February 2006 Archives

You're driving west on I-70 for a routine trip up to Manhattan. Everything is going peacefully. It's a clear day; 62 degrees, cloudy so the sun isn't beaming in your eyes, and not a drop of rain. Over the horizon you can see billowing smoke a few miles away. The Curious George in you decides to drive further and take a gander at what's going on. Once you reach your destination, you see a heap of cars in front of you. Fire is shooting from a few, smoke is flying up high into the sky, and many people have blood flowing from their foreheads. People should be made aware of this. Luckily you have your camera phone handy. Just a few snaps and a quick send to your local news station and you have become a journalist.

Citizen Journalism gives people of the community a chance to report the news that's going on right in front of them. They are able to give journalists the heads up on what could be reported.

Reporters are always looking for what is newsworthy, timely, and has proximity to the community. Citizen Journalists can give them a push in the right direction. It may be very amateur, but it gives reporters where they need to be looking for stories.

At a time of emergency, it can be very important for citizens to get the word out on what is happening. It can be the first thing to getting adequatereporting resources to a situation. Mark Glaser of Yale Global says that cell phones with camera and video options are the new brand of video journalist.

So what would KUJH gain from gain from citizen journalist? Think of it as gun dogs pointing a hunter in the right direction. It tells them where to look and find the next scoop.

Sit, Ubu. Sit. Good dog.

To put it bluntly, I think the concept of citizen journalism undermines the validity of journalism and makes the time that each of us in the journalism school have spent practicing our future profession a waste. If anyone can become a journalist, then why do we need our degrees?

This personal assumption may a harsh, but it did change slightly after a little research.

While I still think that citjour decreases the validity of journalism as a profession, in small doses it may be ok. For example, MSNBC has its own Citizen Journalist page. To add something similar to the tv.ku.edu site could prove beneficial. Here, citizens have the ability to submit photos of their life experiences and post responses to questions about life. Here, the average person can make images available through the internet for anyone to see. When the news allows it, this can tell a better story than a simple text or AP story would. And those photos may not have been available any other way.

On the other hand, when news sites are created for the citizen journalist, we must be cautious. Are these "news" statements something to trust? Not necessarily. And when this is the case, these forms should stay for away from the University's television site. Still... it is inevitable that some form of citizen journalism will be around and we must adapt to the times.

The only place for the citizen journalist on tv.ku.edu would be in the form of photographers who come upon breaking news and capture a picture of it and are willing to share it on our site.

Citizen journalism can be viewed as the cousin to blogging. Everyday individuals are the anchors — the news providers. But giving a free reign to anyone anywhere to broadcast news raises a heavy question. How will we monitor the traffic of this movement? How will we monitor so much information? Is this information true? False?

Situation: The July 2005 London bombings. Many of these pictures could have either been taken by professional journalists or citizen journalists. However, the bottom left photo was taken by a passenger himself on a cell phone. Although the quality of the photo is not the best, it puts you right there with the victims of the bombings. A huge impact.

A citizen journalist feature on tv.ku.edu would have to allow easy posting and uploading for its users. However, I think an important aspect that would have to be a censoring feature where administrators could deem the information relevant. Of course this feature could become a fantastic success. Or, of course, it could crash and burn. Apparently, Dan Gillmor's Bayosphere was an "editorial and business failure." But, hey, if you ever feel like just signing up to be an official citizen journalist, help yourself.

In the end, I think that it could be an incredible feature especially for specific situations like the Boardwalk fire and the Granada shooting. But we have to be careful. Printed and broadcasted news is copyedited and fact checked over and over for good reasons.

Diving into the citizen journalism pool is exactly where tv.ku.edu needs to be.

The University should always stay at the cutting edge of the media world and if we're on the blogging bandwagon, why not push it farther? Maybe our site wouldn't have coverage of a bombing abroad, but it did have that video of the Boardwalk fire and should have had cell phone photos of the Granada shooting victim. Our content wouldn't have to be graphic to get attention, just real. What more can we ask for as reporters than to have correspondents everywhere we can't be?

Certainly, it won't always be smooth sailing. There will be dishonesty. but with some fact checking and research, the payback would certainly beat out the downsides.

Major media outlets have already started the citizen journalist wave and it's working for them. I think the important part is differentiating between reporter content and submitted content. If we let readers know up front, this story came from your neighbor and this came from our editor, they can decide how to interpret the message.

Lets face it, the public already doubts our ability to provide them with the truth. By putting our cards on the table, we show them we aren't hiding anything. It's as if we're saying, "This is what we know and here's what we never would've known without your help."

The news should be a public forum.

Now, how to convince a society that is already overcommitted that they should get involved in journalism? I don't think rewarding the contributor financially would be the best move because then stories will start losing credibility. Instead, focus on the act as a civic duty: "By uploading this video, image, or story, you will help your city or country better understand an event that might easily have gone unnoticed." That's the approach we should take.

With spring training getting under way last week for the Chicago Cubs and all the other teams around Major League Baseball, citizen journalism seems like a great idea. Who doesn't want to see Juan Pierre in his new Cubs uniform? (Actually in his uniform and not a digitally imposed one.) As of February 19, 2006, Carrie Muscat, the Cubs.com writer, has yet to post any spring training pictures. If a fan sees something interesting, why not let him or her post it online?

It's not just pictures at spring training that would be interesting to sports fans, but videos or pictures of outside events involving athletes would garner much attention. A citizen journalist's video of the J.R. Giddens stabbing would be, without a question, one of the most watched videos in the town of Lawrence.

It's too early on in the game to determine all the particulars of how to regulate citizen journalism. Should citizen journalists be paid? Should they be associated with reputable news organizations? Should they have their own websites and regulate the content themselves?

I love the idea of citizen journalism when it comes to sports. I think the benefits of citizen journalism can be the same for both sports and hard news. The one underlying theme of citizen journalism, no matter what topic is being covered, seems to be the trust factor. How can anyone trust what is being produced? I would say that it comes down to the number of submissions of any given story. I think it's safe to say that when there are numerous reports of the same story with video and pictures that the story is legitimate. That's not to say a story submitted by a single person can't be true, but more checking into the validity of the story would be required.

I really don't see any difference at all between real journalists and citizen journalists as far as credibility is concerned. One reason for this has to stem from recent incidents involving real journalists fabricating their stories.

I can't and won't even try to answer these questions on journalism theory, but what I can tell you is that I'm waiting on pins and needles to see that first snap shot of Juan Pierre wearing some bright blue knee-high socks.

As a reporter always looking for new story angles and ideas, I welcome citizen journalism with open arms. What better way to contribute to the news then to get a conversation going between professional journalists and members of the community. The concept of citizen journalism is still being tweaked, but if we give it a try we may just get it right.

This brings to mind a famous quote from Jesse Jackson: "If you try you may fail, but if you don't try you're guaranteed to fail."

The first go around at citizen journalism didn't quite work for Dan Gillmor, but after noting his shortcomings he affirms that "a more democratized media is crucial for our common future – grassroots ideas, energy and talent." In this, he points to the solution: the future.

Citizen journalism can and will work. I know this because the youth of this country are entirely more tech-savvy than their previous generations. A study by Pew Internet and American Life Project concludes that 57 percent, yeah that's 12 million, of teenagers who are online, create content for the internet; 19 percent have blogs. I would bet most of their parents have never even heard of a blog. These teens are citizen journalists in the making. They are so used to reality television that they naturally have an untarnished, observing eye for reality – a need for truth.

I think we need to jump in, head first, and test the waters. First, we should start by devoting a section of our web site to non-journalistic citizens who can tell us what they think is news. Second, provide topical questions that spark curiosity and conversation. Third, allow anyone to comment on the stories that are published online and broadcasted on KUJH-TV. Forth, expand our community by enlisting experts in different professions to write about issues pertaining to their specific field. Thus, bringing diversity and thought provoking issues to the conversation. Finally, give people the opportunity to post pictures and video which pertain to stories or community issues to the web site.

I think our model for success is the MSNBC citizen journalism page. Citizens post comment to topical issues that are covered in the news. But there is also opportunity to add your own view by responding to "assignment desk" questions. MSNBC is stirring the pot and it seems to be working; hundreds are responding, while many more are catching on.

For this phenomenon to work there must be a distinction. Professional journalists get paid, while citizen journalists are contributing for their own satisfaction. Credibility and accountability must remain, thus allowing a web site to set guidelines for submissions. But I refrain from saying that a web site should monitor its submissions, because then there would be no point to citizen journalism. I say, bring on citizen journalism, but don't let it take my job in "professional" journalism.

On tonight's newscast our producer Tracy Perlman used our nameless pony as the subject for the kicker. To enspire us with story ideas we have two newsroom mascots: Princess Nat and her nameless friend. But we can't possibly have a mascot without a name, so the online producers in the newsroom started pondering the name of Princess Nat's new friend. A fellow newsroomer named her "Hell's Angel," but look at her.... it just isn't fitting. Then, in an exclusive interview with "her" we found out that she might be ... wait for it ... a man! Despite the gender issue we are still left with a pony without a name. If you have any name suggestions for our new friend post a comment.

I've got the power! I've got the power to say what goes on KUJH TV's website. I've got the power! I've got the power to say yea or nay to story ideas. I've got the power! I've got the power to choose the content and importance of each story.

Allowing stories from citizen journalists means I get to choose what goes on the web.

Right now, all I am doing is placing video on the Internet and rewriting a broadcast story to fit a print format. That's editing, not producing.

I love my title "Online Producer" but feel I don't have nearly as much power as a TV producer on KUJH TV.

Allowing citizen journalists will change that in a hurry.

Soon I will be the gatekeeper.
Soon I can accept or reject citizens' stories.
Soon the decisions will go through me and not the TV producers.

Sure, I get a lot more power, but will citizen journalists actually make the news on KUJH TV better?

Of course!

They can go where KUJH TV News reporters can never go: EVERYWHERE!

Journalism isn't a profession anymore, it's a practice. Anyone can do it anywhere. Who benefits? EVERYONE!

The time will come when everyone in the newsroom knows the online producers are more valuable than the TV producers. Online producers will filter the plethora of stories submitted by citizen journalists. I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, considering how the citizen journalist doesn't write the story for the world, but for their own specific communities like these. We can even give them a topic to write about like MSNBC does.

Citizen journalism has already worked for KUJH TV! I was a citizen journalist last year for the KU-MU basketball game. Staci asked me to record comments from students in line at Allen Fieldhouse as well as sounds during the game. I took pictures for my own use, but because of a mix-up with another campus medium, Stacey didn't have any pictures to post.

Never fear. She had the power. She had the power to look at my photos and choose which one she wanted on the site (my pic is used for the last story on the page).

How much longer will it take for the online producers of KUJH TV to have the power?

The only time anybody ever tried to punch me because of something I created for a newspaper or TV station was over a cartoon.

It was a long, long time ago when I was just starting out as a high school journalist and cartoonist. A quarterback thought my cartoon had dissed his girlfriend. (Okay, it had; but it only kinda looked like her.) He came looking for me.

The most uncomfortable experience I ever had here at KU was over a cartoon. In the late 1970s, a University Daily Kansan cartoonist decided to take exception with what he thought was the local Jewish reaction to a reception featuring Hitler's punchbowl at a museum event. I was Kansan adviser then and it was the only time I know of that the Faculty Senate ever censured the student paper.

Something about cartoons makes the people they offend very angry and very volatile. The aftermath of the Danish political cartoons supports that theory with terrifying clarity.

I am more than willing to take heat for the First Amendment. I am more than willing to defend student journalists who might decide to publish the offending cartoons. I would take a punch for free speech but, when it is my decision to make, I won't ask others to take the punch for me — or even with me.

The reason you won't see the face of The Prophet on the web sites for which I am responsible is overwhelmingly influenced by my concern for my students, my colleagues and my newsroom. People who believe it is right to riot and okay for others to die because religious beliefs have been breeched by a newspaper do not carry much weight in my personal Potter Box.

They do, however, intimidate me.

This is not a good thing for the media, for the faithful, or for the world. But, I have too many years in the trenches to send my troops over the top to face this kind of reaction and danger. May Allah help us all.

Freedom of speech is a crucial pillar of democracy. Freedom of the press is equally important.

Not anymore. Unfortunately, if I want to be heard by the media, the best way for me to achieve that is to torch and riot.

The recent Muhammad cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten are offensive to Muslims. I get that. As a Christian, I would be vehemently opposed to any cartoon that would portray Jesus in a bad light. And those who have peacefully protested these cartoons deserve the utmost respect. But the rest of the world deserves a chance to see these cartoons and come to their own conclusions.

The world's media should be uniting to defend freedom of the press. Uniting to condemn the violent acts of a few who are determining what the many read. Uniting against suppression. Uniting for freedom.

Instead, they ushering in a new era of censorship by caving in to radicals. In the United States, four editors at the New York Press resigned after they were ordered to remove the cartoon from the weekly publication.

USA Today also chose not to print the offensive cartoons. "We concluded that we could cover the issue comprehensively without republishing the cartoon, something clearly offensive to many Muslims. It's not censorship, self or otherwise," said Jim Michaels, deputy world editor. Really? Because the definition of censoring is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

National Public Radio refused to even link to the cartoons.

The world media poltroons have also sought the safety of censorship.

In Denmark, the culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper who first commissioned the cartoons was sent on indefinite leave after suggesting he would print Iranian cartoons of the Holocaust.

Sweden recently shut down a far right web site with the printed cartoon.

French President Jacques Chirac condemned French newspapers that printed the cartoon.

In Malaysia, the Sarawak Tribune was shut down indefinitely by the government for showing images banned by the government. A hollow message now greets viewers on the official newspaper site.

In Indonesia, the editor of the publication Peta was arrested on blasphemy charges.

What does all of this mean?

Dark days are ahead for journalism.

The European Union is considering "a code of conduct" that would "self regulate" papers. This concoction of the fearful Western nations is nothing more than appeasement to the lawlessness that is plaguing the world.

Imagine the power this will give other radical groups. What if eco-terrorists oppose any stories on oil? What if disgruntled vegans oppose any advertisements for beef? And Lord only knows what could happen on either side of the debate about future stories on abortion.

The media, and governments for that matter, are punishing and preventing independent thinkers from truly examining controversial stories. Instead, those who slash and burn are rewarded for their violence. The world's media must unite and defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Newspapers across the United States did print this editorial cartoon. And perhaps this cartoon is the most important.

Ann Brill, Dean of the School of Journalism, joined the hosts of Jayhawk Sports Talk Friday night. Aaron Whallon, Rahul Sharma, and Alex Wiebel grilled Brill about everything from sports journalism theory to this weekend's Border Showdown between Kansas and Missouri on the hardwood. Sharma honored Brill for her leadership qualities and exemplary work as a community volunteer in his customary segment Sharma Salutes. The hosts even introduced a brand new segment on the show entitled The Brill Sergeant, where Brill predicted the winner of Saturday's game between Kansas and Missouri.

The show replay Friday at 10 p.m. and 12 a.m., and again Monday at 5 p.m. before KUJH-TV News.

Living in a country that values individual freedoms as much as the United States does, it baffles me that finding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons online is as difficult as it is. Finding the cartoons isn't impossible by any stretch of the imagination, but it's far more difficult than it should be. (For anyone who didn't catch that subtle link above, that is indeed a link to the cartoons.)

Every person in the world has a right to see the cartoons. If you don't like the cartoons, here's a novel idea for you...Don't look at them.

Stephen Colbert does a great job of using comedic license to make light of the situation in a couple different videos from the Colbert Report. The videos deal with tolerance and the idea of kidding (Side note...the linked page changes from day to day as new videos are added, so over time a few clicks on "next" may be required to find the videos "Kidding" and "ThreatDown: Tolerance").

The University of Illinois' newspaper, the Daily Illini, took a much more serious approach to this situation. The newspaper actually printed the cartoons, and has since had a surprising response...an open debate about the issue. The online opinion section of the newspaper includes a letter from the university's chancellor and a letter from the university's student body vice president, who is an active member of the Muslim community. If nothing else, people in Champaign-Urbana get to learn exactly what upset the Muslim community and the reasons why. If only the rest of the country could be so fortunate.

People need to stop being so uptight or the world may begin to actually function the way Colbert satirically jokes. As he puts it, "Tolerance is just a ten dollar word for weakness."

"Because I can" is a great excuse for lots of things -- drinking too much at a party, flirting with your best friend's ex, skipping a class or two. "Because I can" is not a great excuse for publishing offensive content. In the news industry, we should publish things because they are newsworthy, not just because -- but it seems like too many newspapers are publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons just to prove that they can.

As part of its blog operation, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., has several readers who blog about the paper's content. Recently, one of those bloggers called on the Spokesman-Review to publish the cartoons. To me, it sounds like he thinks they should run the cartoons simply to keep the free-speech muscle in shape.

There are many, many points to this controversy that can be argued. There are good arguments for publishing the cartoons, and in eHub's case, perhaps merely linking to them*. There are good arguments for simply describing the cartoons in words. There's valid points on all sides.

But for those who argue for publishing (or linking), keep one thing in mind. The First Amendment protects our right to publish offensive content, but it does not require us to publish offensive content. There's no "buy 11, get the 12th free" punch card, no frequent flyer miles for the First Amendment. If we pass on Mohammad, it doesn't mean that we can't run a story on the next big controversy.

So weigh this content for its own merits. Decide whether it would benefit your readers. Decide whether the actual images are required for your readers to understand why people are so upset. There's no universal right answer for all newspapers, TV stations and web sites. But don't just run the images to flex your free speech muscle.

*By the very nature of the web, sites can and must be judged by what they link to, and their links become part of their own web of content. To me, the difference between an <a href and <img src is aesthetic -- but that is peripheral to my argument here.

We had the privilege of working with Australian journalist, Olivia Rousset over winter break. She came to Kansas to do a story on intelligent design for the Australian TV program, SBS Dateline.

Rousset was only here for a week, we helped her track down sources and arranged for transportation for her between Topeka, Lawrence and Kansas City. After working in Kansas, she flew to the east coast to conduct interviews for a SBS Dateline follow up story about Abu Ghraib. Little did we know that her work would end up on CNN - More images of abuse at Abu Ghraib.

Rousset is a true multimedia journalist. I know, I saw her in action. She researches, shoots video, interviews sources, edits video, writes text stories, and even blogs about her reporting experiences. The woman lives for good journalism. She is curious, conscientious and tenacious. She is an inspiration and a role model for today's young journalists. She can do it; so can you.

So I think to myself. They're cartoons! Aren't there more important things out there that people should be up in arms about? War or poverty perhaps? Orphans in crazy places like Rwanda and Uganda? Apparently not. There goes yet another embassy.

In my rash initial thought, I have overlooked sympathy and targeted ignorance. I am Catholic-born and raised. I see the big J.C. everywhere. T-shirts, musicals, outside the Salvation Army on Vermont St. It doesn't offend me to see my Messiah.

But what if it did? What if I regarded it such blasphemy to see my Muhammad depicted – in a cartoon no less – that I felt the urge to storm the castle gates of the Danish embassy. How about the Norwegian embassy? Something tells me that these angry Muslims aren't throwing a fit because they didn't get the joke.

I don't think it is respectful or necessary to link the Muhammad cartoons or put them on to eHub. They are already out there. You do not have to see the cartoons to understand what they mean. You can read about them. Anyone with a computer can do a nice, neat Google search. We are a public university with a diverse family of students. To offend one religion is to offend all. Last time I checked there was some amendment out there that mentioned religion and the freedom pertaining-you may have heard of it once or twice. It is our job to tell the news, not become part of it.

With the same justification, I would not post the cartoons to my own blog. Sometimes you have to respect the pain caused to someone else before you can understand it.

I strongly support ehub.ku.edu as being one of the new sites to post the Muhmmamed cartoons. The topic has created a heated debate and readers should have a choice to see what is causing such controversy and make an informed decision on their own. We are not gatekeepers and by not publishing the cartoons we become one.

Blogger Hugh Hewitt said, "Defending the right to publish offensive material and material that compromises the national security doesn't mean — and shouldn't mean — having to defend the content published."

I think this statement sums up the issues that many media managers are debating. By publishing the cartoons, you may not agree with a cartoon but, since they have such news value, they should be available to those who wish to see them.

Those who disagree may think that a link to another site may be a better idea. They may be right; but, how many times do you read a news story and go to every link related to the story? Many who read about the cartoons may not take that extra time to look through links on the web. I think the best way to cover the story is to publish the cartoons on the web page containing the corresponding story or blog.

"What is the big deal? They are only cartoons. The cartoons are not that offensive anyway. Why do people care?" This is what the majority of the comments about the Muslim cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper sounded like in one of my classes on Friday morning. However, a few students differed from the popular opinion and stated, "Why provoke an already hot topic? Why poke fun at something sacred?"

Personally, I have always been fond of satirical cartoons and the first amendment. However, after looking at the cartoons, I found myself questioning if I would publish the images. None of the cartoons are outstandingly offensive or derogatory. The cartoons are tame compared to other supposed political cartoons with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel themes that have run previously in the Arab world, which was pointed out by an article on HonestReporting.com in an article titled "Offensive Cartoons."

As my confused and uncomfortable feeling grew, I thought to myself, if I were an editor, would I let these photos be released? Let's see, why would it be positive to release the cartoons? First, as a journalist, I believe in the freedom of the press. This similar feeling was expressed by a blogger on OneJerusalem.com, blogging life in Israel, in the article "Jesus Mohammed and Moses walk into a bar." The blogger thought it was ridiculous that 12 mild cartoons were causing violent retaliation. The blogger was also concerned that publications are removing the cartoons from their sites in fear. Journalists should not be intimidated into censoring their material. These cartoons are not merely for enjoyment. They make everyone examine the world and constructively think about controversial issues. The cartoons pointed out how the Muslin faith and Mohammed have been contorted by extremists. For these reasons, the cartoons should run.

However, I must also consider the cons of running the cartoons as well. I have studied Islam in different classes and understand how offensive it is to portray Mohammed. I also know that some of these cartoons truly upset people and because of this, readership may go down if a publication decides to print the cartoons. I also should consider that a lot of people don't understand the Muslim faith and the somewhat offensive cartoons could further prejudice an individual's opinion on Muslims. While many Western cartoonists poke fun at Christianity, the Western world understands the Christian faith and knows that most Christians are not extremists. However, this is not the case about the Muslim faith. Some people do not know the difference between a person who practices Islam and a suicide bomber. For these reasons, the cartoons should not run.

I want a clear-cut answer! Decisions in journalism are never easy to make. I think my decision is to provide a detailed description of where to get the links and perhaps give the key words to search for the cartoons on Google. This may be the easy way out, but it does provide the service of letting people get the information they want on their own while keeping those who do not want to see the images happy as well.

Of all things to cause violence. Several cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed caused Mid East citizens to riot and set the Danish consulate on fire. While it is against the religious belief of Muslims for Mohammed to be visually depicted in any way, must violence ensue because of another country's political humor?

Now our own eHub is questioning whether or not it should publish the Muslim cartoons. The media has already shown what can happen if these cartoons are printed. The Danish consulate burning can be seen as a warning for everybody. If eHub posts the cartoons, the Dole Center could very well be the next target.

Journalists, anywhere around the world, take a risk with whatever they write or shoot. What some people think of as funny, others take as offensive. Yet journalists still they do their jobs. They provide the news and let the audience decide for themselves. CNN decided not to show the cartoons out of respect for the Muslim people. That was an ethical call on its part. However, what of the viewers who did not see the cartoons? True, they could go to any computer and search , but with that decision, CNN has just ignored uncomputered audience.

If reporters were scared to do their jobs, hardly any groundbreaking news would be reported at all. We cannot choose not to publish something simply out of fear what the outcome may be. I believe it was Shakespeare who wrote: "Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!" Let us publish these cartoons and see what the outcome may be. If protestors appear, then we have done our job.

Religious images are a hot button issue. Yet not all share the same religion. Is it disrespectful for non-Muslims to see the images? Why should they be ignored while others are respected for their beliefs? Journalists are the go betweens for the people and often walk in agray area when reporting news. But there are some decisions that require a black and white answer.

Should Christians Riot at this image?

Posting the Muslim cartoons on ehub would be a mistake - not only might it put the university in physical danger, as seen by the riots in South Asia, but you will certainly incite student backlash. Maybe the backlash will come in the form of a peaceful discussion, but maybe it will come in the form of a riot or a brick through the newsroom.

Now, that isn't to say that RIck should never run material that might be considered controversial, but to attack religious and cultural beliefs extends beyond acceptable cartoon material.

Because the issue is newsworthy and impacts students, it's important to cover the topic in KU media, but it isn't acceptable to post copies of the comics on our website. Rick should link to the cartoons, with a disclaimer warning viewers of the nature of the content.

The way I see it is we should treat our site like TiVo, let the audience decide what they want to see. Give people the choice to learn more about the controversy, at their discretion. This isn't an Internet dilemma, it's an internet opportunity. We have the ability to provide people with all of the facts, without being too in- your-face. Don't post the cartoons on ehub, be sensitive to your audience, let them be their own gatekeeper.

As I was editing a story about a local Muslim woman's outrage at the twelve cartoons published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten and several reprints in over 14 other countries, I began to debate the consequences of linking the cartoons.

My first impulse was link the caricatures, it adds to the intensity of the story and gives light to the outrage. But the presumed battleground between being sensitive to our audience and protecting our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, isn't necessarily so. By not offering the images, we are upholding ethical standards that should come before sensationalizing and insensitivity.

I can't say "f-you" in a newspaper, because it is offensive to the audience.

So why is it ok to print blasphemous images of the Prophet Muhammad, subsequently offending millions of Muslims? Well, partly because blasphemy doesn't extend to any religious icon besides God.

Denmark's privately owned newpapers are free to print whatever they want and are known for negatively portraying minorities. A 2003 report by the European Network Against Racism stated that "a great deal of media attention in Denmark is given to the seemingly insurmountable differences that divide people, religions and cultures."

The Counterterrorism Blog contends that in response to a heightened "fear of being seen as criticizing Islam in large parts of the Western world, this fear has bred self-censorship," and Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste decided to print the caricatures for this reason. Fear is the ultimate motivator, but I challenge that if we are not printing the cartoons out of fear, we still reek of insensitively and cowardice.

It is blasphemous in Islamic culture to depict the Prophet Muhammad or any other religious icon, but this does not justify the burning of embassies, flags or violence. Protests have ceased to break out in the U.S. due in part to the sensitivity of the news media as a whole. Only a few newspapers printed the cartoons, including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun, while many others opted to describe the cartoons and show pictures of violent protests.

But in the end, KUJH-TV is not the place to make a statement about freedom of speech. In a university setting committed to diversity, we must be sensitive to our audience. Posting the links on personal blogs or on the web site is just as harmful as outright displaying them. There's no need for us to add to the fury.

This past week was eventful to say the least. The "sleepy" town of Lawrence became divided after a shooting at the Granada left one dead, another critically injured, and a suspect on the loose. While the death was newsworthy for a day, it quickly shifted to a battle between Lawrence and Topeka, and how hip-hop music brought out the worst in us all (See comments in the Lawrence Journal World article, Business neighbors split on music's role).

While working my newsroom shift and posting the story, I thought it would be interesting to talk to the artist who was performing at the venue of the shooting and give him a chance to answer his critics chastising him and fellow hip hop artists for instigating violence.

Thankfully Doe, a Topeka native, called the newsroom for an exclusive over-the-phone interview to give us his side of the story. What transpired was an argument between the artist and venue over an alleged payment of additional security that was not present during the shooting.

It was exciting being a part of the top story, Rapper points blame at nightclub security, especially one that I had a lot of interest in.

French novelist Gustave Flaubert once said, "Nothing is more humiliating than to see idiots succeed in enterprises we have failed." The blogosphere contains some good information from traditional media outlets. But any idiot with a computer can start a blog, and unfortunately, stupidity can draw just as many hits as any coherent blog.

Sure, there are poignant blogs for politics. Anyone on the right can read Radley Balko or conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. And on the left there are plenty of blogs like Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post or the explosive Michael Moore. And ABC News features a political blog on politics with a more neutral approach.

But in today's era of terrorism, war, and global security, when the United States and the world could be on the brink of a world war, what blog story can unite or divide this nation and set the tone for a possible global catastrophe?

I don't know either, but I did find a cool looking picture of a Mr. Potato Head wearing an R2D2 costume. Alas, one of the most popular blogs, according to Technorati, is www.boingboing.net. This is what future journalists are going to have to compete with.

Got some inside dirt on a political candidate? Boring. How about a corporate scandal that could cost stockholders millions? Eh. But if you have a Flash application that lets you create your own Super Mario Brothers remixes, you could be an instant hit.

With attention spans dwindling because of the 10 second sound byte era, journalists are will have to develop creative sites that offer more than just inflammable rhetoric.

And it is not fair.

Four years (well okay five for me) of college, hours of research, and interviewing sources are not enough for the ever hungry public. Entertainment is the mother's milk of the blogosphere. Got an idea? Just spout it off. No information? Who cares? Just add a few exclamation marks and some flying toasters and you are in the clear. If journalists are going to make a dollar in this growing market, they had better find a unique to draw attention to their sites and throw caution to the wind.

Now excuse while I look up some stories on the nuclear capability of Iran, right after I browse a few pics of Darth Tater.

This article,Imagining the Google Future is of particular interest since we just watched EPIC 2015 a couple weeks ago, and we've been discussing the future of the media. The reporter goes so far as to call Google a "cunning enterprise." And, frankly, if you look at some of their numbers, you may very well agree. In 2005, Google was big news!

• Sales of an estimated $6 billion
• Profits projected around $1.6 billion
• A share price above $400

But what does the immediate future hold for Google? Where will they go next? Is the Google Grid actually on the horizon? And, what can media organizations learn from Google? Their online advertising strategies have proved nothing short of spectacular.

CNN Money wants you to submit your version of Google's future. Scroll down to the bottom of the Imagining the Google Future story, and follow the link. Extra J694 credit for anyone who gets their submission published.