I Am Not a Professional Journalist AKA A Quasi-Review of The Newsroom

Warning starts with a few True Blood season four spoilers. Highlight stuff to see it

I love me some internet, and I used to love True Blood until it started getting stupid. They introduced Tara in season four as the most genre savvy character. She is the one quick to point out that Marnie isn't exactly a team player and will probably sell out everybody if comes down to a choice between her "friends", death to the vampires, and her own mortality. She also points out that Marnie isn't completely sane either. Yet, she signs up as Marnie's/Antonia's lieutenant.

Ep. 44 Clip - Antonia Reveals Her Plan to Tara

How'd she expect for that to work out? (Obviously spoilers)
Rocks fall and mostly everyone dies.


That I could forgive. For the sake of the plot they needed someone in the coven who Eric and Bill cared enough about not to just order a carpet bombing of the place.
But then turning Tara into a vampire, that was just unforgivable. I mean out of all the characters Tara is the one who everybody knows does not want to wake from her grave. Especially after the wiggins from season 3.

Marjorine
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

So I kind of gave up on True Blood, but every now and again I read a recap on Television Without Pity. Recently started reading their The Newsroom recaps and halfway through it became clear the recaper hates the show.




I liked it. I still do. But then I started reading other reviews and it became clear. Journalists, with the exception of Dan Rather, hate this show.

After a little thought I realize why. It's kind of smug. Couched in valid criticism is the assumption that Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator could do better.

I am a blogger and have a journalism degree, but I am not a professional journalist. I have almost no experience in a newsroom. Moreover broadcast was never my thing. Web and design were the areas I took most of my courses in. But let me rebut some of Sorkin's 'implied criticisms and level a few of my own at his show.

News Judgement
Journalists try to get quality information out to the public as quickly as is reasonably possible, but the complicated stuff, that takes research; interviews, phone calls, gathering documents, going over them, investigating ground sites, occasionally even scientific testing and external expert research firms. Nobody does an exit poll by themselves these days.

My point is the reason why breaking news seems to just scratch the surface is that sometimes  gathering details and figuring out a narrative takes time. Furthermore fact checking those details takes more time. Nobody magically knows anything. People have to sort through the available information. The show likes to say journalists have crappy news judgment (Sometimes they do.), but some of the stories it provides flat out didn't exist yet. They aren't psychics. The problem is the show has the benefit of hindsight. The writers of the show know what the story is going to be because it already happened. Regular reporters don't. They have to just fumble around in the dark.

Coon 2: Hindsight
Get More: SOUTH
PARKEric Cartman,more...

The series almost always deals with the types of big complicated stories that require research and tact, and then will quickly find an angle of the story that took weeks or months to develop in real life. Journalists have to look into these big complicated stories, try to wrap their heads around them and then explain them in a way the American people can understand.

For example nobody really expected the debt ceiling to be a thing. Everybody always threatens to hold it hostage, but then it eventually gets passed usually with a little pork albeit. It took a while for everyone to realize. Oh shit! This new congress might be serious on this one. And it took even more time for everyone to realize that the American public doesn't necessarily understand what the debt ceiling is.
Which leads me to the day to day

The show only deals with the big stuff.
My personal gripe with the show is that it focuses on the big stories, but what about the smaller ones. Not just the human interest stuff, but the stories that are important, but probably won't end up in the history books in 20 years. I guess what I'm saying is I what to see these characters on a slow news day, when there isn't necessarily some earth shattering story. I want to see them sitting in a meeting where the question isn't the angle or the sources, but, "What happened that we can talk about?"

Professionalism
Okay. You know what? I get it. Television shows thrive on personal relationships, love interests, bladdy bladdy bla. Hey in all honesty I don't care. It's TV. But seriously with all the temper tantrums, emotional breakdowns, interoffice dating, shouting matches, and workspace smashing how the hell does anyone actually get any work done? Most of these people would have been fired in less than a week. J-School is supposed to beat unflappability into you.





You are not supposed to get emotional.



Which leads me to.

Objectivity
This is where the show really gives out mixed messages. And as a result becomes almost unwatchable in its hypocrisy. I hate talking heads. You want to know the cure for that? Objectivity. Why I dig good ole Cooper. The man is relatively even handed. Right, left, everybody, well almost everybody respects him because of that even handedness. Sorkin's protagonist has ultimately become the thing he hates, an arrogant self-righteous talking head and he fails to realize it because God (the writer) happens to agree with him.

I wrote about this earlier but the thing is everybody has opinions, but objectivity in my view is about realizing that your opinions and views are no more or less valid than anybody else's and as a result, it is an abuse of power to use press' role as speakers of truth to convince people to think as you do. The thing is people view what the press say with a certain authority even when it's opinion, conjecture, or speculation. So those are things to stay away from. Especially when you know you're right. God help us from the man (or woman) with a soapbox and 30 million viewers who knows he's right. Thanks to Sharpton I still don't know what to make of the Zimmerman case.

That's not to say opinion doesn't affect reporting. I'm just saying why in a perfect world it shouldn't. It's what good reporters aspire to even if they fall short of it.

By the way as much as I like Obi Wan, all forms of mind control are evil. I mean these troopers were just doing their jobs at the check point and they probably died. For all we know they're The Galactic Empire's equivalent of beat cops . We know Vader doesn't tolerate failure. He isn't exactly the understanding type. Shit rolls downhill, my friends so guess who probably wound up with the blame for the Death Star exploding. You know the brass is not taking that one, at least not by themselves. The whole Sith mantra is backstabbin' and getting ahead at the expense of others. See chance for glory and power, kill your mentor. You think they're gonna take one for the team? You think they're taking personal responsibility. Hell naaaaaw!

Wait what was I talking about again? Oh yeah, The Newsroom. Right back to that fully armed and operational news station.

Idealism
Look I'm a guy who will go down with the ship...when I need to. The show is made up of a lot of martyrs without a cause. I'm not saying a journalists shouldn't be willing to fall on their sword and take a risk for a story. On the contrary, I kind of respect that. But if you're going to take the sword through the neck you damn sure better know exactly why. Calculate your risks. My point lawyers; I wish I had 'em. God I wish I had them.

The protagonists basically told a dude to sneak into a military compound during a civil war. What could possibly go wrong?


Great show Monster is by the way. Both the sub and the dub are on Hulu.

I'm not saying there is never a story worth risking dying over.


And I'm not saying there is never a story worth risking burning some bridges over.


I'm just saying those should not be your go-to first options. At least ask the question does this story require the risk. Most journalists, even war correspondents take some kind of precautions in those situations, that is one of the reasons for the proliferation of embedded journalism. Nobody wants to take a mortar shell or IED.

The Economics of News
I got my degree 'cause I thought I'd make money, well more than a literature degree would get me. Oh how young and stupid I was, well younger and stupider at least.

Sure the household names get paid pretty well, but most journalists don't make a lot of money. They are underfunded to all hell. According to the United States Department of Labor, the 2011 median annual salary for a reporter was $34,000.

I'm saying all of that to make a point. On television people like to make speeches about how money doesn't matter, but in the real world it does, quite a bit actually. The building, microphones, travel expenses, cameras, teleprompters, computers, editing software, soundboards, and monitors all cost mucho bucks. Last I checked most of the professional grade versions of that stuff cost a least a couple grand a piece.

Somebody tapping everyone on the shoulder and saying , "We have to make our ratings quotas so our advertisers don't jump ship and make it so that no news gets out." is a necessary evil. The thing about mass media is in order for it to work it has to be mass. The typical media business model is to get eyeballs by having content people need or want. Advertisers pay for those eyeballs. Use the money to ... do cool stuff. God I wish I could afford a new camera and a couple hotel nights in Lansing. Even circulation (subscription revenue) depends on having a critical mass of eyeballs.

"Doing a good show for a hundred people," would result in a stockholder riot in about six days.


And speaking from personal experience not having the critical mass of eyeballs sucks donkey doo. Damn you Google ads.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Okay. So again last night people brought attention to the human mic that is yo. It always puts me in an awkward position and makes me think about what I am doing. One thing that always concerns me is the fear that I have misrepresented myself.

When I first started doing this I told people I was putting these meeting on the internet, but I think they forgot about me. Then later somehow down the line they started paying attention again.

Typically when I introduce myself in a professional capacity I say I'm a blogger. I do that as a way to avoid the question of whether or not bloggers are journalists. Culturally and legally it's a grey area, and it almost always distracts from everything else I'm trying to do. I've stopped caring about what I am and have decided to focus on what I do. Generally it's a question I ain't touchin' with a 20 ft. pole. But like I said. I fear I may have misrepresented myself so I'm going to poke the poodle.

There was a great Law and Order Episode, original not SVU which I think sucks, that demonstrated the point. It was made just after the old BBS' were going out of style, '95, so it's a little dated but poignant Rebels season 6 episode 2. Thank God for Netflix.

As with everything there are ethics and then there is the law. My cultural belief on the question, yes, absolutely. Nobody licenses journalists. And a good deal of the job is making choices. What's in good taste? What does the public have an interest in knowing? What's the most efficient, informative and tasteful way to do the news? Part of the reason why the traditional media developed the way it did is because it wrestled with these questions and bloggers, have to deal with those same questions. Furthermore these questions are still being wrestled with in newsrooms across the country. Just like you have gossip blogs you have gossip everything. The difference is the FCC in radio and television, but the FCC can't fine websites, newspapers and magazines for content.

There are a good deal of people whose primary source of the news is the internet. While most of them are going to legacy sites, sites run by traditional media, some of them are going blogs especially for specialty news in areas like the law, politics, technology, music and movies.

Legally this is an evolving field and nobody really has a clear cut answer yet. One case that worried me was a case in Oregon late last year.



Fast Forward to 45 minutes.

I disagree with methods of the blogger in question, who was trying to invoke Oregon's shield laws in a defamation case, but I am disheartened by the judge's opinion all the same.

...although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.

That said it was a written by district court judge so I don't know how much precedent it sets, but it illustrates my point.

To quote a defense witness in "Rebels," "The proper question isn't where they appeared, but the function they served."

Getting Meta: Objectivity

Alright so every now and again my Mother will ask me why for the most part I try not to write what I think about the issues at the city council meetings. Rather than write about fiction this time I'll give Mom an incredibly long answer about objectivity.

What is Journalism
Alright so the jury is out on whether I'm a journalist or not. I go to meetings and record them. Is that journalism? Make your call. Regardless journalism is important, and objectivity is a cornerstone to the modern notion of journalism. So I guess I should say what to me is journalism.

When I was trying to get through JRN 300 the roughest class I took at MSU, I boiled down what I was trying to do into two categories, finding interesting and important stuff out, and telling it to people so they would listen in a way that was, honest accurate and efficient. I still believe that at its core journalism is finding stuff out and telling people. Everything else is about the best way to do that.

When people think of journalism they mostly think of the public affairs stuff, but that not all of it. I am a magic nut. I use Evan Erwin's Magic the Gathering Show previews to gauge how much cash I should save for a set. It might not be as important as the debt crisis, but I rely on him to find out info I use. He's a gaming journalist.



Like I said to me it's just finding stuff out and telling folks.

Why is Journalism Important? (Well this part is going to be quick)
There was a time where you could find out all the info you needed to navigate your world from your friends and fam'. Those times are over. They've been over for a while. The world grew. The vast majority of the info I use to just get through the day originates from somebody I don't personally know. How do I know that the Lions are actually doing alright this season? (Yeah really avenge the '08 season. Avenge it I say!) The Free Press. How did I find out Rick Perry was in the presidential race? CNN. How did I find out aliens had landed and decided to make us their slaves? The Earther times. (One of these things is not like the other. Just so there are no misunderstandings that was a joke. Laugh. I said LAUGH!)



What is Objectivity?
In a nutshell objectivity is the idea that reporters should not have bias.

Why do we need Objectivity?
Most of the ideas we have regarding the modern day press's responsibility to the public arose out of the Hutchin's Commission, which is largely responsible for the concept of the fourth estate. in order for democracy to work the electorate needs to be informed. Journalists perform this role.

Now days, everybody and their uncle has a public relations team. Sure you can find out what's going on from a number of places but you always have to keep in mind that most of those places have an interest in affecting what you think. Journalists are suppose to be independent entities that don't. Journalists aren't supposed to care if you vote one way or the other. They're just suppose to care that you have enough info to cast an informed ballot.


Why is it Hard
Sounds simple doesn't it. Until you realize by the time you're in you're in your mid 20's, you're no longer a tabula rasa. You already have your own set experiences and opinions. It's human nature. Once you feel you have enough information to make an informed opinion, chances are you are going to.

Furthermore how far do you want to take it. My general line is that I try to be aware of my biases and write around them, admit them to both myself and my readership, try to at least be fair to anybody I don't particularly agree with and try to touch upon the best of their arguments.

Then there are those who believe that being objective means you shouldn't show any bias in anything ever. It's not uncommon for editors to strongly discourage their reporters from voting. That's a school of thought I find somewhat extreme, though understandable. Journalism is all about trust and bias ruins trust.

Also bias doesn't just affect what you report but how you report and what you don't. This can subtle affect what the news cycle looks like.

This is especially true when journalists don't know what their biases are.

Criticisms of Objectivity
Before I get a bunch shoes thrown at me, most of these don't have to do with the basic concept of objectivity, but how it's practiced.

First off, objectivity can sometimes be a used as a tool to project authority, which sucks because in my mind the entire point of objectivity is that the journalist is no wiser than any other citizen. People confuse being objective with being reasonable, close but no cigar. They're related no doubt but they are not the same thing, and the semantics of objectivity can be used to manipulate the public in the wrong hands.

Secondly, as previously mentioned we are an opinionated species. If we delude ourselves into believing we aren't and that we are completely impartial, not only are we swayed by our biases, but we are swayed by them without realizing it. If you're aware of your bias you can autocorrect, but if you are too stubborn to admit you have them you can't.

Thirdly when you are too overly (Note the word too there. it's important. Just in case you don't get my meaning, I'll also say overly, though it's redundant) concerned with being objective it gets harder to know when to stand up and say the emperor is naked. It gets harder to know when the public is deliberately being misled and when, yes, you should put your foot down, and call someone out.

Fourthly, and this is just me being petty and whiney, the writing tools of an objective tone are just plain boring. If you let it, J-school will beat the prose right out of you. Hell, that's half of their job.



The Interwebs
Many of the notions involving objectivity came about at a time when peoples sources of news were far more limited. Our grandparents had the big three networks, a local newspaper and a handful of radio channels that were probably owned and operated by the other two. That's not the case today. If I hear something interesting I'll probably read 4 or 5 different stories from different sources about it.

My point is this. Objectivity arose partially because the news industry wanted to take responsibility knowing that what they said was more or less what people had to go on. The environment has changed. For the most part the Free Press is no longer the only source of news people will look at in their day. That does not mean the they should abdicate any sort of journalistic responsibility, but it does mean that the power a single news source had to change the world, and potential for abuse of that power is somewhat diminished.

There are those that would argue because of that diminished potential for wrongdoing, the concept of objectivity is not as important as it once was.

All that said this objectivity thing is still personally important to me because I have to believe people aren't morons.
I am a flag waver. Sure I rip on America a lot, but that's only because I think we seldom live up to our ideals. When I was a kid in my history classes a chapter after reading about the Bill of Rights I was reading about the Sedition Act.

Despite all that I believe in the American ideal, self governance, due process, free market, freedom of speech and all that good stuff. What allows me to believe all that is an even deeper core belief that people aren't morons, or to put it in more of a Lockeian way.




If people are well informed they can be trusted to make reasonable decisions.




If I stop believing that I'll end up having a nervous breakdown and emerge from it not as Greg Miles the guy who believes that as long as people don't hurt anyone, they should be allowed to do and believe whatever the hell they want, but Lord Krieg an evil sadistic fascist dictator who believes that anyone who doesn't see things his way should be repeatedly shot until they see reason or stop breathing, whichever happens first.

I don't know if you're getting this but I don't like Lord Krieg. I think he's kind of a dick.



Evil me scares me. Joking aside, on my bad days I think the world consists only of cruel, shortsighted selfish idiots who would shot each other in the face if they thought there were three bucks in it.




And that anything to restrict our baser instincts to keep us from that anarchy is a necessary evil.



Lord of the Flies didn't have to try that hard to win me over.



I don't want to be that guy, the cold stone misanthropic cynic, who feels he must forcibly impose his will upon others, so I choose to believe that people, if given enough information to make a reasonable choice, will. I have to believe that if given free will we will not devolve into a bunch of apes bashing each other in the head. I have to believe that freedom is worth fighting and dying for.



If someone is being a jackass I have to trust that people will see jackass in their words and actions without me pointing and screaming at the top of my lungs "Jackass!" I have to believe that we are intelligent enough to see truth, justice and reason without it being forced upon us by some totalitarian entity. I have to believe that democracy can and does work.



Ultimately I want to be a man who believes that intellect and romanticism can triumph over brute force and cynicism.

Why Do Follow-Up Stories Dominate My Front Page?

I am a graduated journalism major. I don't know if that's what I want to do with my life, but sitting in journalism classes I've been indoctrinated with this sort of journalism ideology. So from time to time I think about how we get the news. This is going to be one of those blog posts.

While there are certain things I know I should be doing I still feel a bit off after the weekend. In short I have a case of the Mondays and am surfing the web when I notice something.

The majority of the news stories on the front page of the news websites I traffic are follow-up stories. Libya, Irene, the Republican race. It irks me. I am writing this article in part to figure out why it irks me. It shouldn't. We've just had a national disaster. If I were an editor I would send most of my writers, photographers and videographers to the East Coast to figure out what the hell is going on. Who is going to be president is unquestionably important as is what's going down in Libya. So why as a news consumer does it bother me?

I think part of the problem is that I live in the Midwest. The effect Irene has on me is limited. All I fell I need is one or two news stories and I feel I know more or less what I need to know about it. It's selfish I know, but I feel as though the resources devoted those follow up stories could be used to gather new news if that makes sense. News that more so impacts my life.

Then again the coin can easily be flipped. On Friday all there was a bunch of speculation. Information was limited. It's a goddamned natural disaster. I can't possibly argue that it should not be on the front page. I can't possibly argue that the loss of life, property damage, and drain on the government's coffers is not important. I'm just tired of going to a website and getting more or less the same information I had yesterday.

I think the one that's really starting to get to me however is the Republican race. The others at least have certain immediacy, but for the next few months and I suspect at least for the rest of the year the race will be too much in a state of flux and too far away for anything of true significance to happen. So why does it dominate my front page?

Quality News Ain't Cheap

Right now I am a blogger. Every now and again, I get cocky and start thinking I’m playing with the big boy’s I’m not. Bloggers and digital media may eventually
supplant print media, but there are very real reasons why it’s not up to stuff right now.

Digital and print media share a similar problem in different ways. Capital. Journalism at it’s heart is the art of finding stuff out and telling people about it. Everything else is how to do that honestly and efficiently, but at its heart that sums it up.

Finding stuff out, especially the stuff that not any idiot could find out with a phone call takes capital, cash, green bills if you will. The same goes for telling people stuff in a way where they will listen. Even a 5 minute video package these days will take some sort of equipment. Heck even writing a blog takes a computer.

People like turning to the internet for content, but internet culture dictates that the end user should not bare the cost. Put simply people do not like paying for stuff on the internet.

That doesn’t change the fact that quality journalism costs, cameras, microphones, correspondents, content editors, video editors, copy editors, fact checkers, travel expenses. All of this costs money and nobody really wants to pay the cost.

Bloggers often can and do cut corners by parroting. Heck that is part of the point of the internet. That there is no one source of information. That in short you can’t stop the signal. Once it’s out there it’s out there. That serves a purpose, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that that is the same thing as carrying a 20 pound camera into Libya and nearly having your ear shot off, or even spending all night camped out at the Capital Building waiting to hear from the Senate. That’s not to say that a blogger can’t be a reporter, and a reporter can’t be a blogger. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but there is a difference between commenting on an interesting article and getting the info to be commented on in that interesting article. The later tends to take more time and money than the former.

That is what saddens me. Newspapers are shrinking because people don’t seem to get that. They think that the blogosphere will just take over. Bloggers at least from my own experience don’t have the money to do all the things legacy media can. It’s not to say that they won’t eventually, but right now both new and old media face the problem that people just don’t want to pay for the news anymore. If nobody has the money to do real journalism anymore than we have a real problem. Just because newspapers are being forced to do less doesn’t mean that journalism is less important.

P.S. The reason why I didn't do more about the local election is because I was packing for a family reunion trip.

The Top 5 Things That Annoy Me About Local Broadcast News

The top 5 things that Annoy Me about local Broadcast news'

I get most of my news online but having a journalism degree I occasionally try to sit through local broadcast news shows. I can only sit through a 20 minutes of them at a time though. Here is why, the top 5 things that annoy me about local broadcast news.

5. Lack of an Online Version
Let me clarify here. I can get some video from the internet, but what I would really like is something closer to what National ABC does. They have it so I can stream video and download audio of their full news shows, not just a 3 minute story package. I can also get both the video and audio of The Today Show on my phone...mp3 player...device...thingy. (Yes folks I'm trying to be funny.) At least to my knowledge, I can't get that from the big four local news networks. (ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC) Another pet peeve of mine which I will explain later could be solved by this.

4. The Formality of the Look.
I get it. You guys need to be taken seriously so you have to dress the part. The problem is even professional fashion has changed in the last 20 years. Dressing the way you do makes you seem out of touch and that is bad. You are supposed to have your fingers on the pulse not 20 years away from it.

3. Weather and Traffic
Again this one is related to my number one pet peeve. Anyway, I and most of the folks I know have a dongle on their computer or phone to find out the weather and they are much more likely to use it than wait for the local news to get around to it. To make matters worse it seems to me like they come back to weather and traffic every 10 minutes. I can get that stuff much easier somewhere else and the time could be devoted to the stuff I can't.

2. News Banter
It does not seem authentic, funny or useful, and it makes scream, "Why!?" at my TV. That is all.

1. The Repetitiveness of Content
I get it. If you're watching the evening news you probably aren't watching it from the beginning, so they try to cycle the content. It still makes it annoying for me. In a two hour news program there is probably only 45 minutes worth of actual content. This mostly has to do with how people consume content now days. Because of Tivo, Netflix and Hulu people can now watch content when they want and start that content at the point where they want, meaning that seeing the same story, especially if it's the same story package more than once really annoys me.

It's time for me to talk about my blog again. Goddamn It.

In a recent Anime News Editorial Marzgurl said something that really got me thinking. She prefaced the editorial to tell her audience that she does not do these in order to try to be a journalist. Before I continue with this post let me say that I really respect and even like Marzgurl. She was doing what any good writer nay any good business person should do, making a statement of principles and revisiting it when their audience or consumers object to that statement of principles. She has the right to define what she does, but what she said made me think.




It happens all the time. National newspapers and radio stations pick up a story from the local news and repackage it for another audience. That has some journalistic value, at least as long as you don't flat out rip people off.

It made me think about what I am doing. The truth of the matter is I still don't know what this blog is suppose to be. I'm just doing stuff. Sometimes I want to be a journalist. I went to school for it and respect the work. Other times I don't. I said it before and I will say it again. I threw an arrow at the major dartboard.

I left U of M and went to a community college because I didn't know what else do, and my parents were pushing me to stay in school. I had no sense of direction and still don't. I just took a bunch of classes I thought I would be interested in and was lucky enough that they transferred. I had to fill out the Michigan State application and went, "Okay what do I want to do? Well I kind of like writing." For more on that experience read Fallen Warrior, and yes that was a shameless plug.

When I do dip my toe in the journalism waters, like those city council meetings it's because it's work I think has value and that's something I feel I personally need right now. I don't have a job, and I don't see one coming anytime soon. I need to do something that at least makes me feel like a productive member of society.

That said, I am afraid of going whole hog with it on this blog. There are a bunch of reasons for this. First off I don't have the resources or the credentials to do it without taking on a crap ton of risk. The more of these public meetings I go to the more I think about doing interviews. The problem with that is I do not want my blog to become some political tool. The normal way to prevent that is with variety but, at least in my head the following phone call goes differently for a blogger.

Me: Hello
Possible Interviewee: Hello
Me: I'm a blogger and just finished an interview with someone about a story that involves you. Would you care to comment?

If I were from a larger organization they would know or at least be aware of the possibility that the story would be printed and read with or without their comments and it would be in their interest to say something. From a little guy like me, not a chance, and I don't want to just get the side of the story that's willing to talk to anybody. And worse be known as the guy who just gets the side of the story that's willing to talk to anybody.


Note: This is not a hypothetical there is a pretty important issue getting ignored with tuition release. I am pretty sure I could get the parents to talk to me. They've gone to the school board consistently since February and look like they would do anything to open up the conversation, but I seriously doubt I could get the school board to talk to me.

Beyond that this blog started out as place to put my very personal writing. I want to keep it that way. I have my own somewhat fuzzy rules on when and how personal I get, but if I turn this into a news site or rather if I decide to go whole hog with journalism it brings up a series of ethical questions about my writing.

My writing is always best when it is personal. That is a truth I cannot avoid. Right now I deal by tagging things and hoping my audience is intelligent enough to know when I'm writing in my news voice, my literary voice, my pissed off voice, or my Miles from round the way voice.

The one ethical conversation in my J-school classes that always rubbed me the wrong me were the ones on role segregation. I like to write. While being a newsy has value I like writing for the simple sake of writing more. People expect journalists to be journalists all the time. I can't deny that yes, sometimes I put on my journalism hat, but I want this blog to be more. I created it as a place where I could say the things I can't in real life. I created it so I can be all the versions of myself I can't be in real life. I don't want to give that up.

Bonnie Bucqueroux Interview

Here is an old interview of Bonnie Bucqueroux I did for a class assignment about two and a half years. Enjoy. You can also download audio of it here.


Post Scrpt: Yeah I've been having some trouble with blip I don't know what to do with it. I'm weighing options right now. I'm posting a link where you can download audio of it. I'm also posting the embed code where you're suppose to be able to stream it, which won't work, but you might get it if you click around in related videos.

P.P.S. If you want to avoid all that you can also click here.

The Blogger and the Reporter

Putting audio of last night's city council meeting made me realize that sometimes I seem like a reporter. I'm not. (For many reasons - Stupid InDesign spell check ) I'm a blogger. Maybe I will join up with a publication one day, but if I can make this work, - I've made no money on this - I would like to. Now I'm gonna discuss a few reflections on the mater.

Sturgeon's Law
I graduated from Michigan State University's J-school, and boy howdy do those j-school folks love to talk about journalism. Who would have guessed it? (Note: Sarcasm face thank you. ) In one of my ethics class we were talking about bloggers vs other journalist institutions and I found myself on the higher side of the scale of praising bloggers. I, up until that point, always thought it was just the old fogeys who were going, "but back in my day if you wanted to be published you had to go though an editor and if he hated what you wrote well it had no business being published in the first place." (Yes that is a strawman and I know it.) Other people had valid concerns, but I still believe that blogs do have value.

I am a huge believer of Sturgeon's law. Please indulge me in reading a quote from the guy.

I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

Put simply it states in terms of quality in any group of of ... stuff (Nice going Pippin) 90 percent is going to be crap. Don't fool yourself in thinking it isn't because well it is. It has also been said, but I can't remember by who, that "The other 10 percent is worth dying for." I believe that to my core. I love digging through the 90 so I can get to the 10.

Freedom!!!!!! And yes I fart lightning bolts from my ass.


Now for the more personal reasons I love this. I have freedom I could never get if I had an editor. I can talk about anime one day, and than a city council meeting the next, and then ... hopefully (yeeaaaaaah I got to get on that) talk about Magic the Gathering the day after that. I can write about what I like rather than write what some editor tells me to. I also could probably never get a way with the ass lightning crack. (He he I said crack. 5 year-old's sense of humor I have.) And if the good people of the internet are cool with it why not?

The Ben Parker Addendum

You can probably guess by now I hate being told what to do. Really. My goal in life is more or less to be allowed to do what I want to do, and hopefully get paid for it. When I was a kid I hated being told what to do. (Miles that is sooooo redundant. Shut up ... me) I went more or less on the straight and narrow because if I was responsible I had fewer limitations. I could watch what I wanted on TV, go where I wanted to go , and even got a decent allowance.

My hope is that life can be like that. If you work hard, and are socially responsible you can do what you like and get paid. Most of the criticisms of blogs are that they are irresponsible. So here are some things I try to keep in mind when writing my own.

I.Being a commentator is okay some of the time, but try bring in original content to the table whenever you can.

II.If you are going to be a commentator bring something new to the mix. Say something that either hasn't been said or needs to be said. Better both.

III. Obviously truth is more important than hits.
A. Corollary to the last one, avoid sensationalism and at least try to be fair to people who you don't agree with.
C. Try to give people as complete a picture of a situation as is reasonably possible.
B. If you don't know don't guess.
i. Don't even speculate.
D. If you make a mistake fix it.

IV. You can talk about your personal life, but remember other people read it.
A. Try not to embarrass people especially your friends and family. Draw a personal line and try not to cross it.
C. Try to write stuff other people will want to read. I know. I live a boring life, but I occasionally do get my moments.
B. Try not to put anything up you're ashamed of keeping in mind III.
i. I'd rather put up an unflattering truth than a glorifying lie.

V. A lot of the fun of a blog is that well I get to have fun, but remember sometimes you should put on your serious face. I'm ripping off the Twelve Kingdoms when I say this, but life is half sorrow and half joy.



I own my stuff
Let's say I suddenly decide to become a reporter. There are two ways I know of to do it. The first is to get an internship, but that rips me of my freeeeedooommmm!!. Man even in print that's fun. But there is another problem shared by the other way. Freelancing. A good pay rate for a starting freelancer is about 5 cents a word. A decent article runs about 500 words. Thats $25 an article. Each article takes about 5 hours. Point is I would be making less than minimum wage.

Now lets carry it further. Though it's a huge hypothetical let's say this writing thing takes off, and I decide to gather all my crap into a book in 5 or 10 years. As it stands I own the rights to everything I write. If I did it the traditional way I might have to go back buying my own work Beatles style or worse go down the way Bill Finger did.

As is though, right now I make no money, but If people do start deciding to read my stuff I would be the primary beneficiary of my own work. There is something very Jeffersonian I like about that. How much I make is theoretically proportional to how hard I work and how clever I am, not how much ass I kiss.

On the Egypt Thing

Part of me doesn't want to chime in on what's been going on in Egypt because most of what I am going to say has been said better, but a conversation with the old man made me want to speak up. (He basically called me a man-child for disagreeing with him. I really hate it when he does that. Like I always say I write better when I'm pissed.)

I made the point that a lot of the coverage on the American Networks has been very America centric, mostly with a bunch of bullshit speculation on how this affects us. My point was that at this juncture it really doesn't. Right now it's not about us. It's about the Egyptian people.

We don't know if Mubarak's leaving will lead to war, who is going to end up in power, or what their policies will be. Nobody does. The networks were and are too afraid to say, "You know what? We don't know what's going to happen. We will get back with you when we have a better idea of what's going on. "

Furthermore as I was trying to point out, it is not about the United States. This is about the Egyptian people and before yesterday it was about their uncertainty and outrage. What the story should have been, and in certain outlets like the BBC and Aljazeera was that nobody knew if there was going to be a new government and if there was, what it would look like. Nobody still knows what exactly Egypt's new government will look like.

Instead, cable news continues to want to talk about everything but that, Twitter, Facebook, the possibility of an Israeli war, Obama, when in reality the story is that in about three weeks a populace went from knowing what its government looked like to not knowing. Right now it's a whole new world in Egypt.

Laying It All Out

You know what. I am tired of people asking me what I want to do with my life and saying uh I don't know. The truth is I do know but its going to take a butt load of time and money, which I don't have right now so its on hold.But here it is. I would like to make a website that updated niche ( and maybe eventually hard) journalism with what could be called an interactive magazine.

I have a few problems with journalism as it is. A lot of it seems tailored to the last generation. So here is what I would do.

Casualness
I may be wrong but, my general experience is that the current generation primarily dresses up to impress the older generation, but when we talk amongst ourselves we dress far more casually. In doing so on online media it sends a message that those guys are our audience, and creates intimacy with the audience. Lets face it though regardless you are sending a packaged message but in all honestly those guys would be my audience 'cause well,. I am one of them. Beyond that I don't see how wearing a suit creates credibility and it seems to make no sense to me.

Profanity
It also seems to me that culturally my generation has less of a problem with profanity than the previous one. One thing that has always strongly irritated me, better take my own advice, pissed me off is a story that comments on what someone said and does not include what they said just because it was deemed profane. That is a critical peace of information that should not be left out of the story. Just saying somebody said something bad is not enough. The same goes for opinion. The same goes for quotes in general.Most people I know who have strong opinions tend to use profanity to express said strong opinion.

Personality
This is where it gets weird and journalistic ethics get gray. I want a publication that succeeds because of the personalities of the reporters. Up until now the doctrine in journalism has pretty much been that the reporter should be an objective observer. I do not completely disagree, but its my publication and I want to have fun with it. And ultimately I think that if its evident that the reporters are reporting on what they are knowledgeable, and interested in will result in a more interesting publication, as long as I'm up front about this I see no problem. I always liked the escapist for its letters from the editor. Where each issue of the online magazine has a letter describing the general theme the editor has chosen for the week. By the way the escapist is a online video game magazine. To be honest I like how the escapist does things in general and think that that is where publishing in the 21st century is headed. They have tons of video.

Anyway, I think that we're now in an age were for better or worse people choose their media not just on the information delivered but how it's delivered, and a large part of that deliver comes from the personality of the publication. The problem with all this is that I don't want talking heads.

Here are a few guidelines.

• The audience is aware that the content of the publications are dramatically driven by it's staff and editor's interests, opinions, and personalities. Like I said I would like to have regular letters, or videos from the editor.
  
• As editor, I would have the responsibility of making sure that the reporters, reported on not only what interested them but they were also knowledgeable on so when they had an opinion it could be an informed one, i.e, you do not just make random statements about the story of the day.
• Ultimately the website may have many different sub areas but it must work together as a whole. This means everyone the team should be able to work with each other when a story calls for it.
• One reason why this maybe good or bad is that the reporters because of there general interest in the subject matter should want to report more indepthly on it. To put it simply they would know more and care more about the story.

My Generation
A large part of the personality of the paper is that it would talk to my generation. I notice a lot of differences between my generation and older generations. We have different perspectives, values, and interests. I'm tired of reading articles that were probably written by 40 somethings about 20 somethings. Even more of a sub niche is that it would be targeted towards nerds. My view of what nerdiness is defined by an intense enthusiasm and knowledge about a specific topic and because of that nerdiness the website could be incredibly varied but also incredibly in depth, as the staff itself would be comprised mainly of nerds. I also happen to believe that as a result of the internet it is easier to become a nerd and because more and more of my generation are... well nerds. If your interested in something its easier to find a torrent of information about it and develop or dig into a community.


Media
Everybody in journalism already knows this but the days of print and print alone are gone. Sure you still need writers, but writers are not going to be enough. If one of the objectives of a publication is to swing out information in a way it can be processed, the publication has to at least look at all the ways that information can be processed and decide what works best for a story. The thing about the written word is that it allows for more detail, but sometimes at the expense of user understanding. In nutshell if its going to work I am going to need video, audio, animation, and graphics. These things not only help compress information in a way where it might be more understandable, but engages the audience and allows them to more quickly determine what stories would they like more information about so that they can make the choice of whether or not they want to read a more in-depth print article.

The web makes this available. Publications (Let me be clear I consider websites publications) can and should have multiple complementary media forms to help explain a story.

Inter Connectivity
In the olden time days of journalism a print story had a lifetime of one day. After that it was literally yesterday's news. That is not the case today and this is one of the main things I think the news world at large does not yet realize.

Stories are more often then not written and packaged in a way that assumes you know the background. The problem is we live in a world of quarterly hour updates. I may not have read that last story, but that's okay because it still exists...somewhere. There is no excuse in this online world of not making relevant stories available. Sure most pages have a few related articles but what about big stories that develop over months. That is not enough The site I know that does this best is the New York Times. They have topics pages, that collect all relevant New York Times media so that when a story is developing its easier for the reader to follow.

There is no excuse for not knowing when someone lies
To take this further I would like to see news organizations take advantage of the near instantaneous fact checking potential of the web I would love to see in a debate where the moderator has the authority to call bullshit, or an interview where if someone is distorting the truth the interviewer is connected to a fact checking team that will help them get at the truth and also call well... you know. This could be amazing in video where people would be held more accountable for what they said.

Get to the Dataaaaa!
You could also link to the sources of information, which would be awesome, not just for news but for communication in general.We have the technology were we could set a scroll on the side of a video screen, on your computer, that would point to relevant links and graphics.

Think about it. Obama gives a speech where he says according to some study we need to do this. When he says that at the side of your screen would be a link to that study.

What really pisses me off is that youtube, youtube people the video distribution system of the masses already does this, but most major news websites don't.

User Interactivity
We are at an end of an age. The days are over were people just got their media. They want to talk to the people who make it, have a discussion about how it was made, and maybe a little input on how more of it will be made. You can't just give people an article anymore. If it was good they want to respond and they want to you to respond to their response. And the thing is that this is good. It not only shows that the audience is engaged, but may well keep them engaged. On my website I have to have a system for that. I want to reserve a time of day or the week were the reporters will be able to talk to the readers candidly, maybe even through a video digital town hall.

I would also like a place for user generated content. I would really like for this website not just to be about news but a place for people of my generation to congregate, so if people had videos, fiction,animation, or songs that I felt fit the tone of the site I would pay them and publish them, again like the escapist.




A vid from the escapist.