Deep Thoughts On Magazine Writing

Magazine writing is full of life. When I have to write an article for my Intro to News Writing class I’m a penguin (also known as a bird with wings that can’t fly). I have a personality. I want to fly but news writing weights me down. You tell me I can’t describe a house fire as terrifying because I don’t have a witness that referred to it as such. I am sorry, but any fire is terrifying. Oh— I can use terrifying photos that show a young girl running naked but I can’t say it was a terrifying moment.

Magazine writers as well as news writers have written articles that hurt people. Magazine writing is personal. It’s based on biased research done to prove a point. Writing for a newspaper means you have to get every detail correctly, no personal input and even the smallest wrong use of one tiny word could end your career. People rely on newspapers, it’s like reading what will be aired on News 1 later in the afternoon; however, although news writing has to be done in a rush, news anchors aren’t judged as harshly if they make a mistake.

Making readers feel like they are there part of the crime scene is hard when you can’t use first person. Evoking emotions is even harder when you have to shorten what you witnessed into one very long sentence.

News writing makes me want to be an English major. As a journalist I hoped to write short books on interesting topics that are overlooked by the mass media. As a journalist I hoped to change the world for those with similar believes. Maybe I am the Stalin of news writing— in a bad but brilliant way, not like a Hitler Stalin.



freedom of speech that’s what

If I had the opportunity to choose who I work for it would be Rolling Stone. Although it’s good to work for a magazine that’s well known, my reasoning exceeds its fame. While former employees claim the magazine is a sinking ship on, I consider Rolling Stone one of the smartest magazines when it comes to obtaining the publics attention. Rolling Stone is controversial. To critics, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s face as the cover of their issue was a terrible, degrading idea. In some way it is terrible, but when you see it from a publisher’s perspective it was the right way to get people’s attention. An incident that hurt our nation was exposed. Aside from what the news covered the first two weeks, I for one wasn’t informed about the subject. As the press you want the public to respond, every now and then Rolling Stone shakes its audience. I want to be part of a magazine that knows what sells. 

People, as well as organizations, lose their purpose as they grow. But Rolling Stone remains relevant. Rolling Stone was primarily a music magazine, now it covers pop culture, investigative reporting and politics. Celebrities also change over time. Jennifer Lawrence’s personality went from “I am a regular girl” to “I now have a different lifestyle but I’m still going to claim I’m like other girls.” Us regular girls have a job at our local mall, J.Law no longer qualifies for this role. There’s a point where you can’t preserve the ideals you started with because of how broad your audience is. Even small publications like Paste Magazine broadened their content, so why do people punish Rolling Stone for covering other things besides music?

Incidents like the Britney Spears cover when she was 17-years-old and the publics reaction to Janet Jackson’s breasts covered with two hands says more about the readers than it does about Rolling Stone itself. The magazine is as liberal as can be. I would not want to work for a publication that limits my writing from having any emotions. I want to evoke feelings in the people who read my articles, whether it’s anger or happiness, I want them to feel. I want to work for a magazine that has a voice and stands by it. A consistent magazine that impacts the reader. I choose Rolling Stone as an example because they write about interesting current events while remaining consistent.

If ‘Murica doesn’t feel the Bern

Our freedom of speech lacks freedom of opinion in social settings. Hence why I avoid controversial topics that interest me. Rolling Stone’s “How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable” by Matt Taibbi, gave me an excuse to express my sincere thoughts on Trump. Is it sociably unacceptable to say you love Bernie or hate Trump? No, but that doesn’t mean that your friends won’t disown you if they think differently.

We lack acceptance. I can’t tell you the amount of arguments I have witnessed on social media that end in a broken friendship. Senior year of high school, my best friend didn’t speak to me for a month because I disagreed with one of her tweets and called her out on it, imagine if I would have told her I was a Trump supported– WHICH I AM NOT. However, Taibbi might be.

At first I thought that Taibbi was trying to remain unbiased. Now I can’t help but think he was justifying Trump’s credibility the entire time. He might not entirely support Trump, but he does think he’s above the other Republican candidates. Taibbi is the problem with this election. Giving Donald Trump coverage is feeding his ego. Rand Wilson, an activist for the Bernie organization, said that some union workers have only heard of Bernie because he’s a socialist and have no knowledge about his campaign; but, they have heard about Trump. If journalists diverted the attention and wrote articles about the other candidates, do you really think Trump would continue this nonsense?

Donald Trump loves attention. The man asked President Obama for his birth certificate, does he really believe that someone would be President without the government knowing his birthplace. Then again, Donald Trump is running for president.

Attention-loving Tump has been featured on many TV shows aside from his own. A year ago, if you asked someone who Trump was they would say “a celebrity businessman.” All of a sudden he’s the politician that “will make America great again.” “He knows show business,” said Taibbi, he also points out the relation between his love for women and involvement in beauty pageants, his love for fame relating to his TV show and his love for power, which led him to being our potential President. He knows how to put on a show, how to make people addicted to it and he knows how to utilize it to his advantage without the public noticing it.

Matt Taibbi amplifies the comparisons between Hitler and Trump by saying that if Stephen Hawking and Donald Trump were to be jailed together, Trump would remain Trump and “Hawking would come out on Day 365 talking about models and football.” Hitler knew how to obtain peoples attention, which is why he had so many followers. Trump also has this ability. You can see that Taibbi’s attitude toward Trump changes as the story goes on. At first he calls Trump’s routine the “Mussolini routine,” later he justifies Trumps allegations as to why he’s the best candidate by saying things like “Trump found the flaw in the American Death Star” and “he is the first to realize the weakness in the system.”

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio deserve better treatment from the media. I don’t know much about them, but I assume that they worked hard for what they have obtained and didn’t just get it from Daddy Trump. Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush are legacies with advantages. Trump says that Clinton is “receiving a fortune from a lot of people” which strengths his campaign that is all about paying for his own fundings and not utilizing the people’s money. According to Trump, the fact that that George Bush lied before the war saying that Iraq had WMDs and cost the government $2 trillion for nothing. But Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders aren’t legacies.

I never knew it was acceptable to give each candidate a mean name. Thanks to Matt Taibbi I know a new form of journalism, one that suits my inner style more.