For an advertising research class that I was tricked into taking (It was supposed to be a communications research class, but one week before the semester started I got an e-mail saying that it was a section for advertising majors--which I'm not--and that I should go to the section for my major--which I didn't. The section for my major is held during my work time, so I am being forced to learn all about how to deceive people into believing that spending money on a useless product is a worthwhile thing to do.), I am going to be surveying lots (hundreds) of people about University's newspaper: The Daily Universe. The DU has a great circulation and is read by everyone, but their research shows that despite reading it every day, everyone hates it. We figure that everyone reads it just because it's there, it's free, and there's no alternative.So to help me figure out what questions should be on a questionnaire about the DU, I'm asking for your help!
Let me know what you think of it. Specific things, if possible. What would make you read it more? What parts do you like, what parts don't you like, etc. Just comments about anything that has to do with the DU--whatever you think. Here are the 3 responses that everyone gives, and therefore, I would love it if you didn't answer the same: 1) The editing sucks; 2) Not enough world news; 3) The Church is too involved in the paper. Here are my answers to those... answers.
1) Yes, it does. The paper is written and edited by journalism students on deadlines. It's going to suck. 2) Oh, c'mon... you don't really get your world news from the DU anyway, and wouldn't even if it had more. Most school newspapers don't have any world news at all. 3) That's not going to change. This isn't a "student-run paper" at all (despite #1). It's a free paper at a Church-run university, and copies of it are sent to the Church leaders every day--who then call the paper if they have input. So it really doesn't matter if you think they're too involved--they're not stopping, nor should they. It's their school.
So there you go! Thanks for helping!
8 comments:
I think that the DU too closely resembles DUI and should thus improve its image by changing its name to IS (Informational Stuff). And although I think that the editing stinks, it needs more world and national news, and the Church is very involved in the paper (which I think is fine), I have to say that it is most definitely worth its cost. A sports section and improved classified ads section would most assuredly attract my attention.
My 5 reasons for reading the DU:
1. To make fun of it
2. To feel superior
3. To look for ski resort 2 for 1 coupons
4. To look for material for my stand-up routine (op/ed usually)
5. Something to read when dropping the kids off at the pool, and I'm sick of playing Jawbreaker on my PDA
I would read it more if there were more, not-lame political cartoons.
I would read it more if there were fewer articles written by print journalism majors. They should get guest writers from other majors.
I have little to no hope for and improved veresion of the DU. They should just xerox articles from Church News, the Ensign, the New Era, and the Friend. Especially like in the friend they have the mug-shots of all those little kids. I know the singles in on campus would dig the photos. Yeah, single classifieds in the DU... yeah.
The number one question on your questionnaire should be, "If the DU were a pizza, what toppings would it have?" That is the best way to make questionnaires fun.
I remember reading that paper in order to make fun of all the morons who write letters to the editor. That's about all I ever got out of it. Also, I got horribly misquoted a couple of times when people interviewed me, making me sound like a total moron.
If you'd like me to send you a complimentary copy of my town paper, I'd be more than happy to. The comparison might make everyone feel better about the DU. First, you have to get a bunch of stay-at-home moms who may or may not have graduated from high school to write articles about things no one cares about. The old lady who lives in the trailer park and raises bees, for example. This would be your front-page article. Even if it was time for the mayoral race. Then you get the editors to scramble the letters to about every tenth word. Next, make up headlines that show how ignorant you are, like "Golf course has above-par opening," and stuff all the actual news inside the store ad section that everyone throws away. Also, don't allow letters to the editor to be printed. Ever. If someone does write something clever, intelligent, and timely, make sure you have it retyped by hand. By a chimpanzee. Have a third-grader take all the photos. Make sure to have five or six pages of mission farewell notices, and several more of wedding notices. The mission "farewells" should all list dates and times of the meetings, just like we've been repeatedly asked not to do. There's more, but I don't want to ruin the experience for you. Let me know if you want me to send one.
The DU: (warning: this will be long)
I haven't read it since before my mission. Before my mission, I would get it every day and grab a highlighter. Then I'd read it, highlighting all the things that made me laugh out loud, and I'd give it to my boyfriend to enjoy the highlights. (Clarification: The highlights were all the stupid things that the DU printed, and the boyfriend turned out to be gay in the end; therefore, the DU causes homosexuality. I know this because of all the gays I know at BYU, all or most of them have at one point read the DU.)
When reporting on the disaster in New Orleans, the breaking news headline was "Swimming in the Streets." I don't know about you, but that actually sounds like fun to me. You know. Playing in the Park. Dancing in the Dark. It just sounds like fun. (Clarification: Fun does not equal disaster. They could have done, "Starving at the Stadium" or "Cleaning up the Corpses." Swimming in the Streets does not sound like disaster.)
Misquoting: For anyone who might read this and research this, know that if you ever ask me about it personally, I will tell you that it's not true, in order to protect my writer friend. But I had a friend who was writing for the DU last year, and he asked all the single unengaged women he knew about their expectations for an engagement ring. I told him very emphatically that I didn't agree with the notion that girls have to have diamond rings---especially girls who are getting married while she and her fiance are in college. I asked him if he went into debt to buy his wife's ring. He did. I said that I just didn't think that it was right for a young married couple to have to include "ring" in their monthly bills. Rent, insurance, phone, ring. It just didn't make sense. I said that I'd be happy with a ring that didn't even have diamonds and that I'd be happy with a ring that costs up to four hundred dollars, but I'd be happy with something less expensive.
A few days later, Brozy's roommate pointed out to us that we were mentioned in an article. The article, referring to me, said, "Some women expect the ring to cost much less than rings actually do. Cicada, a senior from Maryland, estimated her husband-to-be might spend as little as $400 on her ring." First of all, he deliberately skewed what I had said. Second of all, I wasn't a senior. Third of all, I never claim Maryland as my home. The next paragraph follows, "Luckily, the men seem to be prepared for something between $1000 and $2000."
You know: "Luckily, though some women like Cicada are absolutely clueless, men actually have an idea of what something like this should cost."
Now, I love my friend dearly. I still rake him over the coals for what he did to me in this situation. His response: "I didn't think you'd ever read it." For those who know my name, if you google it in quotation marks, you go straight to that article. "Cicada, a senior from Maryland, is bafflingly ignorant."
This makes me want to talk about rings, but that is not what this post is about. So Coop, I think your next post should be about rings, so we can all talk about that some more. Then I can tell you a really great story about my 1 carat, $250 wedding ring.
I love reading the DU for misplaced modifiers.
Dalton Girl, this sounds suspiciously like *my* hometown's paper. Have you been stealing copies of our paper and passing them off as your own? I'm sure you'd never do that, if you understood the loving effort that goes into making it a quality paper.
Yeah. So I frequently edit things that my mom submits to our paper (because it's funny how only certain families' children get covered when we're talking about sports events; we've found that if our family does well at anything, the only way anyone finds out is if we go to the music rental shop, buy a freaking trombone, and toot our own horn, vigorously). Only it's to no avail. We could submit articles that had no semantic value whatsoever in the English language, and the "editors" would still find a way to make them less comprehensible.
So anyway. The DU. Depends what y'all are willing to change. Because it seems that the role of the DU is to create some sort of sense of community among the students (much the way small-town papers do) by focusing on things that are pertinent to students' lives. The problem is, many of the these "pertinent" things seem trite. And you can only talk about how students are sleep deprived and should eat more healthily so many times before it starts to get old.
Personally, I'd like more coverage of current events on the Provo level. (Since world news is disallowed. That is something I would really be interested in.) Let's hear more about the changes in housing laws. What ever happened to SCAMP? And when BYU makes changes that strongly affect students (Wyview housing, free parking but not bus passes, etc.), could we hear about it sooner? (That one's probably BYU's fault, not the DU's.)
And if we have to talk about all the cutesy organizations on campus, can we try to be interesting and quit pretending that we're discussing things just for news value?
Lastly, stop stinking misquoting. Be honest in the reporting.
[Note: This is directed at the DU, not at you, Coop.]
Thanks everyone!
1) Above-par opening... priceless.
2) Yeah, Swimming in the Streets was as bad as it could be I thought.
3) It really is amazing about all of the misquoting. I've heard about it before, but never heard specific stories. That's one thing I find it hard to just excuse, saying "it's a tool for students to gain experience." still doesn't mean that you shouldn't be honest.
Thanks for all the comments! Now my group won't grade me down for not getting peer input. Phew!
Reasons I dislike the DU:
1: Poor grammer and spelling. (Not that I have much standing to complain, but I do expect budding journalists to spell better than someone who got a C in English).
2: Editorials that are rebelious and snippy about the Church, Honor Code, and people who take themselves seriously. It smacks of people trying to ingrate themselves to the irreligious who dominate jouralism today, but without actually breaking from the Church.
3: The lack of investigative reporting. I am often left thinking "I wish they had explained a little more about that." Short, shallow, touchy-feely stories don't satisfy me.
4: The constant mangling of quotes. I know that this is a student paper, but accurately citing a quote is a basic skill. I have personally been misquoted. You have to use exact words when quoting someone, and you have to make sure you place it in context.
5: Compared to others here, I actually think the DU spends too much time on world events. I want to read more about what is happening here.
6: The attempts to write authoritativly about subjects that the author does not understand. (I notice this most in articles that try to explain economic principles- I'm an Econ major). It especcially frustrates me, (and my professors), when they quote a professor as an expert and misquote them so badly that they use the professor's quote to support the position opposed by the professor. If they want to have an article that requires expertise, they should get a guest writer from that major. If they then want to write their own article expanding on the expert's article that would be fine. (In fact Newsweek and Time magazines, and major papers often do exactly that).
Post a Comment