So I'm sitting at the sports desk, waiting for pages to read/t-copy and watching Star Trek with William Shatner while reading my homework and discussing, on and off, passive voice. In journalism, passive voice is unacceptable, apparently in any context.
Passive voice, generally, in fiction, is good to avoid. You want to show, not tell, and passive voice hinders that. However, we discussed in class, it's acceptable when making a character feel not in control. For example, If Jack is frustrated at the way Jill is planning their weekend, you could write, "plans were made" to give the reader that same sense of feeling others are acting on you.
In journalism though, I can't write "Billy was trampled by the bull." I have to say "the bull trampled Billy." Even though I think that Billy should be the main focus. And the article is not about the accident. It's about how a rodeo is in memoriam of him. So I don't think the accident should be jumping out at the reader. *sigh* I understand, but it's going to take some getting used to. Journalism rules, unlike English rules, generally aren't made to be broken. And, as most of your aren't English majors, I'm sure you've quit reading by now. But I just feel I need to share how complicated paper-making is. Everyone complains about all the problems and errors, but seriously, it's tough.
On another note, a weird she/he person passed out/died on Star Trek, and his temple had a red glowing dot that appeared, then quickly disappeared. And there's a lady in a shiny dress. But I don't know what the heck it's about. But hey it's got Spock!
Well, I'm going to get back to reading about film adaptations. Oh, and Trading Spouses is an evil show. Don't watch it.
1.29.2007
1.21.2007
Anna's first Collegian night shift
Ahh... 10:30 and things are going well, I think. T copied a couple pages already, I'm still awake, a bonus. I really do enjoy working at the Collegian. The people are fun and interesting, and discussions always pop up about weird topics. Everyone has an opinion of course, it is a newspaper, but people respect each other (for the most part) when opinions differ.
Tonight however, has united the newsroom occupants against Cyndi Waite, a writer for the Daily Nebraskan (chalk up another reason NU is evil). If you'd like to read her article — I'm fair and won't criticize someone without providing a way for her ridiculous opinion to have a slight glimpse of sun — check it out here: Waite birth control article. Waite basically argues against the government's decisions that ultimately result in an increase in the cost of birth control, because, apparently, consequence-free sex is a right.
It's preposterous! No matter what your moral position on sex outside of marriage (which I feel strongly about, but won't argue about here), I don't understand how you can justify this belief. I mean, do I have a right to drink fancy coffee every day? Should daily coffee be subsidized by the government so my beloved iced raspberry hazelnut latte is a mere 99 cents? Should the government pay for me to enjoy something? Seriously.
Sex without "consequences" — because apparently life, when it is not your own, is a nuisance — is ridiculous. One, there are several other risks created by the kind of sexual behavior Waite refers to — STDs for example. Two, there are consequences for ALL of our actions, period, and our decisions should factor in those consequences. I don't have a parking permit for campus. The ticket price went up and I can't afford to pay $50 to park in the O lot. I can't handle the consequences, so I don't take the risk. If I can't afford birth control and I can't afford a kid, I don't have sex. It's that simple.
Sex without "consequences" merely means sex for pleasure. Should the government be required to cover the cost of enjoyment? No. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. The government doesn't provide it. Nor should we expect the government to eliminate any and all consequences of our actions in the pursuit of self-satisfaction. There are more important things for the government to take care of. Waite should consider thinking of others, and instead of wasting that $38 on her vagina and fleeting pleasure, perhaps she could use that money to cover the cost of living for an orphan in Africa for a year. Something that really matters.
Tonight however, has united the newsroom occupants against Cyndi Waite, a writer for the Daily Nebraskan (chalk up another reason NU is evil). If you'd like to read her article — I'm fair and won't criticize someone without providing a way for her ridiculous opinion to have a slight glimpse of sun — check it out here: Waite birth control article. Waite basically argues against the government's decisions that ultimately result in an increase in the cost of birth control, because, apparently, consequence-free sex is a right.
It's preposterous! No matter what your moral position on sex outside of marriage (which I feel strongly about, but won't argue about here), I don't understand how you can justify this belief. I mean, do I have a right to drink fancy coffee every day? Should daily coffee be subsidized by the government so my beloved iced raspberry hazelnut latte is a mere 99 cents? Should the government pay for me to enjoy something? Seriously.
Sex without "consequences" — because apparently life, when it is not your own, is a nuisance — is ridiculous. One, there are several other risks created by the kind of sexual behavior Waite refers to — STDs for example. Two, there are consequences for ALL of our actions, period, and our decisions should factor in those consequences. I don't have a parking permit for campus. The ticket price went up and I can't afford to pay $50 to park in the O lot. I can't handle the consequences, so I don't take the risk. If I can't afford birth control and I can't afford a kid, I don't have sex. It's that simple.
Sex without "consequences" merely means sex for pleasure. Should the government be required to cover the cost of enjoyment? No. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. The government doesn't provide it. Nor should we expect the government to eliminate any and all consequences of our actions in the pursuit of self-satisfaction. There are more important things for the government to take care of. Waite should consider thinking of others, and instead of wasting that $38 on her vagina and fleeting pleasure, perhaps she could use that money to cover the cost of living for an orphan in Africa for a year. Something that really matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)