We are the future.

Oh the last blog of the semester... 

I thought I would leave on a positive note because we have spent this entire semester pretty much saying we are fools for spending so much time on a major in a field filled with doors slamming in our faces and circulation shrinking more and more every day.

In my searching I found an article from the Southtown Star, which is a paper either in Chicago or the suburbs, these days I just can't keep up.  Mainly, it's because this paper used to just be the Daily Southtown, but because of the ever shrinking interest in physical newspapers, they had to merge with another paper.

ANNYYWAYS.. this article was in response to a University student, a little sophomore asking questions about why this lady became a journalist and if she believed the field would turn around.

In her opinion, the field can turn around, but it depends on us, the young people.  We are the future of journalism, and while we can sit around and worry about the state of the journalism market, it does no good.  We need to act, we need to do something about it, make journalism what it used to be, and adapt to the future of what it can be.

The field may be shrinking, and while it may be a good idea to have other skills that back up our journalistic ones, it is not the only way.  For as long as the general public wants to know the news, there will always be a place for good, old-fashioned journalistic integrity.

We are the future.. future editors, future reporters, future designers, future whatever we want to be.  It's our responsibility to make journalism what we want it to be.

Ohh.. but I guess you can just call me idealistic and naive.

Oh Journalism Curriculum how you stifle me

I talked a little bit about the journalism curriculum before, and how they offer little room for creativity. I will continue to complain about that, because I just registered for classes like a week ago, and while I don't have many classes left to take, it still bothers me.

For English, there are tons of options--different types of literature classes, theory studies, and in depth analysis of authors. I love those classes, I feel like I can actually see myself taking them, WANTING to take them.

For journalism, I have 2 required classes left to take and I am dreading them. Graphics is VERY intimidating, and I cannot imagine taking a reporting II class where I have to write about things that I am not interested in, to teachers who, from what I hear, are very set in their own ways being right.

It is very nerve wracking because I will never be a news reporter. I keep up with NYtimes and the Chicago Tribune online, but I don't read everything. I glance and skim, but ask me to keep up with People and that is something I can do. It is something that interests me, and while it is very tabloid-esque, it is what I like.

We only offer one course in Magazine writing, which other schools offer an entire major focused on that field. It is just very frustrating to me that we all have to fit into these little molds. Don't get me wrong, great writers have graduated from this curriculum and have gone on to do wonderful things. I just don't think that is in the cards for me, and I think there are other people who feel the same way.

Even editing there is only one class. I am a grammar freak, I might not be the best at it, but I correct people like it is my job. I would love to learn more about it, but with one class that lasts one semester, how are we expected to master the craft?

I feel like our education barely even scratches the surface of everything I want to know.

and.. rant over.

Less newsy, but better memorabilia

So, the front pages after the election were pretty much all the same.

Obama makes history.

Obama Wins.

Change... 

Fill in adjectives, rearrange words, and you have a nation wide base of like 12 words that described the historic victory in our nation.  Every front page. 12 words. Give or take.

Even though they more or less all said the same thing, the presentation was different, and some were more appealing than others.  Oddly enough, people were dying to get a copy of the Chicago Tribune.  My mother told me they were selling for like $500 on Ebay, now whether that was an exaggeration or not, I have not checked, but I saw that paper and I thought it was nothing THAT special.

I really liked the papers that made the standard "Obama wins" pop with a little flair.  

The Bakersfield Californian took out the story, and let the picture speak.  The quotes along the side merely helped the picture along, but the story was told though the smiling, waving man.  It is about HIM not about the fact that he is historical, this is NOW, and all the stories saying how amazing he is puts a lot of pressure on him.  Let Obama enjoy his victory, he has a long time to worry about the rest.

The same with this front page, but the ban on gay marriage teaser takes away from the prominence of the image.

I don't know why, I mean I know that these front pages I like are less "newsy" but I think they are special.  More like collector's editions, because this only happens once.  Whether he is reelected it doesn't matter.  Having a special front page makes it seem more special, and less like news as usual

I think this one might be my favorite, because it shows both of them.  It has a positive message, because as much as it is Obama, Biden was a big part of this campaign as well.  Yes we can, showing an image of them as a team sends a positive message.  Yes, they can, together.

This front page, The Examiner made me laugh, because seriously, after everything that happened the night before.  The AMAZING pictures everyone else got, they seriously ran an image from some random DAY.  DAYTIME.  Seriously, if you are gonna pick a picture that is not of that day, pick one that can pass off as it.  Not during the day, that's just lazy.

Oh what a burden our education can be

Our journalism education at the University is very limited.

We started as a two year college, and with the expansion to include sophomores and now freshmen, the curriculum is to small to satisfy these eager student's needs.

I could have gotten out of here next semester if I wanted because I only have 3 classes left to take to fulfill the major.  I didn't want to, so I chose to dual degree (still pending.. ah..).  It wasn't merely about the not wanting to miss my senior year and enter the job force a year early (though that was a big part of it..), it was also because there is so much that I want to learn, so much I feel is lacking in the journalism department.

In  regards to copy editing, there is one class: News Editing. If copy editors are so important to our field of education, why do we only devote one four-hour lab to the class?  There is so much more to learn than can be taught in half a year.  I suppose the 451 Research Methods COULD help with copy editing, statistics and other things that can help with fact checking, but that is kind of a stretch.

The rules of grammar are something we feel as if we know, but we do not.  We can't.  There is just too much to know, too much to learn in just a semester.

As for integrating other programs into the education, I honestly believe it is the only way for a journalist to be prepared.  Our program does a better job at attempting to integrate other programs into their curriculum, then they do at their own program.  

The six sections of classes that we have to take six hours in allows us to broaden our base of knowledge, but it does not allow us to get in depth with our knowledge.  A school like the University of Iowa REQUIRES that a student have a double major, in journalism AND something else. 

That something else contributes immensely to the education of the individual and makes them a better job applicant in a very competitive market.  I myself am trying to do that, and the process is dreadful, and the essay that seems like it would be easy to write has undergone massive rewrites and it is still not done.  They make it hard to double major, dual degree, whatever you want to call it.  They don't want to deal with the "burden" they place on the college, 

But what is a burden to a well rounded education?

So last week I wrote about the political endorsements of newspapers, and this week I am following in the trend of endorsements... celebrity endorsements.

I read this article, and looked at the slide show of political endorsements in the past.  Seriously look at it, it's kind of eye opening to see who endorsed who and in most cases, what little effect it had.

Celebrities have been endorsing candidates since the early 1900's, but in some cases, they had little effect.  Kerry, Gore, McCarthy... they still ALL lost.  Even with high powered people backing them, it was not enough to boost their support level and win the presidency.  

Researchers are also split on how endorsements affect the public, some saying they have a big effect, others saying very little.

Still, the article cites that "Positive or negative, the exact weight that a celebrity carries for an individual voter is difficult to ascertain"

But I still can't help but wonder what affect endorsements this election will have.  Will youth voters look past the overwhelming pop culture figures supporting Obama? Or will they be led by them, swayed to vote for a candidate not on the issues but because of who likes them?

I wrote an article this week about parents swaying their children's political beliefs and one student said something that was right on the money.

He said something like if I don't know anything about the election or the issues, I don't vote.

So.. I encourage people to become educated on the issues and not just vote for someone because they are "cooler."  

I  mean how much does Paris Hilton know anyways?

Endorsements

Nonpartisan journalism apparently is dead.. 

Earlier this week, The Chicago Tribune announced it's official endorsement of Obama, and just this morning Colin Powell offered his official endorsement as well.

It's great that these people are offering their support to a specific candidate, but I feel as if it's kind of getting out of control.

As the days tick closer and closer to the  election, what has been dubbed the most important election in our lifetime, these endorsements are coming and blinding the public.  Maybe it was because I was young and didn't really care about the 2000 race other than the project I had to do for it, but I don't remember this last election.  

I'm sure it was there, but right now I feel as if all of these endorsements are blinding the public, making them think, "Oh, the Tribune endorsed him, he must be the right candidate."  I make no judgement on which candidate is right for our country.  Right now we are in turmoil, and we need someone who is going to save us and lead us into stronger times.

But with the negative ads that are being run, the attacking of the other candidate, we are not having a fair race right now.  The endorsements for either party that keep coming are just furthering the problem.  

Like I said... nonpartisan journalism is dead.

(Side Note: I only pick on Obama because it seems as if he is getting all the endorsements, I would feel the same if it was McCain)

Oh.. Journalism.. how I loathe the sometimes.

Oh journalism.. is it true you are really dead?  are you dying? or will you come back to life with the renewed vigor some people do after they conquer the odds and beat a terrible disease?

I'm still up in the air about this.. at times I think that journalism is dead, and then I begin to question why I am wasting my time with this major.  The honest answer is I don't know.

But I read this article, and it made me realize something.

I never wanted to be a "respectable" journalist... I mean not in the sense of the word that everyone uses.  

I am not a news reporter.. I don't keep up with what is going on in the Middle East, and I have just recently started caring about the economic crisis we are in.  If I am not fully informed about these things, how can I expect a reader to care about it?

I can't.

This article hits on a few different topics, but most importantly it criticizes the state of American Journalism, and I happen to wholeheartedly agree with what it says.

We are too serious.  

I am not saying that our newspapers should turn into tabloids, unconcerned with the truth and worry about the best story, regardless of how we come about our information.  I am saying that we need to take a step back and reevaluate.

We have come to a point where we have lost touch with the public.  

The article says that, "As the profession grew more sophisticated and respected . . . top reporters, anchors and editors naturally rose in status to the point where some came to be considered the social equals of the senators, Cabinet secretaries and CEOs they reported on. Just as naturally, these same reporters sometimes came to identify with their subjects, rather than with their readers."

Think about it. 

We have lost connection with our audience, and as we struggle to gain them back, they will find new sources of information.  We spent too much time fighting it, too much time taking ourselves seriously that we forgot to have fun.

The article also cites the "terrible burden of living up to the demands of the First Amendment."  But isn't the First Amendment supposed to liberate us?

I don't know.  Sometimes I can't even remember why I am doing this, why I still write articles.

It's not fun anymore... but there is still hope for the field if we just remember how and stop worrying and fighting so much against the changing times..