Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Remote Class on an icy night...Part 2

Hopefully, you're all having fun composing a VOX out of the best election soundbites from the class. Take until 7:30 to put that together...and submit your script as a comment to that blog posting. After that, you're free to go...This second assignment is for next week. It's a "wrap" or "spot" about the Roger Clemens steroid hearings on Capitol Hill today.

Below is the print version of an AP story about the proceedings. Here is a section of the questioning of Brian McNamee by Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays.

Here's what I want you to do:

1. Write a 1:30 "wrap", using the copy below as the basis for the story, and the tape from the hearing as the soundbite. This story must include a "host introduction" or "host lead." The last line of this lead should be "WNPR's ___________ reports." This lead should include the NEWS of this story...what happened today that was important. Then, your copy should include more news, background, one soundbite (maximum :30) chosen from the tape provided and a close. Your close should move the story forward in some way...what's happening next?

2. You're writing it from the standpoint of a Connecticut radio reporter - for a Connecticut radio audience. So, you'll want to focus on Shays being part of the hearing, as well as Clemens connection to the two local baseball teams, the Yankees and Red Sox.

3. The script format should be like this:

Intro: Blah Blah Blah. WNPR's ________ reports:

Copy: Blah Blah Blah. Some words to identify the speaker in the soundbite.

Cut (Shays): Blah Blah Blah.

Copy: Blah Blah Blah. A fantastic close. For WNPR, I'm ___________.

Sound good?? Bring a hard copy next week...and a digital version to edit.

This story is from the Associated Press:


Under oath and sometimes blistering questioning, Roger Clemens stuck to his story Wednesday. So did his chief accuser and former personal trainer, Brian McNamee. And after a 4 1/2-hour hearing, Congress settled for a draw in the he-said, he-said between the two men over whether the seven-time Cy Young Award winner used performance-enhancing drugs.Ultimately, the matter may be referred to the Justice Department for a resolution -- and, possibly, criminal charges."I haven't reached any conclusions at this point," said California Democrat Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.But, as ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia, put it: "Both can't be telling the truth."

Clemens and McNamee, once employer and employee, and by all accounts once friends, sat at the same witness table and rarely, if ever, looked at the other.His reputation and legacy on the line, Clemens gestured toward McNamee with his right arm and said, "I have strong disagreements with what this man says about me."At times, Clemens struggled to find the right words as he was pressed by lawmakers about McNamee's allegations -- told to federal prosecutors and then baseball investigator George Mitchell -- that he injected the pitcher with steroids and human growth hormone from 1998 to 2001. Clemens also was asked about new accounts of drug use made against him by former teammate and pal Andy Pettitte.Using words like "misremembered" and even mispronouncing McNamee's name at one point, Clemens raised his voice toward the end to interrupt Waxman's closing remarks. Waxman pounded his gavel and said, "Excuse me, but this is not your time to argue with me."

It seemed clear nearly from the start that the committee would not treat Clemens with kid gloves, despite all the face-to-face sit-downs he did with representatives in recent days -- sometimes posing for photos or signing autographs for staff members.Later, the committee appeared split along party lines, with the Democrats reserving their most pointed queries for Clemens, and the Republicans giving McNamee a rougher time. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, likened the hearing to a "Roman Circus" featuring gladiators."I have never taken steroids or HGH," Clemens said after rising with McNamee to swear to tell the truth. "No matter what we discuss here today, I am never going to have my name restored."

For many, his denials rang hollow."It's hard to believe you, sir," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat. "I hate to say that. You're one of my heroes. But it's hard to believe."McNamee's answers were generally quick and concise. His credibility also came under scrutiny."You're here under oath, and yet we have lie after lie after lie after lie," said Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican.When it was over, Clemens left the hearing room through a back door. Just before exiting, he paused to shake hands with Davis. Clemens later spoke briefly to reporters, saying: "I'm very thankful and very grateful for this day to come. I'm glad for the opportunity finally. And, you know, I hope I get -- and I know I will have -- the opportunity to come here to Washington again under different terms."Exactly two months after the Mitchell Report was released, Clemens and McNamee were separated by one seat in the same wood-paneled room where Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro saw their careers tarnished during a hearing in March 2005. In a reference to McGwire's evasions that day, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., admonished Wednesday's witnesses by saying: "It's better not to talk about the past than to lie about the past."

Clemens briefly stared at McNamee, his former employee, during his accuser's opening statement, in which the trainer said he injected Clemens more times than he previously had said.Members of Congress questioned the credibility of both.Waxman -- who opened the proceedings by saying he thought this would be the last hearing his committee holds on baseball -- pointed out inconsistencies in Clemens' comments. Waxman also accused Clemens of possibly attempting to influence statements to the committee by the pitcher's former nanny.Burton repeatedly read remarks McNamee had made, and each time the former trainer was forced to admit they were untrue."This is really disgusting. You're here as a sworn witness. You're here to tell the truth," he said. "I don't know what to believe. I know one thing I don't believe and that's you."Cummings set the tone within minutes of the start, repeatedly reminding Clemens he was under oath and admonishing the pitcher to "keep your voice up."

McNamee was asked to pull his microphone closer.Debbie Clemens, the pitcher's wife, sat behind her husband and listened as Waxman implicated her in HGH use, citing statements by Pettitte. Later, Clemens read a statement from his wife and said she "has been broken up over this."IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, a key member of the federal prosecution team against Barry Bonds, watched from a second-row seat. Asked why he was there, Novitzky declined comment.Bonds, baseball's home run king, was indicted in November on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his 2003 testimony to a grand jury in which he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs. Because of his denials under oath, Clemens could be subjected to a similar criminal probe. McNamee also could be referred to the Justice Department.

Pettitte, who was excused from testifying, said in a statement to the committee that Clemens admitted to him as long as 10 years ago that he used HGH. Waxman read from affidavits by Pettitte and Pettitte's wife, Laura, supporting the accusations."Andy Pettitte is my friend. He was my friend before this. He will be my friend after this and again. I think Andy has misheard," Clemens said. "I think he misremembers."McNamee told Mitchell that he injected Clemens 16 to 21 times with steroids and human growth hormone from 1998-01, and that Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch used HGH. In his opening statement, McNamee said he might have injected Clemens and Knoblauch more than that."I have helped taint our national pastime," McNamee said. "Make no mistake: When I told Sen. Mitchell that I injected Roger Clemens with performance-enhancing drugs, I told the truth."Waxman said McNamee, a former New York City police officer, lied to police seven years ago during an investigation of a possible rape. He also was tough on Clemens."We have found conflicts and inconsistencies in Mr. Clemens' account.

During his deposition, he made statements that we know are untrue," Waxman said.In the affidavit, Pettitte said Clemens backtracked when the subject of HGH came up again in conversation in 2005, before the same House committee held the first hearing on steroids in baseball.Pettitte said in the affidavit that he asked Clemens in 2005 what he would do if asked about performance-enhancing substances. Pettitte said Clemens responded by saying Pettitte misunderstood the previous exchange in 1999 or 2000 and that, in fact, Clemens had been talking about HGH use by his wife in the original conversation.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Remote Class on an icy night...

Well, I never got both of our cars out of the driveway today. Serves me right for living in Winsted. But, at least we can all gather here around the warm computer screen for a while. I'm actually glad this worked out...because, as Gina mentioned, this is all turning to ice again soon.

I know some of you are going to be logging in a bit after 6:30. Please post a comment to this entry whenever you're around - so that I know we're all here. I'll give a brief outline of what we're doing first:

I'm posting the transcripts of the VOX interviews you guys did this past week. They'll be posted in their entirety. Now, I'm usually not one to do "fake" stories - those not grounded in reality. But, we'll make an exception. Treat these interviews as though they were done last Tuesday, as Connecticut voted in the primary. Clearly, not all of your interviewees voted...

Find 5 pertinent soundbites that you can shape into a VOX - running 1:00. Now, I know we don't have the timers that we do on the AP/ENPS system, but you can read the bites aloud to get an idea. So, what do we want in this VOX? Well, a variety of voices, opinions and ideas. We want it to be as balanced as possible (Not all pro-Ron Paul voters) and we want interesting responses. Once you have a script, post it in a "comment" to this blog post. Listen back to this VOX by Catie Talarski to get an idea of what we mean.

Please take about 30 minutes to do this...I'll post another assignment in a bit. Any questions? Post a comment, or email me at jkdankosky@quinnipiac.edu.

Transcripts are coming in one minute....

VOX Transcriptions

Broadcast Journalism Student, who supports Ron Paul but didn’t register to vote.
Didn’t get his name on tape.
:10
Gina: Did you vote in the primary?
Journalism student: I’m actually not registered yet to vote. :15
Gina: Tell me about that.
Journalism student: :20 I’m just, I’m here usually so when I’m home, I’m working and I usually don’t have time to do that. :26
Gina: Are you registered to vote back home?
Journalism student: :28 Yes, I, I didn’t go home to vote, but if I did, I would have voted for Ron Paul. :31
Gina: Why is that?
Journalism student: :36
I just like what he has to say … all his ideas, he like, knows what he’s talking about. He doesn’t seem to just say it to make people like him. :42 He is just doing it because he knows, he thinks it’s right.”:45
:45
Gina: What year are you?
Journalism student: A sophomore.
Gina: And have you voted in past elections?
Journalism student: Not presidential, obviously, but in other ones.
Gina: What are you going to do in November?
Journalism student: Ah… I’m going to go home and vote, definitely, if I’m not, we’re probably not on break so I’ll go home and vote.1:02 I’m not sure who yet because Ron Paul won’t be around at that time. 1:06
Gina: Are you going to vote for McCain? 1:08
Journalism student: [[Ah…, maybe, I’ve got to see who he is running against. I’d vote for Obama over him, but not Clinton. I don’t like Clinton. 1:06]]
Gina: That’s kind of interesting, ideologically… so Obama or Ron Paul?
Journalism student: Yeah, those are my two.
Gina: Why those two sort of anti-establishment candidates?
Journalism student: [[1:26 I just sort of like what they have to say. They seem to know what they’re talking about. I like what their policies are on certain things. 1:34]]


Track 5: with Nicole, a Junior studying Occupational Therapy who voted for Hilary Clinton
Gina: So did you vote in the primary?
Nicole: Yes.
Gina: Do you mind if I ask, who did you vote for?
Nicole: :21 I voted for Hilary Clinton. :23
Gina: And why is that?
Nicole: :25 [[I just, I don’t know, (laugh) I liked what she stood for and I just felt like she was the most qualified.]] :32
Gina: Have you voted much in past elections?
Nicole: I didn’t vote because I wasn’t 18.
Gina: How did it feel voting in this election?
Nicole: Umn… it felt pretty good.
Gina: How did you feel about the outcome?
Nicole: :46 I don’t care, really. :50
Gina: Where are you from?
Nicole: I’m from Massachusetts. :54

Track 6: Dan Mackey, a freshman studying accounting
Gina: Did you vote in the Primary?
Dan: No I didn’t actually.
Gina: Why not?
Dan: :18 I didn’t really have enough time to get registered… just turned 18. :22
Gina: if you had… who do you think you might have voted for?
Dan: Probably McCain.
Gina: Why is that?
Dan: :31 ah… Republican reasons… laugh.:32
Gina: Like what sort of reasons are important? There are a lot of Republican candidates?
Dan: :37 [[Uh, I don’t know, mainly about the war I guess. I don’t agree with Obama, and especially not Hillary about their issues on the war. So, that’s basically….]] :46
Gina: How do you feel about Hillary?
Dan: :48 [[I don’t really know, I don’t, personally I don’t like her, mainly because of Bill Clinton and I know that he’s going to have a lot of influence on her so that’s basically how I feel about it.]] 1:00
Gina: How do you feel about McCain doing well now?
Dan: 1:03 [[I’m very happy actually. I’m happy that Hillary’s not ahead anyway. So hopefully it works out for the best. I guess…]] 1:11
Gina: So do you think you’ll be registered by November?
Dan: Yeah, definitely, when I go home, I’m going to. 1:17
Gina: Are you going to vote here?
Dan: I think I’m going to vote at home.
Gina: Where is that?
Dan: Long Island.




1. What is your name and where do or did you work?
My name is Barbara Sendroff and I worked at the law firm of Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. as a legal secretary.

2. Did you vote in the primary?
Yes.

3. Who did you vote for?
I voted for Barack Obama.

4. Why did you vote for Barack Obama?
I voted for Barack Obama because he is intelligent, enthusiastic and has a quiet strength about him. To me he represents hope and a new beginning for us. He is inclusive of all races, religions, ages, classes and ethnicities, bringing us together so that we can all work toward uniting our country together and moving our country forward to achieve healthcare, ending the war in Iraq, erasing poverty and becoming a positive role not only for ourselves, but for the world. I believe he is the best candidate to achieve these goals.

5. What is different in the primary this year in comparison with other years?
Two firsts – a woman running for President and an African American man running for President.

6. What is the surprise of 2008 Primary Presidential Election?
That so many people have become involved and got out to vote.

The second interview

1. What is your name and where do or did you work?
My name is Marc Allen and I worked for the Town of Hamden as the Bach Tax Collector.

2. Did you vote in the primary?
Yes, I voted.

3. Who did you vote for?
I voted for Barack Obama

4. Why did you vote for Barack Obama?
I voted for Obama because he has ignited a vision of hope and promise that has not existed for so long, and with his inclusiveness, and personality, may be able to translate those attributes into the change we so desperately need. Billary is old school, had their chance, and come with too much baggage.

5. What is different in the primary this year in comparison with other years?
That a woman and a black man are the candidates for the presidency. As a septuagenarian white male, I never in my life time imagined that this could occur.

6. What is the surprise of 2008 Primary Presidential Election?
The excitement, the enthusiasm, young people being brought into the process, the anticipation of how the remaining states will vote and decide the contest. Some of my cynicism is waning.




#1: Rick Coppola (GRAD)
MG: Did you vote in the Primary?
RC: I did not.
MG: Why not?
RC: I just got caught up in the day, I was intending on voting, but I didn’t have time, coming to work and school.
MG: If you had time, who would you have voted for?
RC: I don’t know. I don’t really identify with any political party, but I’m still undecided, still feeling my way out.
MG: Is there anybody you like in particular?
RC: I think I’m leaning more toward McCain at this point, but I still want to listen to some of the debates. We’ll see.
MG: Do you get the feeling that this year’s election is any more important than the last? Is there anything that makes it different to you?
RC: Well, I think your Democratic candidates, you know, one being a woman, the other being a black man, I think that’s particular of interest to the American people. And on the other side, you have a war veteran. There’s a lot of interesting personalities in the mix, and it’s starting to get heated now.

#2: Brittany Roy ’08
MG: Did you vote in the Primary?
BR: I did not.
MG: Why not?
BR: I’m out-of-state, and I didn’t register.
MG: If you could have voted, who would you have voted for?
BR: Oh man, I haven’t done my homework that well, but probably, right now, probably Hillary.
MG: Why?
BR: I like the idea of the medical [?]. I don’t know enough about the other candidates. I only know the most about her, and I think the media has definitely helped with that.
MG: Do you feel there’s anything different about this year’s election?
BR: I think it’s going to be the biggest election yet. It’s obviously the most important. We have a black president, we have a war veteran and a woman. I don’t think it gets any more controversial than that.


Joyce Chase, Meriden
Cory Peck: Who did you vote for?
JC: John McCain.
CP: I’m going to ask you why, but feel free not to answer.
JC: It’s more or less a gut reaction, uh, I agree with his politics, um. He is a war hero. I’m very conservative, he is conservative, although that is somewhat questionable. That’s probably about it.
CP: This year it kinda seems like there is more enthusiasm with this election, have you noticed anything different for yourself with this year’s presidential primary?
JC: It’s way too long. There’s too much fuss now where most of the emphasis really should be closer to November instead of now. But I suppose for those that are going to vote in the primary elections or head towards the conventions to decide who the delegate will be, I suppose that now is also an important time, but it’s very long and very tedious.

George Alexopoulos, Wallingford:
Cory Peck: So who did you vote for on Tuesday?
GA: Hillary
CP: Why?
GA: I like her. I’m a democrat and I just like her policy on healthcare and that whole thing.
CP: What feels different this year? Do you think the primary and the hype is different this year?
GA: I don’t know. People are very unhappy with what’s going on and the administration. It seems like people want change and that’s what it really feels like. I don’t think McCain is the answer or Huckabee. I don’t know it just seems like Hillary or Obama I think people would just like to see a change and why not just take a chance and see what happens? What do you have to lose? Look at what Bush did.



Interviewee 1: Greg Muccilli, Law school student
Did you vote in the primary?
Yes I did.
Who did you vote for and why?
I voted for John McCain. I voted for John McCain because I supported him back in 2000 and I think he’s probably one of the more honorable individuals running for president.
Have you voted in previous elections?
Yes.


Interviewee 2: Jonathon Kalsh, QU Campus Priest
Did you vote in the primary?
I did.
Who did you vote for and why?
I voted for, in the Republican primary, for John McCain. And um, I voted for him primarilyboth because of his pro life stance but also I think he’s the strongest candidate on the war on terror that we’re involved in right now, and I think he will continue to lead us to defend our nation and to protect us against radical Islam.
Did you vote in the last primary?
I believe so.