When I sat down to write this story, I was in complete panic because I was rushed to create what I wanted to be a journalistic masterpiece; something that lived up to my expectations as a writer. As I was anxiously sitting at a computer station on the fifth floor of Alden, relentlessly chugging Mountain Dew and combing through a fat stack of notes and research articles, I realized that I just had to calm down and write the best I could to meet the deadline. However, I knew I was reverting back to one of my main flaws as a novice journalist, the idea that I thought my work would be good enough to let me slide through to the next week without attempting to achieve excellence. I remember telling myself that night, "I don't need to edit much because it looks fine to me," something I am and have always regretted with school assignments.
Aside from my brushes with procrastination, my process is one where I am either stuck for days trying to figure out a spin or lead for a story, followed by hours of painfully piecing together the body, or one in which I can "hammer out" the story in a few hours and spend a brief amount of time editing before I feel satisfied with my work. It is a weird phenomenon which I cannot clearly explain. It is like working on a multitude of different puzzles where in some, the pieces fall together and in others, I have to jam the pieces into their corresponding spots in order to create the illusion of a coherent story. The process is like a (excuse my french) a complete "mind fuck" where sometimes I am chain smoking cigarettes and pulling out my hair to get a story or in other times, the story just flows from my mind to my fingertips and produces a well structured story on the computer monitor. It is just terrible.
But in this particular instance, I decided to calm myself down by putting on my iPod and listen to my favorite album, Hail to the Thief by Radiohead. I know it sounds cliche but I truly think Radiohead is the band of my generation just like the Beatles were for my parents back in the 1960's. Somewhere between "There, There" and "Sail to the Moon", the stars aligned and I thought I had a story. I first formulated my lead by painting the dream of a wedding in Hawaii and juxtaposing that imagery with the reality of a same-sex marriage law being stalled in the Hawaii State Legislature. I then started to write the body relating the story to sentiments about same-sex marriage in Ohio courtesy of the three interviews I conducted with three members of OU's student and faculty body. The process went a lot smoother than I had originally thought, but I still was not happy with the final outcome. So I spent an additional two hours editing the feature so it had a coherent vibe and a distinctive character, but I just felt lost considering I have almost no experience with feature writing. I struggled trying to adapt style tips from other articles and trying to adopt a fairly decent structure in conveying the primary sources' opinions. I felt lost. Plain and simple.
I had written an outline where I wanted to place quotes and touch on sub-topics, but by the end of my slaughter-fueled editing process, the outline seemed pointless to post on the blog because it was so skewed and inverted. I first loved the thought of portraying the story in a linear fashion but then I thought it was too dull and tried to go for a more modular approach. Let's just say I felt like a schizophrenic patient for arguing with myself over the structure for at least 45 minutes, which was a very surprising side effect for even Mountain Dew's high levels of sugar based compounds. But in the end, I had to feel complacent because there was a deadline and I knew better than not to miss it.
I guess all in all, I try to have a process by writing an outline and organizing my notes accordingly, but I don't think the puzzle pieces aligned with me on this assignment. I have learned I feel less anxious when I clear my mind and listen to some chill music, but for me it really all depends on the cards I am dealt out. Like Black Jack or any other card game lining the casinos of Las Vegas , sometimes journalists are dealt out amazing hands full of great primary sources which link directly to other research and sometimes they are dealt mediocre hands, which they have to work with in order to create a decent story by their deadline. I'm not saying that all journalists are pre-destined to have good and bad hands, but that not every time one initiates their writing process, it will be an easy, enjoyable experience.
- Dan
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
First Feature Story!
Hey everyone,
I just wrote my first feature on same-sex marriage chronicling the recent defeat of a same-sex civil unions bill in Hawaii and how it effects the promise for same-sex marriage in Ohio. Enjoy!
Hawaii is a place most couples dream about having their wedding. The sandy shores, tropical climate, and rich culture of areas like Maui and Oahu lay scene for a number of weddings annually. However, for some couples, that dream will remain intangible.
On January 29, Hawaii legislators declined to vote on a bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions, a dream bigger than a beach wedding for members of the gay community.
With this latest blow to the marriage equality movement, some citizens of Athens wonder whether same-sex marriage will ever become legal in Ohio.
Brooke Barron, a junior journalism major at Ohio University and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender activist, seemed disheartened by the recent setback in Hawaii, bringing up a painful memory regarding the approval of Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Act in 2004, which constitutionally limits marriage to a union between a man and woman.
As she started to speak about these issues, one could notice the frustration and subtle anguish boiling inside.
“It is unfortunate that this issue needs to be voted on,” she said while fiddling with her pink scarf. “I frankly don’t see the difference between this and slavery because they [federal and state governments] are not letting people live their lives.”
As she sadly glanced down the first floor hall of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism building, Barron started to open up about the hardships same-sex couples have to endure without the benefits of their heterosexual counterparts.
“The situation really does suck,” she muttered toward the empty hallway. “Ohio is my home. I have friends and family here and I feel it is unfair for me to pick up and move to a state like Vermont, just so I can marry my girlfriend.”
Although Athens County struck down the same sex marriage ban in 2004, not everyone in this lively college town feels the same way as Brooke and the LGBT community.
Keith Sluss, also a junior journalism major, has a different perspective on the idea of same-sex marriage in Ohio.
As he swung back and forth on a trite red porch swing, clenching a cup of coffee, he became guarded and steadfast about his opposition to marriage equality.
“I think that people do not want same-sex marriage,” he said bluntly. “I’m not trying to say that gay people should not have rights, but I believe the word marriage should be used to describe a union between a man and woman.”
Sluss further elaborated on the issue, alternating between exchanges and sips of dark roast ambrosia. “I think it is a good idea [to not use the term marriage] because it has been a tradition between a man and a woman for centuries. They should come up with a new name and benefits for gays, but it is not marriage.”
In the wake of Hawaii’s decision to indefinitely postpone its vote on H.B. 444, many residents of Athens find the principle of side-stepping controversial issues as a strategy for legislators to remain in office.
Mickey Hart, Director of Ohio University’s LGBT Center, feels strongly that election years are not the times where legislators want to gamble their careers on social issues such as gay marriage.
“It seems like their number one job is to get re-elected,” he laughed. “These issues are not the centerpieces of a legislator’s campaign.
Sitting in his clean, colorful office, it was hard not to anticipate an elaborate response to what he described as “sloppy politics” embedded in the state by state system of ratification. After he shot back a few quick e-mail replies to students and faculty members, he began to talk about the problems with this issue.
“The problem with same-sex marriage is that it’s a state issue when it should be a federal issue. The federal government is running away from its responsibility when it is clear this is really a constitutional issue.”
As he tried to research more about the Hawaii case on his iMac, he seemed pretty confident about the failure of state-by state referendums.
“Leaving same-sex marriage up to the states only drains money and what we see is little victories and big defeats. In all referendums, the majority has never voted to expand the rights of minorities.”
However, in November 2009, the Ohio House of Representatives witnessed a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act by Rep. Tyrone Yates, D-Cincinnati, who introduced a resolution which would eliminate Section 11, Article 15 of the Constitution.
Barron cracked a quick smile as she was sending a friend a quick text message. “I would support this challenge,” she said. “It is kind of ironic because I am otherwise a Republican but there is no awareness about the inequalities gay people face. The law does not stop same-sex couples from co-habitation and engaging in family life so it would only benefit more people in the long run.”
However, Sluss and Hart both seem skeptical of the challenge, expressing opinions of doubt whether the initiative will affect change in Ohio.
“I don’t agree with this,” said Sluss while he sat engaged in the conversation. “I think people have gotten caught up in popular culture in recent years but I do not think much has changed since 2004.”
Although Hart did express his admiration for Yates’ courage in contesting the same-sex marriage ban, he consents with Sluss about his skepticism for Yates’ resolution. “I believe this state will be one of the last states who will legalize same-sex marriage by either following other states’ support or by having the issue legalized at the national level. It is simply easier to go with the status quo than to side with change.”
I just wrote my first feature on same-sex marriage chronicling the recent defeat of a same-sex civil unions bill in Hawaii and how it effects the promise for same-sex marriage in Ohio. Enjoy!
Hawaii is a place most couples dream about having their wedding. The sandy shores, tropical climate, and rich culture of areas like Maui and Oahu lay scene for a number of weddings annually. However, for some couples, that dream will remain intangible.
On January 29, Hawaii legislators declined to vote on a bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions, a dream bigger than a beach wedding for members of the gay community.
With this latest blow to the marriage equality movement, some citizens of Athens wonder whether same-sex marriage will ever become legal in Ohio.
Brooke Barron, a junior journalism major at Ohio University and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender activist, seemed disheartened by the recent setback in Hawaii, bringing up a painful memory regarding the approval of Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Act in 2004, which constitutionally limits marriage to a union between a man and woman.
As she started to speak about these issues, one could notice the frustration and subtle anguish boiling inside.
“It is unfortunate that this issue needs to be voted on,” she said while fiddling with her pink scarf. “I frankly don’t see the difference between this and slavery because they [federal and state governments] are not letting people live their lives.”
As she sadly glanced down the first floor hall of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism building, Barron started to open up about the hardships same-sex couples have to endure without the benefits of their heterosexual counterparts.
“The situation really does suck,” she muttered toward the empty hallway. “Ohio is my home. I have friends and family here and I feel it is unfair for me to pick up and move to a state like Vermont, just so I can marry my girlfriend.”
Although Athens County struck down the same sex marriage ban in 2004, not everyone in this lively college town feels the same way as Brooke and the LGBT community.
Keith Sluss, also a junior journalism major, has a different perspective on the idea of same-sex marriage in Ohio.
As he swung back and forth on a trite red porch swing, clenching a cup of coffee, he became guarded and steadfast about his opposition to marriage equality.
“I think that people do not want same-sex marriage,” he said bluntly. “I’m not trying to say that gay people should not have rights, but I believe the word marriage should be used to describe a union between a man and woman.”
Sluss further elaborated on the issue, alternating between exchanges and sips of dark roast ambrosia. “I think it is a good idea [to not use the term marriage] because it has been a tradition between a man and a woman for centuries. They should come up with a new name and benefits for gays, but it is not marriage.”
In the wake of Hawaii’s decision to indefinitely postpone its vote on H.B. 444, many residents of Athens find the principle of side-stepping controversial issues as a strategy for legislators to remain in office.
Mickey Hart, Director of Ohio University’s LGBT Center, feels strongly that election years are not the times where legislators want to gamble their careers on social issues such as gay marriage.
“It seems like their number one job is to get re-elected,” he laughed. “These issues are not the centerpieces of a legislator’s campaign.
Sitting in his clean, colorful office, it was hard not to anticipate an elaborate response to what he described as “sloppy politics” embedded in the state by state system of ratification. After he shot back a few quick e-mail replies to students and faculty members, he began to talk about the problems with this issue.
“The problem with same-sex marriage is that it’s a state issue when it should be a federal issue. The federal government is running away from its responsibility when it is clear this is really a constitutional issue.”
As he tried to research more about the Hawaii case on his iMac, he seemed pretty confident about the failure of state-by state referendums.
“Leaving same-sex marriage up to the states only drains money and what we see is little victories and big defeats. In all referendums, the majority has never voted to expand the rights of minorities.”
However, in November 2009, the Ohio House of Representatives witnessed a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act by Rep. Tyrone Yates, D-Cincinnati, who introduced a resolution which would eliminate Section 11, Article 15 of the Constitution.
Barron cracked a quick smile as she was sending a friend a quick text message. “I would support this challenge,” she said. “It is kind of ironic because I am otherwise a Republican but there is no awareness about the inequalities gay people face. The law does not stop same-sex couples from co-habitation and engaging in family life so it would only benefit more people in the long run.”
However, Sluss and Hart both seem skeptical of the challenge, expressing opinions of doubt whether the initiative will affect change in Ohio.
“I don’t agree with this,” said Sluss while he sat engaged in the conversation. “I think people have gotten caught up in popular culture in recent years but I do not think much has changed since 2004.”
Although Hart did express his admiration for Yates’ courage in contesting the same-sex marriage ban, he consents with Sluss about his skepticism for Yates’ resolution. “I believe this state will be one of the last states who will legalize same-sex marriage by either following other states’ support or by having the issue legalized at the national level. It is simply easier to go with the status quo than to side with change.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)