I started this blog more than 5 years ago as a class project. I kept up with it pretty well over that year, then had a three-year hiatus. I always thought it was a good idea, I just didn't know how to work it in with my life. I'm trying to be inspired again, so I'm reposting the very first post from February 2008. Sorry for the crappy formatting. I have to reteach myself how this works.
I was 10 years old the first time I worked for a newspaper. I woke up one morning and decided that I wanted to start a newspaper for my fourth grade class. I convinced my classmates to write various features, which I edited, typed up on my parents' PC (running Windows 3.1 and a horrible word processing program) and pasted onto printer paper before Xeroxing the pages and handing them out to my classmates. We were very proud of the final product, which the class decided to call "What's Up?"
At the time, I didn't realize that I would later realize that I was born to spend the rest of my life working in the media. I certainly didn't anticipate how computers, and later the Internet, would change the newspaper industry. Back then, my 10-year-old self thought the clip art I found on the now-ancient computer that still sits in my parents' church office was cutting-edge technology. Today, I am sitting on my couch accessing The Washington Post over a wireless Internet connection on a computer that would have fit inside the Lisa Frank Trapper Keeper in which I carried the issues of "What's Up"
Although I've blogged for years — I began after I finished my undergraduate education because I missed writing — the idea of blogging as an alternative media form or even the idea of newspapers online bothers me a bit. Too often these days, real, balanced journalism is replaced by bloggers on one side or another of a debate. This is not always bad — I read a few myself — but when people start to believe that the opinions of biased bloggers equates to a "fair and balanced" version of the truth it becomes detrimental to what journalists should be attempting to accomplish. I've used blogs for personal posts — recent entries include a piece on why I love Oregon, a story about a weird girl I met on the Amtrak train and photos of my parents' new puppy. It's certainly a nice way to kill a few minutes and feel connected to the few friends who read the blog. I've also used blogs to share my opinions, always linked to newspaper stories, and while I stand by the things I wrote, I would always want readers to read the newspapers and form their own opinions rather than think that what I wrote was fact. ...
This blog is a class project, and while I seem to be more familiar with blogging than others in my class, I hope I can use it on my resume someday. It's certainly a medium that budding journalists need to be familiar with, and I do appreciate the use of blogs associated with actual newspapers or news services as a tool to enhance coverage and explain the news in a way that is still fair and accurate but can be more casual than the main coverage. I expect to use this blog to write about the experience of being a new journalist entering the field at a time when technology is leading to rapid and dramatic changes in the field.
I have a love/hate relationship with this. I love computer assisted reporting and all the positive ways computers and the Internet enhance what we do, but I'm scared about what's happening in the industry right now, and the idea of not having an actual paper to spread out in front of me every morning makes me a little sad.
I spend hours a day on the Internet. I scan multiple news sites a day and occasionally read the news blogs. But as long as a physical paper exists, I'll always subscribe. For one thing, I'm afraid that too much time attempting to read small print online with damage my eyesight, but more than that, I enjoy the tactile experience of reading a real paper. Having to click on headlines and work my way through several Web pages to read the entire day's edition is my least favorite way to get the news. I like to spread my New York Times out on the couch, read all the stories on the front page and their jumps, and then work my way backwards through the rest of the section. I like the entire story, complete with photos and headline, to be out in front of me so I can quickly scan the first few graphs and decide what to read. I like the way the ink looks on the page and the way the paper smells. I like that I can fold the paper under my arm and carry it around to pull out on the bus or in the few minutes before class starts. I like tearing the crossword out of the arts section and doing it in pen throughout the day. No technology will ever replace this experience for me.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Newspapers, blogging and the Internet
Back on the horse
Lately I've really been feeling that I"m missing out on something by not writing. I am going to attempt to revive this blog (I say this late at night as my ambien starts to kick in. It might not take, but I'm pretty determined.) This is a short week for me because of one of the realities of the newspaper industry these days -- the furlough. We have to take a full work week off between this month and the end of the fiscal quarter. Ty always tries to take the first two days of the NCAA basketball tournament off and this year, I'm taking the same time to have the time together. So we'll spend part of the weekend here and part with friends in Ellensburg, but quite a lot of basketball will be watched. The furlough is such a part of life these days that instead of being stressed out about losing the money (although we are), it's just nice to have some time off. That's not to say we WANT to be furloughed -- so if for some reason one of my bosses sees this, furlough is not good. OK. This was just a quick inaugural post, mostly to make sure the blog still existed. But here's hoping I'll keep my promise to myself.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Back in the game
It's been a busy two years. Short update: I've been working as a newspaper copy editor since 2008, but am now temporarily leaving the industry. I hadn't posted in a while because I wasn't sure what the newspapers' policies on blogging were, but now that my future is a tad uncertain, I'm definitely interested in using this blog as an outlet. I'm hoping to do some freelance writing and may post some of that here.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Random stories of the day
I found a few interesting stories today that I thought I'd share. The first, from the American Journalism Review, discusses whether Twitter is just the latest techno-fad or can be used as a serious reporting tool.
The article does discuss the fact that may "tweets" are boring and/or useless (I'll admit that mine aren't always interesting); however, it does discuss the many ways in which the micro-blogging site can help reporters.
While I'm sick of the trend of older TV journalists (By that I mean those at least the baby boomer age) "discovering" Twitter and getting all excited about learning the new-fangled technology, I certainly appreciate the possible applications of Twitter as a reporting tool. The first photos of the crash of a plane into the Hudson were posted to Twitter, after all. Is most of the stuff on Twitter pretty useless? Probably. Is it depressing that more people follow Ashton Kutcher than CNN? Absolutely. CAN it be used as a reporting tool (both to find sources and to disseminate information) by journalists who know what they're doing and know the difference between useful information/links and crap? Definitely.
• This article I found today has some reaction to the story I posted a few days ago about that claimed the New York Times had tips about Watergate before the Washington Post but dropped the ball on the story. I'm not familiar with the site the story is on, but it's interesting.
• This story is several days old, but I'm going to post it anyway because it is another example in the debate over who qualifies as a journalist (and when). An unnamed student at San Francisco State University who was present on the scene of a murder refused to talk to police, claiming that journalism shield laws protect him because he was there as part of a photojournalism project for school.
It is a bit unclear whether the SFSU student was with the victim, who was a subject of the project chronicling life in the community, or if the student just happened upon the scene of the crime. But he knew the victim and called police and the victim's family after the murder. An LA Times column says police did confiscate the student's photographs and points out that courts have made it clear that journalism students are covered under shield laws. The student's lawyer, who is quoted in the LA Times column, says there is no evidence the student saw the murder happen. I am of the opinion that student journalists should have the same protection under shield laws as professionals, but the question of who should be protected and under what circumstances is an interesting one in an age where anyone can start a blog, take photos and claim to be a journalist.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Tough times
There's not much going on here. It's a tough time to be looking for work in journalism, particularly in newspapers. It seems that every time I consider giving up and looking to work for a different medium, something reminds me how exciting it can be to work at a newspaper.
A story in today's New York Times reports that during the Watergate scandal, the director of the FBI allegedly divulged sensitive information to a NYT reporter -- including the involvement of Attorney General John Mitchell as well as White House involvement -- before the Washington Post got the story.
The reporter in question had quit the paper and was leaving to attend law school but went back to the office and told an editor what he had heard. The editor took notes and recorded the conversation. But as we know, the Washington Post got the story first — from Mark Felt, then the number two man at the FBI ("Deep Throat") — and the Times never got the story.
It's rare that we hear about the story the paper didn't get, so it's interesting to look back on now. But what this does for me is remind me of what journalism is all about.
Watergate started out as a cops beat story. What seemed like just a break-in, only interesting because it happened to be at the Democratic headquarters, took down a president because a reporter (who happened to be friends with the number two man at the FBI) followed his instincts and looked into who the burglars were. The question today is, if that NYT editor had followed up on his reporter's tip all those years ago, how would the story be different?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Students do not shed their Constitutional rights ...
The Supreme Court is hearing an interesting case this week regarding students' rights to privacy. As a journalist, I'm of course interested in Constitutional law, but I'm particularly fascinated by how the Court defines students' rights. When I joined the staff of my junior high school newspaper, one of the first assignments was to read about some famous cases regarding student rights and we wrote a term paper on those cases. My interest in Constitutional law and the First Amendment is what made me want to become a journalist. When I first read about this case a year or so ago, I thought of the cases I studied all those years ago.
In Safford School District v. Redding, the issue is whether school officials were right to require a then-13-year-old girl to strip down to her bra and panties while investigating whether she had prescription ibuprofen in her possession. Another student was caught with 400 mg pills — a dose equivalent to two regular Advil. She told school officials she obtained the pills from Savana Redding, now 19.
Redding's backpack was searched and when officials did not find pills, they forced her to strip down and shake out her bra. She did not have the pills. Her parents were not present and they filed suit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the search to be unconstitutional. 
What's really interesting about this case is that there is no real precedent to guide the Court. In 1969, justices ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that regulation of students' First Amendment rights is limited to situations in which the speech is disruptive to the educational process (In this picture: The armband worn by high school student Mary Beth Tinker to protest the Vietnam War). Some other cases, including Hazelwood East v. Kuhlmeier, which applies to regulation of student newspapers, have expanded the rights of school officials to limit speech.
The only ruling that applies to student's Fourth Amendment rights is TLO v. New Jersey. In the 1985 case, a student's purse was searched after she was caught smoking in a bathroom. School officials found marijuana, rolling papers, a large amount of cash, plastic bags and what appeared to be a list of students who owed the girl money. The police were called and the girl later sued, claiming the search was unreasonable. The Court upheld the search, saying school officials have the right to search a student without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion that something in his or her possession would interfere with the officials' ability to keep the school safe ...
This case seems like a no-brainer, but today's news indicates the justices may be leaning toward an interpretation of the law that could drastically impede students' rights in the future. Justices seem to be leaning toward the idea that the type of drug is irrelevant to whether officials have the right to search a student. This could be an interesting re-interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable search.
In the case currently before the Court, school officials are arguing that the search was reasonable because of the need to keep other students safe.
School officials (and, it seems, some of the Supreme Court justices) defended their actions by claiming they need to protect students from the harmful effects of abusing prescription drugs. While this is of course something schools should do, I see several problems with the argument, not the least of which is that they were basing their search on a single student's story. First of all, if they were so worried that they thought she was hiding pills in her underwear, her parents should have been notified. Second, there was no immediate danger to Redding or other students if they waited for her parents to arrive. Third, there is a world of difference between the types of drugs that are abused and ibuprofen. It is not reasonable to believe that the possession of a non-narcotic pain reliever available over-the-counter poses such a threat to the school that any forced search of a student is Constitutional.
The ruling is expected in June.
Read more On "Students do not shed their Constitutional rights ..."!
Monday, April 20, 2009
2009 Pulitzer Prizes
This year's Pulitzer for feature writing went to Lane DeGregory of the St. Petersburg Times for a feature on an little girl who had been horribly abused and neglected by her mother. I was excited to learn that this piece won, because it was some of the most powerful reporting I've ever read and I haven't been able to forget it since I read it when it was first published last year.
The article, titled "The Girl in the Window," is very disturbing, and I wouldn't recommend reading it over breakfast, but is a fantastic piece and the reporter is absolutely deserving of the Pulitzer.
The prize for feature photography went to Damon Winter of the New York Times for his coverage of President Obama's campaign.
A list of the rest of the winners can be found here: http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2009.
And here is the rest of it.
