feeling that this was a profile story of a person, but one that was determined to emphasize interesting aspects, even if it meant skipping through his life a whole lot. However, I still thought that it had all the essential information in it, such as what Manzini does and how well he does it, some portfolio of gigs, and a simple but interesting life story.

What I really liked about KBIA’s story version of Mario Manzini was that it was very appropriate for the local people here, mentioning that he currently lives in Columbia, and also mentioning a couple of familiar names for CoMo residents such as Moberly and the Lake of the Ozarks. I think by starting off with what a great escapologist Manzini is with all his performances in NYC and Las Vegas and narrowing down to the local area level probably would have gained more attention of the ears here.

Relating to what we learned in class, I think the part where the narrator describes the outer appearance of Manzini was a perfect example of sound being the catalyst for more imagination. The story mentioned his Brutus-like appearance and Italian accent. Although I have no idea what he looks like, I now have a distinct image of him in my head.

KBIA Stories

We talked a lot in class about utilizing "ambient" sound within the radio medium. I felt that the KBIA story about getting pets nurtured was a prime example of this. Being a dog owner myself, I enjoyed hearing the dogs' barks in the background. I am not a frequent radio listener - I am more of a visual stimulated person, but I felt like I could imagine the dogs easily with this use of background sound. It connected me further into a story, one that I may not have listened to otherwise.

Additionally, the radio/television news medium requires conversational writing. I think the Adderall story was a prime example of this. Each of the interviewees were your "everyday" type of people - college students that just wanted passing grades and adults worried about the side effects of drug abuse. It was a relatable story, and I felt that it was pieced together well. As Rueben said in class, radio is not all about having a set script. Rather, you can piece clips together well and achieve great radio spots. Editing is vital, and they did a good job within this piece. I was surprised that they used an anonymous source within the clip because you want to be able to attribute your facts. Luckily, it worked out well - without her, the story may have skipped vital information.

Lastly, since radio spots are all about the ear and you have to make accurate descriptions the FIRST time around, I thought the Mario Manzini story was written well. I could actually imagine him trying out these stunts! My favorite quote, and what I think I will end this post on, was about how "sooner or later we all die anyway, [he] would rather die in a straight jacket." This made me laugh and made the piece more memorable!

Neuticles

I listened to the Neuticles story and thought it was a good example of a story meant for entertainment. It's a bizarre subject and the reporter approached it from that direction and kept the piece light-hearted. He interviewed veterinarians to get scientific perspectives, perspectives that confirmed the absurdity of the product. Justin Ray made good use of ambient sounds of dogs throughout the piece, and he was clever with is language, using "bones" instead of "dollars." Although it is subtle, he says his last sentence with a little laugh, which I think is appropriate for the piece and its tone.

KBIA- Good journalism first

Amidst all the talk of radio stories and how best to present them, I found the Adderall story on KBIA the best. No, the story did not have any ambient sound. Nor did it have natural sound. It used very little alliteration and even less rule of threes. Everything we were taught in class to do was virtually absent, except excellent storytelling and sound journalism practice.

This story was a great piece of journalism in that it used authentic voices, quoted experts appropriately, told the background, asked "So what?," and tried to map out the future. I felt KBIA tried to thoroughly explain what might be an otherwise confusing situation. I felt attentive the entire time because of how the clips and interviews were arranged. The explanation came first, so we didn't tune out due to confusion. After that came the implications for students, the university, and the community. I appreciated the story's ability to relate to other students by making this a problem about stress and work, not immediately about troubled college students (like we need another story about that!). I simply enjoyed listening to a radio story for once. I had never paid attention to them before, but I feel that if more stories of this quality were on the radio, more people would pay attention to it as a viable news source.

I'd take this story that had no ambient sound over a poorly done story with ambient sound any day of the week.

great stories, Adderall my favorite

I really liked these KBIA stories because they showed great examples of stories we can do as students.  The stories we saw in class were fascinating and very well done, but I'm not on the level where I would be able to edit all those clips and write a story that flowed like theirs.  These stories were examples of great stories that students have done that I could see myself doing as well.

The Neuticals story was hilarious, I'm sorry.  I think what made it so funny was that it was NPR-style which is very serious but it was pertaining to this weird subject.  I liked that the journalist kept it light though by using phrases like, "it costs 900 bones".  That way I didn't feel completely ridiculous laughing because it was written to be entertaining.  I also liked the Mario Manzini story although it took me a while to get into it.  However, after it got towards the middle of the narration (especially the part about the dad giving him the gun) I could really see the beginning and middle of the story.  By the end I appreciated the start he took and could fully see the whole picture.

My favorite story was about the prescription drug Adderall which I knew somewhat about, but I had no idea as many people used it.  The journalistic aspect I really appreciated about this story was that the journalist localized it.  So many times in our classes they stress that point, but it's really hard to do.  This guy took the time to track down some local people and experts and related it right back to your average MU student.  Even though I'm not familiar with much of the drug scene here, I could imagine sitting next to that guy in class who takes these drugs just by listening to his story.  I thought this piece was very well done.

I would have liked to hear some more stories with natural sound though.  The story about the fake dog testicles had some in there, but in most of these stories it was basically the journalist speaking.  I'll try to look for some of those in the following days.  By the way...is Alex Grigsby THE Gary Grigsby's son? I'll have to ask him tomorrow!

'Adderall' story on KBIA

I found the KBIA story titled "Adderall" very interesting. The story had at least five sources, including two anonymous sources, a pharmacist and MU officials.
KBIA reporter Justin Ray used a clever introduction to segue into a serious story about prescription drug use among college students. He uses an "avalanche" of words — "Tests, papers, stress, projects, deadlines, sleepless nights ..." — to describe just how difficult the end of a semester can get, and then transitions into interviews with two anonymous students about their use/sale of a prescription drug.
Of course, the issue is that one student is using the drug without a prescription, which is illegal, while the other is selling the drug to which she alone is legally entitled because of a prescription.
But the intro provides a sense of compassion, and one of the objectives of good journalism is to do the least amount of harm. Therefore, the introduction mitigates a sticky situation in terms of the legal implications of drug use.
In this case, I think anonymous sources were appropriate — these students could face serious consequences if identified. It's an important story, and it helps others understand the situation.
The story didn't rely so much on natural sound as it did in-depth interviews and explanatory narration. Again, in this case, I think that was an appropriate decision. Ray does a good job of explaining how people who use these drugs obtain them, how much they pay for them, what the implications of those actions are (legally, physiologically, etc.) using narration and source commentary.
It was interesting me that Ray also mentioned the name of his producer as he closed his piece. I think it's a nice touch.

I was impressed and surprised by "The Bottom Line," a project that explored several significant and heart-wrenching issues affecting children right here in the United States. The sentence on the first page essentially summed up the brilliance of the entire site- "How many children will have to live lesser lives before we get the picture?" The Dallas Morning News juxtaposed facts, numbers and information with striking pictures— pictures that stick in your mind and make you deeply, emotionally care about the topics at hand. The voices and music in the background of the sound/picture slideshows made a huge impact on the power of the pictures as well; you could put a story to a face, something really special and unique to multimedia projects. The compilation of text, audio and photographs achieved an effect that could not have been achieved by just one of the three; it was eye-opening, touching and motivating— it made you want to make a difference.

I was most affected by the story of Carolyn and Rich St. Pierre and their struggle with her liver cancer.  I have never seen anything like this and thought that the multimedia platform it was shown on made it that much more meaningful, with the music and interviews intertwined with the pictures.  I was so emotional as I watched each section.  I was a little nervous before the ones that showed her death because of the warning given before saying it might be hard to handle for some viewers.  Although so many photographs are taken about every aspect in life, we don't see many of the actual death of a human being, yet the story would not have been complete without including those pictures.  I just keep thinking how it would feel to be Preston Gannaway, the photographer, in those scenes, taking those pictures--that is a time when a photographer certainly feels out of his element, yet I'm sure the family appreciates all the moments he has captured.  

Rich, Carolyn's husband, seems very aware of the power of a picture.  He often talks about all of the priceless and golden moments that they he and the kids had with Carolyn before she died. He was really worried about Elijah remembering his moms too and I bet these pictures are going to mean so much to him one day since he was so young when he died.  Nothing was more sad, though, than when Elijah was interviewed talking about his mom being dead and the way he described it.  

The photography captured all the emotion so well.  All the facial expressions, the shots in the bathroom and the ones showing just how much Rich struggled with Brian and Elijah are represented so well in the pictures  Carolyn's pale hands, the shots in the dark,  and and the photo sequence of Elijah getting so excited for his presents on Christmas were so real and made me feel almost like I was there.  This project truly shows the power of a picture and how a story can unfold with the combination of pictures over an extended period of time.

The Coulter Family: a moving saga

The Minneapolis Star Tribune did an excellent job with their heart wrenched profile on the Coulter family. The Coulter family was just a typical American family. Brad, his wife Paula, and their two daughters, Brandi and Brianna were driving to meet relatives when the I-35 bridge collapsed. The photo slide show unveils the horrifying details of the collapse that lead to the deaths of thirteen people and the survival story of the Coulter family. The photographs are all excellent and show the ordeal as well as the triumphant recovery of Paula Coulter. Coulter was in the hospital undergoing rehabilitation procedures for 4 months before she returned to warm reception from neighbors, family, and pets.
The audio that accompanies these photos makes the photos stronger. The shots of the bridge collapse are accompanied by police switchboard calls from victims of this tragedy and bystanders alike. The switchboard seems uncaring and unaware of how enormous this crisis really is in reality. It makes you think about historical tragedies such as September 11th and just how unfathomable these events are to people who are not seeing the pictures on TV or the people who are actually there in person.
The photos of the daughters receiving treatment also provides context that every member of this family suffered injuries in this tragic accident. The slide show also has some speeches made by survivors who lost loved ones. It shows how the event effected more people then just the centered sources. The photos of the people taking cell phone pictures made the story more real. I also feel like this photo essay was necessary because the aftermath of this event was never really covered in national news. I was always curious about what happened after the bridge collapse and this poignant photo essay provided this info.
The photo essay by Jim Gehrz is moving and a necessary reminder about an event that has gone forgotten by many Americans. It deserved the POY award of excellence.

The Coulter Family

The first one that caught my attention was from the Star Tribune in Minnesota about the Coulter family and the 35W bridge collapse. This happened in my home town (I was still in Columbia that summer) and I used to drive on that bridge almost everyday. I still remember trying to call home the evening that it happened and not being able to get through because of the number of calls in that area. Luckily, none on my family/friends were hurt. But that's the reason why this one caught my eye first. 

I thought the pictures did a really nice job of conveying emotion through facial expressions. The portraits helped convey the emotion, but I also thought the number of scene setter shots used was good. They did a good job of showing the entire scene-and it isn't everyday that you see a major bridge collapse. I thought the audio was really good too, the phone ringing was creative and reminded me of what I personally had experienced that day trying to call home. When the reader/viewer feels a personal connection to the piece (especially if they weren't directly involved) it's a sign that they did a good job with it.