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.. 

Pictures..

The only photos I would run, with some degree of sensitivity, would be the first photo, the boy with his dog, and the boy who fell on a fence.  The rest of the photos I would not run at all.

 

All of these photos are well done.  The photographer was there at the exact moment, caught the complexity of human emotion after the loss of someone special or the intensity of mob mentality.  I am not claiming that these photos would not capture the essence of the story, but they lack a certain sense of sensitivity that is necessary in journalism.

 

That was my main criterion, sensitivity.  People do not want to see death, it is disrespectful to the person who died and those that were grieving.  The photo of the little boy is different only because it is not a human dead, but even then I would hesitate on running that photo.

 

These photos should not be run, especially if they are local.  They convey too much suffereing to be run.  It is just the same with Sept. 11, I am sure people had some very graphic photos, but they were not (or should have not) run out of respect.

 

When it all comes down to it, that is the main idea, respect.  We, as journalists, should be respectful of other people’s feelings.  It is hard to respect the line between appropriate and inappropriate, but it is there.  Running these photos would be exploiting human nature to it’s core.

 

To me, the hardest photo to look at was the photo from Mardi Gras.  It shows humans at their worst, clawing at a woman, grabbing her inappropriately, against her will.  It is obscene, and it is just inappropriate, I would not want that photo to run in my publication, nor any of these other photos to if I could help it.

 

Good journalism should speak for itself, photos accompany the story.  A photographer could get less evasive photos, even if they are not as good.  It is the right thing to do, and you avoid having the field questions from people who were offended by the photos.

 

Numbers.. Oh my.

I'm not entirely read to have my article ripped apart in class in front of everyone.  Let's face it, we are not very nice when we do it, but it's part of the game.

I am putting myself on the sacrificial alter right now and using my own articles to point out my own misfailings. 

First of all, I've been writing for the DI since freshman year, so we are entering into our third year.  It is amazing to me, looking back, a) how terrible somethings were that got published and b) the lack of substantial information/numerical data I had to back up my claims.

Sad times.

But here are a few oh-so-special mistakes I have made in the past..

Most recently, the Alzheimer Story has numbers that don't match up, making it glaringly obvious that I didn't check out the claims of the people using the numbers to sound smart.  I also used statistics from the Alzheimer Association, which is going to put out the statistics that best serve their own purpose.  Lastly, I made broad claims without putting them into perspective.

Pretty rookie mistakes for a third-year student.

Then, there was a Teach for America story that just.. didn't have substantial facts (or opposing opinions..) to make it seem legitimate.  Throwing in technical terms does not make you sound starter, and it make's the numbers get lost.  It's easier to put things into perspective when you put things in terms people will understand.  See here:  

"Students involved in this study typically fall at the 14th percentile, which means that about 86 percent of students nationwide fall above them. With that in mind, Teach for America participants make significantly more progress in math than expected, raising students from the 14th percentile to the 17th percentile, according to the study. This is roughly the equivalent to an additional month of math instruction."

It just makes it harder to understand what is trying to be said when you start talking  about percentiles and making things better.  How do you do this? In terms of numbers, ratios, percentages, what does it mean?

These are just two examples from stories I've written.  I could go on and on about the terrible things I've written that have glaringly obvious holes in them--we'll leave that for another time.

Fact Checking.. the way of the future

We illustrated in class that fact checking is becoming some what of a lost art.  We didn't even think to consult phonebooks; rather, we were completely lost when we couldn't find something in a google search.

If we can't do these things as students, who's to say that professional journalists can? Who's to say they actually want to?

Enter this article about this Web site .

Basically, it is a Q & A with Brooks Jackson, who is a veteran Washington journalist and member of the AP investigative team during Watergate.  He works on the Web site, checking facts, especially now during the election.  On the Web site, they expose the fallacies in the campaigns.

Read the article and disregard the obvious failings of Jackson's contradictions.  He said he claims to not be bias, but he only exposes a mistake made by Palin in an interview, yet he says nothing about the errors made by Obama's camp.  I know that, I understand that, I am ignoring that.

What this boils down to is responsible journalism dead?  Are we now just writing in a self-serving manner to forward the interests of our employers?

Perhaps one of the most interesting points that Jackson brought up is this: "It ought to be an embarrassment to any news organization that we exist.  Isn't this a core First Amendment responsibility?"

With the internet, it is so easy to circulate falsehoods about political candidates, celebrities, and even average people.  We as journalists need to protect the interests of the general public on matters of public concern.  Screw the market place of ideas if the speech is wrong.  The speech is misleading, and it's sad that it takes a Web site to do the job we as journalists have been trained to do.

Then again, I am a daughter of neoliberal theory.

This Sounds Like A Catch-22 Kiddies.

There is nothing worse than running a story and then having people send letters to the editor or make comments on the Web site about how moronic and uninformed you sound in a story that you put forth hours of time towards.  I should know, I've managed to be the only features writer in the history of features writers to receive not one but two letters to the editors complaining.

(SIDE NOTE: One was a story about the Puppy Store in the Mall, and well.. tempers run high when talking about animal cruelty.. plus it was terribly written.. I'll admit that.  The other was just an article on fashion and apparently the CU community is really averse to running stories that look like they should be in "Cosmo")

A copy editor's job is to check those errant facts to make sure that the publication, not just the writer, looks respectable. Yet, in the shrinking job market, these jobs are being cut out or outsourced..

The article we read for class brings up the bad aspects of outsourcing, which I feel greatly outweigh the good.

Still in a profit driven, capitalistic society, cutting costs and cutting jobs take precedent over accuracy.  In a column that ran in the Washington post, located here, Marc Fisher describes how and why copy editing is declining.

Like every other problem in the world, it seems to boil down to, on the most basic level, the internet.

Damn that internet for providing instantaneous access; for supplying the world with an even bigger marketplace of ideas; for taking away millions of jobs because everyone is their own editors online.

Fisher said his print articles pass through 12 hands, while his blog posts are sent straight online.    12:1, that is a pretty big ratio.  12 people have the opportunity to give their feedback, to find mistakes, to make changes.  Those are 12 people who have local experience, not outsourced.  Which article do you think is more accurate?

The more people you find to read your article with actual experience, the better it will become.  When you start moving the work to foreign countries, it adds nothing but frustration and errors. 

There is nothing more annoying than sitting on the phone with a computer company... oh Dell for instance.. and realizing that you have to put forth more effort to explain the problem that it is to actually have it.  By the end of those conversations, I want to throw my computer out of the window just so I don't have to ever deal with it again.

That is the product of outsourcing-- complete and utter frustration.  It's not because these people are useless, in fact they are probably more intelligent than me.  Rather, it's because it makes it hard to relate to them on a personal level and builds feelings of hostility because they are taking jobs away from Americans and making the unemployment rate skyrocket.

It seems that there is really nothing to be done though.  The internet has forced publications to lay off people, to downsize the need for copyeditors and rely on bloggers to correct their own work.  The product of this will be highly personalized, subjective 'articles' that give little more than personal opinion riddled with warped facts to prove their point.

After all, a pig is still a pig with lipstick.. or is it a bulldog..

Does it even matter anymore?

VMA's

This seems like it is completely irrelevant, but this piece of Broadcast brought up the question of whether media outlets should use their power to broadcast political endorsements and messages.

Here is the link to last nights intro.

Last night, British something Russell Brand made several inappropriate jokes, but that is to be expected on a show on MTV, let alone a "hip" awards show.  After diverging from relevant topics, he went onto endorse Obama as a candidate.  

Firstly, Brand is not an American, so his place critiquing American politics is kind of moot to begin with.  These are decisions that affect the American people, and well as the declaration stated a couple hundred years ago, we are a separate nation from Britain and will operate as that separate entity.

That isn't even the point of my rant, he might be informed or he might not be, the point is that publicly endorsing a candidate, whether in a public or private sphere is still absurd.  They are trying to get the word out by using outlets that will reach a younger demographic.

I get that.

What I don't get is why they need to endorse one candidate and bash another.  They spend ALL the time bashing the republican party, he even at one point said that Bush wouldn't be fit to hold a pair of scissors in England.  That's great, that's an opinion--a joke... hilarious.

But before you start trying to tear down one political party, remember that your party, the democratic party also has it's flaws.  Neither side is perfect, and in a democracy we need to choose the lesser of the two evils.  That might not sound like the perfect solution, but it is reality.

Obama will not be our savior any more than McCain will.  As media outlets, we have a responsibility to inform the general public about the truth of the matter, the heart of things that will actually matter and affect people.

Palin was criticized for leaking the information that her daughter was pregnant, but you better believe that had Obama gotten a hold of that information, he would have used it to his advantage.

I guess I'm just idealistic, but since when has journalism and politics goal to perfectly ruin another reputation.

Where is the truth?

Transforming American Newspapers

I am going to start by describing the second post, because.. well I can.

Part II

I'll be honest.  I took Econ at my community college because I knew it would be easier.  That being said, I never actually learned anything, so when Crosbie started to describe the principles of microeconomics and the importance of supply and demand, he lost me at hello.  Still, I think I was able to grasp some semblance of what he meant.

We live in an age of instant gratification-- we don't have to wait for anything. In world of fast food, text messages, email and other instant forms of necessities, the internet has taken the place of newspapers in the realm of communication.  Crosbie details the difference between the original newspapers and now, stating that the difference is that no one has time to wait for the news, and the news often printed is that of general interest and no one wants that either.  People want things that appeal to them, so in that line of thinking, they can instantly access the news that appeals to them online, rather than have to sift through stories upon stories that hold no interest to them.

Instant gratification, it's the American way.

Crosbie said that one out of six people worldwide use the internet for their source of news, and I can completely see the reasoning behind it.  I myself am lazy, I would rather log onto the Chicago Tribune and see the latest updates than watch the news or wait for the daily edition of the newspaper the next day.  Breaking news is now instantaneous (which in itself is problematic because facts can be wrong and incomplete), but it is the way of the future.

I agree that there is no general interest anymore, there is just a wealth of information that applies to different people.  

Part I

The first part of the series is not as interesting as the first, at least in my opinion.  Crosbie still makes some good points, mainly that the newspaper industry is failing and there is nothing you can do to save it.

The industry seems to think that packaging things, adding multimedia content and other Web things will make the newspaper "hip" again.  The fact of the matter is that it is a failing medium.  It's scary because it's the field that most of us are entering into.  Still, it is not the industries fault, it's the shift in the demand (yes the Econ slowly sunk in) of the general public.  The readers are to blame for the state of American journalism, not the advertisers or the owners.  The readers have the ability to make or break a medium.

The internet is not yet decided as a serious medium for information.  There are reputable sites, but there are equally if not more sites that are not.  The "Gray" age of journalism is upon us, and we have the power to shape it in which ever way we see fit.

Missy