Official blog of Clark's Blogging for Journalists class, Mass Communication department

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Ben Bradlee and the Washington Post

Assignment: Read these two articles.
Ben Bradlee

Bradlee the Editor 

Comment below, by 5 kpm Monday Oct. 27
1. What is the most interesting thing you've learned about Mr. Bradlee?
2 Do you see any differences in this kind of journalism and today's media?
3. Do you think social media, including blogging, has changed this type of journalism?


  1. 1. The way he was. Always chasing the truth, idealist trying to put out the best newspaper every day. He was like a one man brand. His name was enough to determine if a story is worth telling or not, if he approved it was. If he shown up at a party, it was a party worth to be. And for all journalists he is an icon. I don't want to use word "was" because his impact on the world of journalism is still clearly visible.

    2. Today's media are more about the amount than a quality. In the Internet era it is important to post 24/7, to keep a reader enternatined and interested. I also think media were more reliable back then, but also much slower.

    3. yes thet did, social media allow readers to have access to informational all the time. Blogging allowed many people to express their mind and opinion freely without need of being a professional journalist.

  2. 1. He was always trying to make things better for the newspapert and himself.
    2. Media sources from now and back then have changed a lot. News is so much faster now a days than back then. Plus their are so many different sources of news.
    3. Yes it has. Our media now allows others to have full access to information and news at anytime. Blogging is a great way to find common interests as well as share your thoughts and opinions with the world.

  3. 1l Burnstein and Woodward get the credit for Watergate. I mean, they were the bylines, but it does take a good ballsy editor to allow your reporters to make such a major indictment against a sitting president based off of anonymous source's testimony, especially if this source takes his name off of a stag film about blowjobs.

    His friendship with the Kennedy's, the first-hand witnessing of the hospital where JFK's died, and his statement on always looking for the truth beyond the "official truth," lets me understand why he came to feel this way.

    Did you know Nixon was in Dallas on the morning of JFK's assassination? Yep. Working as a lawyer for Pepsi Cola, but he was there. Strange.

    2. Of course. I see a difference between the media of the turn of the 20th century and Bradlee's time. You have Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken and Ida Tarbell writing amazing work back then. By the time you hit the 60's you still had great writers and hard-nosed investigative journalists, but it was already on the downhill slide. Now, most editors won't even publish a reporter actually writing his way out of a paper-bag. They want you in that soggy paper bag. It's safer that way.

    I feel now, simply due to laziness, convenience and low paying jobs in Journalism, we are reactive to a fault as an industry. This is mostly caused by industries that exist solely to distract and spin the news. Public Relations has too many city beat and capitol beat reporters writing off press releases.

    Too many papers are crafted now just to feed three or four people off the ad revenue the paper generates. A weekly that refuses to say bad things about people, places or things, like The Gazette, is a perfect example. Exposing negatives doesn't sell ad revenue, and thus doesn't feed the few people actually on staff.

    3. Long form journalism is a thing of the past. The only thing the new media does better than the old media did is immersion journalism. The rest of it I have a highly cynical viewpoint of. Unfortunately, bloggers masquerading as reporters, without any known personal credibility, or the credibility of a publication, is damaging to uncovering actual political corruption, or actual conspiracies.

    Another problem is, no offense, the way reporting is taught. Used to be you knew you were doing your job if you pissed off every side involved in a story.

    Now, pissing anyone off by exposing the truth is considered a bad thing, at least according to my experience with college news papers. So you have blogging as an avenue for your rejected news stories that should have seen the light of day. But the lack of credibility of "the internet," means that anything blogged is suspect. It's too easily ignored.

  4. 1. he was well-liked even when being himself, which normally included profanity and very strong opinions.
    2. I see a lot of differences now, most news gatherers would be more careful to not offend anyone to get more information; he didn't seem worried about that.
    3. In some aspects I suppose blogging creates a barrier. A safe zone where you can have personal input about a story.

  5. 1. He was very driven. I like that it mentioned how-well rounded he was. He had the "it" factor. I also like that it mentioned his small attention span. Sometimes I feel this way, and I wondered if it would affect my ability to be a journalist.

    2. I definitely see differences. With online media, journalism had to completely change styles.

    3.Blogging created a safe-zone for literally everyone to boast their own opinions for all to see. Blogs can be taken as fact, and things can be passed around (on.. let's say.. facebook) and cause miscommunication about current events.

  6. 1. I think him being close to JFK is really interesting, I've never been much into politics but I've always found the Kennedy family interesting. Also, him being the main editor on Watergate is definitely a highlight.
    2. One of the main differences, it seems to me, is how news back then was viewed and had to be nearly perfect. Today it seems like a lot more news is kinda sloppy and not done as professionally as back then.
    3. Definitely. This type of journalism is not seen as often because people usually refer to social media and blogs for their news instead of accomplished and renowned papers because the Internet is more convenient, although usually not as reliable or factual.

  7. 1. I liked how driven he was. I also liked how he was always trying to improve himself and the paper.

    2. Yes, there is a difference. Then they used to have to wait until at least the day after to be published in the daily news paper. Today we publish news in a mater of seconds through social media and online newspapers.

    3. Yes it has. Now we are able to access news whenever and wherever we want. Blogging allows us to freely share our opinion. The social media and blogging has totally changed the game of news.

    Susan Phillips.

  8. 1. What I learned from him is that you should purse the truth no matter the cost. Even if it might cost you a lot.
    2. I think that there is drastic differences, because he was willing to put it all on the line for the truth. I think that was a passion that is sometimes not as apparent.
    3. Yes, with social media available all day long, it makes it easy to access the information anytime anywhere. Making people less likely to look at older news sources.

  9. 1. His determination and will to provide quality news shows that the truth is the most valuable thing you can search for.
    2. There is a noticeable difference in reliability and content. News today is quicker, but sometimes less accurate and not as newsworthy.
    3. With the drastic differences in today's news sources and older journalism, there's no denying the fact that the internet changed the way people view news. Society wants fast news and regular updates, and older sources of journalism are quickly becoming obsolete.

  10. 1. Mr. Bradlee's tenacity makes him stand out. His ability to be both professional and ferocious at the same time gives him the right to be a journalist. It takes a tough skin and a lot of passion to pursue certain stories and I believe that is what made Bradlee able to bring the Post to it's position.
    2. I think there are so many different kinds of journalism out there today. Some who are relentless and driven to find a story, and others who don't push as much to find the truth.
    3. I definitely believe social media has changed journalism. It is so difficult to be competitive when you can tweet in an instant and the whole world knows a story. It takes courage to find the facts first and wait until the truth is out. Before the immediacy of the internet, journalism had somewhat of an advantage, but now it is just more difficult to keep up.

  11. 1. The most interesting thing I found about Ben Bradlee was his ability to be a heard worker and get things done, but also how he was a very down to earth person. He could be tough while also being everyone's favorite.
    2. Some of the main differences include the writing and detailed information about certain stories. Today, many times media will only give part of the story but Bradlee took the time to dig deep and use resources to write about.
    3. Social media such as blogging has changed journalism because now everyone is more focused on being the first to tell the story rather than focusing on the truth and the content. During Bradlee's time, he may have had to wait a couple days to receive information but now, people are constantly posting information to multiple social media platforms.

  12. 1. Takes pride in his work and is truthful and dedicated to get the write information to the public.
    2. Journalism is more of what's on the internet vs. a newspaper. It has changed a lot and the news is faster than ever before.
    3. Media today is a lot different, blogging is a way to engage the interest and thoughts to everyone online. It is also a safe zone to writers to express their opinions.