InkTank

Fighting Over the News

Tony Danza becomes a tenth grade English teacher, Lady Gaga goes political and Steven Colbert is a main reason people tuned into the recent immigration hearing.

I read an article the other day titled The World’s Most Influential 16-year-old Bloggers. One of these ‘kids’ made $5, 000 in the first month of launching his blog.

Now I don’t know about everyone else but I feel semi-defeated.

I didn’t spend four years day-dreaming through math classes about becoming a journalist so that I could compete with celebrities and 16-year-olds with a smart phone.  

What is going on?

More importantly what can we do to revert the attention to the actual news media? There is such an availability of mediums and information that I’m beginning to wonder what being a journalist is going to mean when I graduate. I also feel like I have no right to complain because I still have a fighting chance. There are people in news rooms who have spent their post-grad lives making a name for themselves and now have to compete with me; a kid with less experience but a better understanding of converged media.

Journalists killed in massacre

Have you ever read a news story that actually shows and tells like Marvin Olasky mentions in "Directed Reporting"? Well, Jim Gomez, an Associated Press writer, reported about Philippine journalists being slaughtered. He not only writes an article, but he shows the reader what he's talking about.

As I was looking for a blog to critique for this assignment, I could not take my eyes off of this particular news story. The article titled, "Philippine journalists expect attacks to continue" starts out with an eye-catching lede.

Several white wooden coffins - all but one shut to hide the journalists' disfigured remains - were crammed into a rundown funeral parlor in the southern Philippines, not far from where they were slaughtered with guns, machetes and a backhoe.

You could not believe how many pictures came into my mind when I read the lede! I was amazed to see how much effort Gomez had put into making the beginning of the story one-of-a-kind. Details, details, details is all that I observed, especially in his first sentence. Specific words and phrases he used such as, "disfigured remains," or "slaughtered with guns, machetes and a backhoe" help the reader understand what happened to the journalists.

Ann Arbor loses the News

On July 24, the Chicago Tribune printed a mournful column, lamenting the death of the Ann Arbor News. Unlike many other cities, the death of the Ann Arbor News is the death of the only major news source in the area. 

The News was not just a hometown paper for the 114,000 residents of this university town about 45 miles west of Detroit, it was the hometown paper. Ann Arbor has become the first American city of any size to lose its only full-time daily.

But perhaps understandably (less so for the many journalists sitting in the seats), they are starting from the ground up. The editors are trying a business model that has been semi-successful for other digital news outlets: small staff, small circulation, niche advertising (see AnnArbor.com--oh and the top story this morning is dead swans).

Blog guidelines

Two influential internet scholars gathered recently to discuss guidelines for blogs. Their suggestions, outlined in a New York Times article, give a good picture of where blogging may be heading in the world of internet news.

Tim O’Reilly, a book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate. The article mentioned three items that stood out.

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship . . . They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

Our classes at the Washington Journalism Center are getting ready to end and I will be turning in my term paper soon. The topic for my paper deals with liberal bias in reporting. One of the main points I’ve found is that many reporters believe their worldview is based on “common sense,” and anyone who disagrees with them is conservative, or even a right-wing extremist.

If bloggers delete comments they find profane or abusive, it will be harder to discuss controversial topics. Discussions will become more polarized because people in blogs with extreme views will have less exposure to the views of the other extreme.

Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

At first, this sounded like a good thing. Blogs don’t go through the editing and fact checking process of newspapers, so this would make blogs more reliable. However, The News About The News brings up the concern that useful, original journalism still costs money to produce. If blogs are seen as more reliable, more people will use them for news. How will original journalism get funded if the mass audience gets their news from people who do it for free?

The third item I noticed had to do with incidents of bloggers getting death threats over issues brought up in the blogs. Kathy Sierra, one of the bloggers who got threats, talked about her frustration with cyber bullying.

In an interview, she dismissed the argument that cyberbullying is so common that she should overlook it. “I can’t believe how many people are saying to me, ‘Get a life, this is the Internet,’ ” she said. “If that’s the case, how will we ever recognize a real threat?”

Blogs have shown they can be a powerful watchdog of the media, checking questionable facts and sources. This became evident when blogs caught CBS when they made a mistake citing bogus military paper work about President Bush.

If bullying stays the same, bloggers may be reluctant to say the things needed to be said. Bloggers can’t be expected to rock the boat with subjects that will probably make people mad if they will be this open to death threats.

Taming the Trolls

The blogosphere has exploded over the last few years as citizen journalists, beat reporters, politicians, and even cat ladies have gotten sucked into the world of virtual conversation. And since I’m writing this for you to read in the blogosphere, apparently we’ve gotten sucked in, too.

While the blogosphere has opened up millions of avenues for dialogue and debate about everything from technology to religion to politics to what your cat ate for breakfast, it has also become an open forum for disrespectful, nasty criticism from antagonistic bloggers, also known as “trolls.” And, this criticism can be done completely anonymously – no one is required to account for his or her words.

Major newspapers are using interactive Web 2.0 applications to break into the worlds of their readers – everyone from pajama-sporting slouches to tie-donning professionals – a forum to respond to an article or opinion column. While the media might have intended interactive Web sites to lure their modern-day readers to engage and interact with a virtual community, the feedback left at the end of articles has been more uncivilized and divisive than Web 2.0 designers and news editors probably ever dreamed possible.

Even the Washington Post is considering getting rid of comments on their Web site because people speak their minds without thinking and say cruel things, Post reporter Pamela Constable said at a recent forum at the Washington Journalism Center.

Constable said, “I believe in civilized discourse, but this is just not civilized.”

According to Brad Stone’s New York Times blog, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Tim O’Reilly, the man credited for coining the term Web 2.0 are writing recommendations for proper manners in the blogosphere. These guidelines would establish a higher caliber for communication online and allow bloggers and blog site managers the freedom to omit offensive and libelous comments without having to defend themselves against censorship accusations.

Stone said “many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor’s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech.”

In response to this assertion, O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censoring free speech.

“That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make – believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech. Free speech is enhanced by dialogue.”

Both sides of the argument have valid points, but it seems unreasonable to restrict someone who writes or manages a blog from deleting personal attacks and libelous assertions. In the days of old-fashioned, “dead tree pulp” newspapers, editors reserved the right to publish or not publish letters to the editor. If a letter was particularly inflammatory or inappropriate, it was the editor’s prerogative to withhold a letter from their readers.

In the news blogosphere, comments are the Web 2.0 version of “letters to the editor.” But, according to the “Internet veterans,” retracting an offensive, libelous comment from public view is censorship. As someone who believes that disagreement and “civilized discourse” are the cornerstones of democracy, I am not suggesting that editors should have the right to omit dissenting voices from their sights, but I do not think the blogosphere should be a place for outright nastiness.

This issue cannot be resolved until many weighty, unsettled questions are answered through court precedents. Is the Internet a public space, or is it a private space made public? Are blogs private property, or does publishing to the Internet leave writers and editors powerless against incivility? The Supreme Court may have the final say, but for now, Jimmy and Tim are trying to tame the trolls. It is about time.

Digging the hole deeper

Who knew a political debate hosted by easily the most hated name in news could turn ugly? This weekend proved it can get ugly before it even starts.

Presidential candidate John Edwards was the first of the 08 hopefuls to officially say ‘no’ on Friday to a Fox News debate in Nevada planned for August. Other democrats soon followed suit in withdrawing. The debate has now been canceled.

I was browsing news sites this weekend when I came across this story. There were plenty of news sites covering it, but the most intriguing side of the story I saw was covered on Edwards’ election blog.

The blog said Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News Channel, was striking back at Edwards when he said any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

The blog went on to say Fox News Vice President David Rhodes told news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of “radical fringe” groups.

I must say, I felt sorry for the Edwards’ campaign and other democrats at this point in the blog post. It doesn’t help anyone when a major news organization says they don’t want to be involved in a political Caucus. It certainly doesn’t help the public keep up with current issues. But then the post said something I didn’t expect, especially not after reading the first part of the post.

Now it's time for Democrats to stand together and send a clear message to Roger Ailes, Fox News and all the rest of them: bias isn't balance, but turning tables is fair. The truth is, Fox News can "report" whatever they want. And when it works for us, we'll deal with them on our terms. But this campaign is about responsibility and accountability, and we need to send the message to Fox that if they want to be the corporate mouthpiece of the Republican Party more than they want to be an impartial news outlet, they shouldn't expect Democrats to play along.

“Turning the tables” and not interacting with Fox may be fair in this case, but is it a good policy? How does the Democratic party expect the public to be informed on political issues when both parties are trying to stay away from each other? Think Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, covered story on their blog. A user identified as ‘Anonymous By Choice’ made a comment on an issue with Fox’s strategy, but I think it also speaks to a problem with political news in general.

I’m all for the 50 state strategy, but the Fox viewers really are a lost cause. They watch it because they WANT to hear those things, they dont WANT to think any other way. And as long as they don’t WANT to hear the truth, you’ll never convince them otherwise.

It’s one thing for a president of a news network to say news organizations should stay away from a caucus, that event will come and go. But to say a major political party shouldn’t “play along” with another major news organization is sobering considering how much people’s view of national issues are shaped by what they read in the news. I hope they realize this will only make the problem worse. It would be very hard for any news organization to cover any group if that group doesn’t want to play along. I’m afraid this will make news even more bipolar and the nation more divided than it is now.

Shopping For A Reporter's Toolbox

Being a great reporter is like the Kool-Aid character in the TV ads, you have to bust through the wall and get the story, said David Eldridge, my supervising editor at The Washington Times.

My internship here at The Washington Times already has been challenging. I have found myself writing about things I have no authority or experience in. I have learned something really quickly though, thanks to my editors and the little experience I have so far. Great journalists have these two qualities (along with others I'm not gonna mention): persistent and persuasive.

Now, I've never thought much about either of these qualities, but journalists must be both to acquire the quotes they need from untapped, reluctant sources. These two traits are why I have decided to stay in Washington, DC, for a summer internship with The Washington Times.

For some, this next anecdote might have been a little disconcerting, but I was glad to have my editor level with me.

I had just walked back into the office after a visit to various places on Capitol Hill, and I was fishing for a story on the ruin of Valentine's day by a sudden snow storm that struck the District. When I got back and explained some of the problems I encountered, David said he would not accept any excuses I have for why I can't do something. He wants to hear that I'm working on it and making process.

In the event that I fail to land the story, and I already have, he will not be disappointed if I tried my best (persistence) to overcome the problems that pop up as I report. However, he could not accept my defeat due to a lack of persistence.

Also, David let me in on another little secret. Getting people who don't want to go on record to go on record is one of the greatest tools in a reporter's toolbox.

Maybe some people think that a reporter has to charm others into giving up information, but I think people care more to know I can be trusted. Building relationships with people on my beat, and outside my beat for that matter, helps me do my job.

Because I am going to learn persistence and persuasion, I decided to stay.

Sure, I'll have to sacrifice some things that I would like to do instead this summer, but in the end I will come away as a stronger reporter and person.

Threat To All Things Good

I can't wait for the day when books can be read online.  I can sit in perfect chair position with my unbendable laptop, five feet from an electrical outlet so I don't run out of battery, with a  tray table on my lap so my laptop doesn't overheat.  Next to me is a cup of water with a bottle of Advil for when my eyes start to hurt from looking at my back lit screen. Oh the anticipation,  I cannot wait!    Google please come to my rescue!

Would you look at that, they must read this blog.

What Google is trying to do is nice, but come on, do we really need full text books available online? 

They are only going to make out-of-copyright books available to the public which I guess is a good thing because the author can't get royalties anyway, because if the book is out- of- copyright the author has already been dead 70 years based on copyright law.

Sure their only going to make boring books available . . .

Librarians working to scan the Wisconsin library holdings will focus on collections concerned with the history of medicine, patents and discoveries and engineering, along with the early publications of scientific societies.

It will also target American and Wisconsin history, genealogical materials, decorative arts and sheet music, among other subjects, the University of Wisconsin said.

. . . but still, I don't like the implications for the future.  What about when copyrighted books are available online? Sure, plans for that were halted, but it's only a matter of time.

Several things pop into my head when I think about this topic. The first, is my childhood memories.  I can remember on Tuesdays after school going with my mom and the kids I car-pooled with to Pharmore for a quarter pop and then to the library to check out a book.  Matt Christopher, I would always pick a Matt Christopher book.  I'd take it home and read it as fast as I could. There was nothing like reading a book on my own.

What does this new development mean for the child reader? I can just see it now,  little Timmy  pulling up a chair next his mom at the family desktop to read a  digital book.  What about the bed time story? Is little Tommy going to have to have a computer in his room? Is his mom or dad going to have to bring the laptop into his room for his bed time story.

Ok I can hear the critiques of this post already, 'Come on Kerri they aren't going to do away with the book entirely'. Yes I know, but it's the thought.

It reminds me of the newspaper debate. Will we ever get to the point where we move away from not reading our news, in the words of Terry Mattingly, "on dead tree pulp"? Maybe not.  But, if you read a newspaper, and I'm realizing that's a huge if, can you imagine not going out to the driveway in the morning to get your paper? Even as much as it sucks to get a wet newspaper some mornings, I can't imagine not having a hard copy of the Times Reporter.

I had the brilliant thought that maybe they will have an option where you can have the book read to you, then people can listen to the book without having to pay the ridiculous amount required to buy the CD on tape. This will allow illiterate people to listen to books.  Well, that thought is not to brilliant, because the illiterate person still has to get to website, which I'm guessing would be pretty difficult without being able to read, so scratch that thought.

I just can't imagine reading a book on the computer. Books are a part of me.  I read a lot. I grew up seeing my mom always reading a book.  I grew up getting to choose books out of a magazine to order.  I grew up watching my sister read.  I was always told reading makes you a better writer, so I read a lot. I can remember curling up on my window seat in my room one cool fall day and reading about my friend Wally McDougal in My Life as a Afterthought Astronaut by Bill Myers. I read the entire book in one afternoon.

If books are on the net, there is no using pictures of your loved ones as a book mark.  There is no underlining and highlighting. No writing in the margins. No coffee stains and ear marked pages.  There are no coffee stain and food damaged pages-- loves marks of good book. There is no reading on the metro or while waiting in line at the DMV or doctors office.  There is no book signings.  There are no Saturday visits to Capitol Hill Books or taking friends there just to see the spectacle.

Books are the life of the past and story telling. Books are something tangible you can touch.  You can throw it across the room when the story doesn't end the way you want. You can use boring ones to prop up an old sofa or coffee table.  You can unite people just by mentioning a title.

So I plead with you Google, take over YouTube, keep providing my e-mail services, keep being my saving grace at work , and I'll keep using you as an adjective,  but please, leave my books alone.  Leave the iconic symbol alone because there is nothing like veging on a broken-in sofa with a good book, your favorite old blanket and a cup of chai on a cold fall evening. There is just something about that,  that is extremely appealing to me. 

Time for me to go read . . .

Cultural Relevance

I was first introduced to the idea of cultural relevance in a book called The Journey Toward Relevance by Kary Oberbrunner that I read about two years ago.  It was a pretty good book, one I would recommend in fact.

After being here for a month I have discovered three easy ways to can be culturally relevant in this town:

1. Never Look at a  Metro map -  Nothing says I have no clue what I'm doing like pulling out a Metro Pocket Guide trying to figure out which direction to go. 
2. Wear Earbuds - If your not wearing them, you're the minority. Just about everyone you pass has cords running out of their clothes and up to their ears.
3. Carry a Coffee Cup - If you don't have earbuds, carry a coffee cup. If you can do both, that's even better. 

Watch people on their morning commutes and just tell me if not right.

I've conformed to all these culturally relevant practices. If I have to look at the Metro map, I gaze while walking by the giant one in every station. On my morning commute, the ear buds are in. During my morning commute, I buy a coffee or a Chai.

Why? Well, because I promised my mom I would come home in one piece and still breathing.  So whatever I can do to look like a local and thus not a easy target, I'm going to do.

Here is another observation:

You will never go a day in DC without:

1. Seeing people kissing in the Metro Station.
2. Hearing at least five honking car horns.

Augh . . .  DC.  You gotta love it.