September 2006 Archives

Wikipedia is at its core, a bit shrewd and unreliable. Anyone with a log-in can peruse the pages and fix what they believe to be errors. Having more eyes to look over something is considered a group-editing session, but it does not always work that way. There might be a few dedicated people that are on top of things, but a lot of what you find on this wannabe-encyclopedia page is question marks.

The same can be said about citizen journalism. There are question marks about citizen journalism and how it will be used, but one of their success stories so far is fact checking. Little Green Footballs helped blow open the Rathergate case and exposed the Reuters sham. Most citizen journalists use the blog as their forum, but there are new sites dedicated to giving citizen journalists a forum and organizations willing to pay for the work of citizen journalists.

But you must be careful in what you claim to be the holy grail, because any dumbshit with a digital camera, editing software and some time can post his or her thoughts. What seperates qualityfrom stupidity is credibility.

Wikipedia is still searching for its credibility and citizen journalism has gained some confidence, but neither entity has reached superstar status yet. With their credentials still up in the air, Wikipedia is not the place to look for answers. Jimmy Wales said it best when he concluded that no one should link to Wikipedia.

Disclaimer: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

So after reading the disclaimer on the Wikipedia website, can it be used as a source of information to be cited in a report? My answer is no. Wikipedia is a form of citizen journalism because the information in the articles comes from anyone, anywhere. That is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The disclaimer speaks for itself.

They even post on the website in the "About Wikipedia" section exactly what this online source is: "The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link (with a few minor exceptions, such as protected articles and the main page)."

When exploring Wikipedia, I searched certain subjects and with a simple click of a button I could contribute any bit of information that I wanted, true or false. Heck, I could even write about Oslo, Norway even though I haven't even been there or about cellular biology, which I haven't a clue about. Sooner or later someone would hopefully discover that the information is false and remove it, but who's going to be the one to edit all the articles and verify the information is correct?

So the bottom line is, why use wikipedia, when you can use purely accurate information from other online encyclopedias such as: Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarata and the Columbia Encyclopedia online.

Two weeks ago, I sat down to watch "The Path to 9-11."

Despite reading countless stories criticizing the show's creation, I thought it wouldn't bother me that portions of the five-hour ABC docudrama had been altered for dramatic effect.

I was wrong.

The evening started out well enough, but before I knew it, I had closed my critical eye and fallen prey to the improvised docudrama. Time and time again, I heard myself saying, "So, that's how that happened," except I had absolutely no idea if that's how it really happened. Without a disclaimer, I had no way of knowing whether that particular television moment was fact or fiction and I didn't have time to read the 9-11 Commission Report to find out.

I feel the same way about Wikipedia. Although the online encyclopedia has wormed its way into popular parlance, I'm not sure I trust it. Because anyone can edit a page (and should be bold about doing so), I don't know what's true and what's not, what's right and what's wrong, what's Colbert-created and what's not. I'm as confused as I was when I watched that docudrama.

Apparently, the Wikimedia Foundation is well aware of Wikipedia's weaknesses. So, in an attempt to be transparent and true, it has put both directions and disclaimers in place. But, much like I don't have time to read the 9-11 Commission Report, I don't have time to wade through Wikipedia's complex array of acronyms in an attempt to determine what's true and what isn't. (My favorite statements from the NPOV page? "User:Stupidmoron does not seem to be a vandal (though hir [sic] name sounds a bit odd for a serious contributor)" and "Who is writting [sic] these articals [sic]; please don't tell me that ‘Marshman or Skybunny' is telling me what to think?")

I'm all for citizen journalism and the marketplace of ideas. And in that vein, Wikipedia is a wonderful social experiment. I'm just not sure I'd use it for anything more serious than the speed of the batmobile. Sorry, Marshman and Skybunny.

Ed Eulenberg said, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Or did he?

Get it right. It's so easy to get it wrong. And if Wikipedia or the New York Times or a professor or textbook is your only source, you're getting it wrong. Some call it skepticism, others call it fact checking.

No reporter should rely exclusively on one source of information, whether it's Wikipedia or the Encycopedia Brittannica. If you're a solid reporter who cites varied and numerous sources and the facts are right, then who cares if Wikipedia is one of those sources?

Reporters are responsible for having correct information. Sure, reporters make mistakes. No one is infallible. There's never going to be a newspaper without a "Corrections" section. That's okay.

Reporters still need to verify and check their facts and look for things that just don't add up. Copy editors are there to help ensure that the finished product is as error-free as possible. If Wikipedia is part of the verification process, that's okay. It just can't be the only part.

I can't tell you all the times my teachers used to tell me to get started early on reading assignments as a kid.

You know, the teachers who would always bug you about that kind of stuff so you kept up and never fell behind.

Why read long, boring books when you can get answers quick and easy?

The solution: cliff notes baby!

Nothing beats the convenience of getting up to speed on information without the hassles of spending hours and hours and hours and hours of reading something useless.

In fact, wikipedia offers web surfers to ride the waves of easy-to-read information at a cost free expense.

That's right, an encyclopedia that does not even cost a dime, my friend.

The recent surge of reference sites reflects people's interest about what is fact and how we come to know it.

More importantly, a source viewed as so inaccurate serves an educational purpose.

Internet activist Andy Carvin presents a contrast between wikipedia and Britannica.

Wikipedia challenges everyday readers to not accept historical information at face value but rather encourages them to participate in ongoing discussions about the world we live.

Anyone can edit, contribute, or even post new content.

Gosh, even my ethics teacher got the clue about the term wiki.

What's the deal with Wikipedia? I mean, what kind of credible news outlet would allow any regular Joe Schmoe to edit, update and correct the Web site without having any credentials to do so? No seriously, you tell me. I can't figure it out.

The idea absolutely blows my mind. This particular Web site takes the concept of "citizen journalist" to the extreme -- allowing regular citizens to act as copy editors, reporters, and multimedia producers all in one. And I have to be honest, I love it.

Where else can you not be sure of the content you are reading. Sure, most of it is probably accurate and thoroughly researched, but that's neither here nor there. The fact that I'm simply allowed to change an entry on Wikipedia makes me feel all warm and tingly inside. As is often the case, a normal, everday citizen like myself might be just as capable as posting to Wikipedia that some academic using a bunch of scientific jargon that no one understands.

And so, given the option of the World Book online or Wikipedia, I'll take the latter. Maybe not for accuracy's sake, or to cite in my research paper. But simply for humor or other reasons. It's not everyday that a Web site like Wikipedia comes around.

When I was in high school, I remember my teacher telling my class that if we used Wikipedia as a source, we would have to re-write our research paper.

At first I couldn't believe there could be such a harsh punishment for using Wikipedia, but the more I learned about the website, the more I realized how wise my teacher really was.

Today, many people browse the Internet when doing research. Many people believe if it's published on the web, it must be true; however, this is not always the case with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a site that allows anyone to contribute regardless of their educational background or expertise on the subject.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Wikipedia claimed that a famous journalist might have been involved in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers. Clearly this was a false statement; however, readers might not realize it.

As journalists, it is our duty to make sure that what we publish is credible. Our readers should be able to depend on the content being correct without doing fact checking. Journalists are only as good as the content and sources of their work.

If we start allowing Wikipedia to creep into our blogs and news stories, what will be next? I see it as a slippery slope leading to journalism that is unreliable.

"Shea is going nuts!"

At 9:02 p.m., I got the text message from my dad. It was official, our beloved New York Mets had just won the division for the first time in 18 years, and Shea Stadium was rocking.

Working in the newsroom at the Topeka Capital Journal, I was unable to see this feat being accomplished. As soon as I got the text, I got on ESPN.com and scoured all the websites I could find to read up on this great night.

Without cell phones, who knows when I would have found out the good news. Truth is, it probably would have been later that night, when I had a free minute, but with the text message, I was able to read about it right away and enjoy the moment.

Of course, had I not been working, I could have been checking the score on my cell phone the whole night along with just about anything else going on in the world.

The new era of cell phones, text messages and websites like facebook, have totally changed the dynamic of news. It isn't delivered to you when the television stations or newspapers want it to be delivered to you, it's delivered to you when you want it to be.

Even the most traditional of mediums, who once refused to go multimedia, have to now because that's the way there audience wants it. No longer do people sit around and wait for the network news, or even the newer days of sitting around and waiting for Sportscenter.

Now, you can receive instant updates on any topic in the world whenever you want. If the Mets clinch, you can receive an alert on your ESPN Mobile telephone, if Kansas scores a touchdown, kusports.com will send you a text message and let you know.

If the President decides to veto a bill, your cell phone will tell you within minutes.

The era of waiting for news is over. Now, news happens when you want it to happen. The only question remaining is, what's next?

I no longer have to call my friends and ask them what they are doing, or what they are up to that evening. No, I would be foolish to even try. Nowadays, a few clicks of a mouse and strokes of a key will let you know what that particular friend is up to … and where they're at, what they're doing, what they plan on doing, who they're doing it with, etc. And it's all thanks to Web sites like Facebook.

For those who don't have the pleasure of knowing, allow me to enlighten you. Facebook is an interactive, online community of mainly college (and now high school) students that allow users the ability to update profiles, post pictures, create parties and events, reconnect with old friends, and procrastinate on that English assignment which is due first thing in the morning. Anyone with a Facebook account can tell you what they use it for and the many features that are available -- but that's just the beginning.

Facebook is changing the way the world communicates, literally. Many of us can remember the days of postal mail, landline telephones and newspapers. Not us Facebookers. Cell phones, e-mail and weekly magazines are even becoming a thing of the past. Why pay a monthly phone bill or magazine subscription fee when you can get all of the benefits those services offer at one place? Don't know the latest election issue in your area? Join the relevant group. Want to invite every girl with the first name Ashley who goes to KU to your party on Friday night? Do it. Don't sell yourself short. Facebook wouldn't want you to.

No, Facebook wants to make absolutely sure that every single person you have ever looked at knows exactly what you are doing. And also to be sure to let everyone know exactly where you'll be at 6:31 p.m. next Friday. I, for one, will continue to use e-mail and cell phones. But rest assured. You can still get in touch with me via Facebook. Just send me a message.

When I deleted my facebook profile in the fall of 2005, it wasn't because of privacy issues. I just wasn't sure what the point of the site was. I preferred to stay connected with my friends by actually seeing them, in living color, rather than seeing them represented on a computer screen by some digital information.

But to be honest, I still haven't figured it out. I guess it's just a reflection of the era. It's always weird to try and dissect and interpret trends as they're happening. But with over 100 million users on myspace.com, it's difficult to simply write it off as this generation's trend. It's bigger than hair bands and new wave music, or whatever other silly trend from days past I can think up.

For me, facebook didn't do much of anything. It didn't help me connect better with my friends, it didn't help me create any new, lasting relationships and it didn't help me keep up with events or issues on campus. The problem is, for every one political activist on facebook, there are 1,000 goof offs who just want to talk about boobs and beer, but not necessarily in that order. All it did was help me waste time between classes. It was entertaining. It was fun to see what my buddy in L.A. had to say on my wall or what movies the cute girl in class likes. But that's really about it.

Frankly, it's a pretty boring site if you're not into underage drinking and debauchery. I think we're wasting our time trying to figure out what great uses the site could have, when it's already so wonderfully pointless. I just can't help but wonder how much longer it will last before it goes the way of mullets and snap on bracelets.

I have a confession to make.

I don't have a Facebook page or MySpace account.

Yes, it's true: I am a social anomaly, a MySpace misfit, a Facebook-less freak. Feel free to take a moment (or more) to ponder the extent of my social isolation.

Better?

I could try to bombard you with excuses for why I've ignored an entire online genre (I'm too old; the users, too young; I don't have time; I don't know how).

But the truth of the matter is this: I've bought into blogs, perused plenty of podcasts, enrolled in the school of RSS. Yet Facebook, MySpace and others of their ilk have failed to garner my limited attention because those platforms not only exploit personal connections, they make it tough to tell fact from fiction.

I don't care about Lonelygirl15 or a blog written by a body spray.

I will not succumb to viral marketing disguised as social networking. I will not bow to "the man," especially if I can't tell whether he's made up or real (no offense, Mr. Murdoch).

Like many others, the real Rupert sees the value (and by value, I mean revenue) in social networking sites, such as MySpace, Buzz-Oven, Xanga and Facebook. And, as a one-time marketer, I see it, too.

I just don't want to be part of it … at least, not on the receiving end.

I like my advertising – and my friends – straight up. Word of mouth is one thing. Word of mouth by way of money, mystery and make believe is another.

Bill Simmons is the ultimate citizen journalist.

If you don't know who Bill Simmons is, he's the Sports Guy. Literally. Simmons does a weekly column for ESPN.com, and also is a regular writer for ESPN the Magazine. He has become one of the most popular spots journalists in the country. And the thing about it is, he's not your typical journalist.

You'll never see Simmons in a post-game press conference or sitting on press row. You'll never see him in a locker rom interviewing athletes or coaches. No, you'll see Simmons sitting in spectator seats, enjoying the game just like any other sports fan.

But, when Simmons goes home, he writes about the game he just saw or an athelte's performance he just watched. With the age of Sports Information Directors and media watchdogs everywhere, this could be the future of sports journalism. No input from the participants, just commentary and basic results.

Simmons isn't the only person who has impacted sports journalism. The world of message boards, blogs and fan's websites have taken over the industry. Last year, when Kansas assisant basketball coach Joe Dooely said something inapportiate to an opposing player after the game, no journalist at the game saw it. Rather, ESPN caught it on the cameras, and then it was the hottest topic on the Kansas message boards, and when journalists went to those message boards after the game, that's how they broke the story.

Or when Heisman trophy runner up Matt Leinart went out after losing the trophy, a fan's camera caught him at a club hitting on a female and the next day, showed up on deadspin.com, a website totally devoted to sports journalism, remarkably without one true journalist.

We can talk about how big of an impact citizen journalism has had on the world today, but perhaps, in sports it has had the biggest, and will comtinue to have that impact in future years. What that means for me is bad news. Who knows what my future is, I might have to give up my press pass, and just be a citizen journalist. What a scary thought. Unless, I'm the next Sports Guy.

Here is a link to SI's article about the Sports Guy

I was visiting a childhood friend, Ross, whom I had not seen in years, when I slinked off the couch to check my Myspace account last summer.

"Steve, you're on Myspace?" Ross said as he peered over my shoulder. "What the hell happened to you?"

Ross had a point. What prompted me to register for an account?

"I started it to stay in touch with friends from Colorado," I said. Ross shot me a scornful glance; he was not convinced of the site's utility. I suppose I am.

Myspace offers much more than just a way to keep up with friends. Bands release their albums on their profiles before they go on sale in stores, scoop the music media by posting tour dates in advance and feature original content, such as b-sides and rarities.

It's easy, too. I don't waste my time doing keyword searches on Google for each band anymore — now the information finds me. All I have to do is befriend the band and they post on my profile RSS-like bulletins about upcoming album releases, new singles and concert ticket sale dates. (No, Rupert Murdoch did not pay me to write this.)

I will probably grow bored of it, but I'm surprised it has kept my attention for this long. I'm not alone. Myspace consistently ranks among the most frequently visited sites on the Internet.

So what the hell happened to us? I never asked for or sought a Web site that would make some tasks a bit easier. It just happened.

But by my own freewill, I chose to spend my time on Myspace instead of on other social networking sites. Many others did, too. Myspace really shows the Internet's potential for explosive growth: Do it right and it will spread like the plague.

So the Web stole the Ring of Power from the professionals who used to stand between the average citizen and everything else. And why is this bad news?

Are we worried, as we read about the Reuter's photo scandal, that citizen journalists will mislead the public? Are we, as we glide past aisles of magazines that showcase the inner circle of celebrity love lives, worried that citizen journalists will water down the news? Are we, as trust in the media nosedives, worried that the common blogger will demean the sacred ethics of committed professionals?

As we lose ground to the average person, I ask, "What are we really losing?" The First Amendment is more alive than ever. Sure, people will post stupid, obscene and fake stuff. But how can it be worse than tabloid journalism?

As far as I'm concerned, the Web can keep the Ring.

I searched for a list of distinguished alumni on the KU Alumni Association's Web site and made a couple calls, but to no avail. Then I remembered Wikipedia.

I was trying to find the list for a KUJH story about KU alumnus Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Company's new CEO. Professor Musser strolled by, and because I know how professors feel about citing the online encyclopedia, I asked his permission to link to the entry. He refused, reasoning that Wikipedia contains fact errors and that anyone can edit an entry. I grumbled a bit, but I saw his point.

That night, I picked up a copy of The Atlantic at the grocery store and it fell open to a picture of bees working in a hive, also the title of the article. After reading it, I concluded that Wikipedia exemplified citizen journalism.

Marshall Poe, a historian, writes, "Can we all argree on what an apple is exactly, or the shades of the color green. Not easily. The wiki offered a way for people to actually decide in common. On Wikipedia, an apple is what the contributors say it is right now."

This mirrors the philosophy of citizen journalists. These people are sick of the mainstream media telling them what an apple looks like. They want to pick their own apples.

Poe argues that individuals own Web pages, but the community owns Wikipedia. In an online newspaper, the individual controls the truth, but in Wikipedia, the community attempts to reach a consensus on the truth.

This consensus may be reliable. The journal Nature compared Britannica and Wikipedia science articles last year. The study found little difference in accuracy: "The average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."

So why not link to Wikipedia? Let our audience determine its credibility.

Every day I hear that journalism is changing and that no one knows the future of journalism, but somehow people know that citizen journalists will ruin the journalism profession leaving college-taught journalists, like myself, without a job.

How does anyone know this to be true if the profession is in such a state of flux as we speak?

I believe that Nelle Harper Lee said it best, "people are afraid of what they do not know."

With citizen journalism there are plenty of unknowns. While the words ‘citizen journalism' seem almost taboo to some there are others who think that this label is not accurate at all. Whatever it is called there is divided opinions on this matter.

Some people, companies and even newspapers support citizen journalism while others remain still skeptical.

I believe that it will be somewhat of a give-and-take situation. There will never be a substitute for college-taught journalists who are unbiased and equipped with the skills of a changing profession. The citizen journalist will serve a purpose in the future of journalism, but it will not include taking away our jobs in professional media outlets.

The keys to the kingdom of journalism will not be handed over to citizen journalists, but perhaps they will be issued temporary status. I believe the citizen journalist will be best served as one of our alums, Eric Sorrentino, put it, someone who contributes to breaking news. Often times they are there before professional journalists, so they can help in ways we are not able to help. Without the skills, desire and the paycheck we will receive for our efforts, most citizen journalists will do little to harm our way of life.

When I'm trying to get my news in the morning, I'm far more likely to log onto CNN.com than a citizen journalism Web site like PopularVoice.org. If I'm feeling nostalgic, I might even open a newspaper.

But maybe that's just me. It's hard to explain the existence of sites like PopularVoice without admitting that people are generally dissatisfied with news coverage.

But the problem of inadequate coverage has always been around. TV producers have always decided what you should watch, radio DJs have always decided what you should listen to and editors have always decided what you should read in the newspaper. And sometimes those decisions don't always coincide with what viewers really want. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to please everyone all the time.

When mainstream television programs were no longer relevant, public access was born. When people got sick of listening to pop music and DJs rambling, they created public radio. And when the newspaper coverage wasn't sufficient, the underground press took flight.

In this sense, the idea of the dissatisfied consumer, which has spawned citizen journalism, is nothing new. The technology, however, is. Instead of applying to be on public access television, anyone with a camcorder and a computer can post their own videos to the Web. Anyone with a camera built into their cell phone can take pictures and send them half-way across the world in a matter of seconds. I don't think any journalists panicked when Wayne's World's popularity skyrocketed in the early 1990s or when digital cameras became a mainstay in American culture, and they shouldn't panic now.

Change does not automatically equal death. Spoken word survived the invention of newspapers; newspapers survived the invention of the radio; the radio survived the invention of the television; and to think these forms of media will all be destroyed by the Internet is just plain naive.

Q: What's the difference between a highly-skilled journalist like myself and a citizen journalist?

A: The citizen journalist has a job that pays well.

Joking aside, citizen journalism is an old concept that is being transferred to the online world with a scary concept: that people will do a journalist's job for free.

Smart media outlets will embrace citizen journalism as a great way to enhance, not replace, traditional coverage.

There is still a need for expert journalists who can tell a story, dig up information that is hard to come by, and interview newsmakers. But there is also a place for the citizen journalists, who can provide photos and perspective by being in places that it would be impossible or impractical to have a traditional journalist.

As an added bonus, it gives people a feeling of ownership in the site, newspaper or television station. People will watch "their station" loyally if their video of a tornado was aired on that station.

Is it for all stories? No. But for things like severe weather, it can be a terrific complement to the coverage. At the Kansan, we got into the act today, asking people to share their experiences from the Sept. 11 attacks. We didn't let them write the paper, but their voices provided a powerful emotional element that is hard to find in reporting alone.

So take the class if you want, but it's not necessary. The goal isn't that citizens become journalists, it's that we have journalists who are citizens.

In my former life, I worked as a regional reporter for The Killeen Daily Herald, a small newspaper in the heart of Central Texas.

My "beat" spanned four cities, two counties and countless miles. It took an hour to drive from Killeen, where I worked, to Gatesville, where I was expected to keep tabs on the town's happenings.

Considering the sprawling expanse editors expected me to cover (and the fact that I don't drive the "batmobile"), I did the best I could.

But I know now that my best wasn't quite good enough. My kamikaze-style reporting, where I dropped in for big events and occasional meetings, can't compare to what a local could have done. I didn't forge bonds with potential readers or foster a sense of community. Hyper-local content? Yeah, right. As if.

Back then, a Gatesville blogger would have been a godsend. One link, a few bits of HTML code, and we could have improved our regional coverage tenfold.

So that's why I don't understand this war between citizen journalists and the mainstream media. Why can't we see the value that citizen journalists provide? Why does it have to be a case of us vs. them? Citizen journalists fill a gap we can't. As much as we'd like to think we're superhuman, we're not. We can't be everywhere all the time.

So what's wrong with opening the gates and letting some other folks get in on the action? It won't lessen what we do. It will improve it.

You pay for knowledge.

That's what I realized when I started paying for graduate school myself. Two years and more than $21,000 in tuition later, what do I have to show for the money?

That $21K bought me valuable, one-on-one training from professors. Confidence. Writing and critical thinking skills. Foresight into the media's future and mine. Training in the use of multimedia to tell a story. The use of the school's high-end computer technology. That I shouldn't use sentence fragments.

I chose to go to graduate school because…wait. Why did I come here? The School of Journalism offers only one course that focuses on computer skills—the one for which I'm writing this blog. And many professors are learning the multimedia shuffle as students learn it.

But the world is changing quickly and the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications is embracing the change, unlike other schools. Two years and more than 21 grand later, I'm almost ready to help lead the change. And if I had done anything else with that time and money, I would be following someone else's lead.

In high school, a friend of mine read my palm lines. This is what I remember: The lines on one hand represented what I was given and the lines on the other hand represented what I made of myself. I think the lines on my hand reveal about as much of my life as the pattern of my car's oil leak, but bear with me.

The future of journalism and my future as a University of Kansas graduate is like my friend's palm reading; part of the future is out of our control, and part of it is our responsibility.

Journalists can't control the Web or its popularity. I can't control the number or variety of classes offered or the quality of my professors.

However, there's a whole lot we can control. Newspapers can go online; they can nix their preachy tone; they can market themselves, and they can improve their credibility. After all, the Jayson Blairs, all I can say is, "Shoddy work."

I also influence my future. Since I've come to KU, I've taken internships to supplement my classes. When I struggled in a class, I went to the teacher's weekly tutoring sessions. When I had trouble with a different teacher who ignored me, I refused to leave her office until she had answered my questions. Because I wanted to be a medical writer, I enrolled in a Medical Terminology class offered in the School of Allied Health. My education is my responsibility and I make sure I get my parent's money's worth.

I will get a job and I will be very good at what I do. Like me, journalists are responsible for their future, and they need to own it. If they do their job right, they will still be around in 20 years.

My college education is the only reason I will be able to enter the workforce with any hope of getting a job.

Since starting at Kansas, I've worked for KJHK radio, KUJH television, and most recently The University Daily Kansan newspaper.

Before entering college, I had no clue how to write a good story for any of these three media. Now, I feel confident in my ability to be a professional reporter.

Is that worth $40,000, or whatever I'm paying? You bet it is.

Anybody who says that college is a waste of time doesn't get it. Sure, bloggers play by their own rules, but that doesn't mean they don't have to know how to report news, or tell a good story.

Bloggers without professional training are a train wreck waiting to happen. Even though we are in a new age of information reporting, it is still important to have a solid background in journalism, otherwise we are just playing into the stereotype of the guy on a couch who never leaves the house.

The electronic age means that people will consume media differently. But it doesn't mean that we will have to redefine what constitutes a good story or how to report facts of vital importance that wouldn't be discovered without journalists.

An education from a quality journalism school remains the best way to learn these things, no matter what the price tag might be.

I was in the initial days of a two-year graduate program when buyer's remorse hit me for the first time.

Surrounded by undergraduates, I heard one of them whisper: "Why on earth would anyone get a graduate degree in journalism?"

Why, indeed? Why, after 15 successful years in the industry, was I sitting in class with people almost half my age? Why, all of a sudden, had I reversed the roles, allowing education to trump experience when, for the longest time, it had been the other way around? What exactly was I getting for $30,000 (a figure that still makes me feel faint)?

One year and some $15,000 later, I know the answer: mad skills.

I'm a print girl who can parse a paragraph like nobody's business. But in today's multimedia world, that's just not enough. A member of Generation X, I graduated college long before the Internet, blogs and podcasts had transformed the news industry. If I wanted to market myself and compete with younger generations, experience alone wasn't going to do the trick. I needed to update my skill set and learn the new lingo.

So, I've discovered the advantages of Audacity and the features of FinalCut Pro. I now understand the principles of platforming and the benefits of blogs. I can upload a video and download a podcast. I realize that community conversations have replaced lessons and lectures.

So, even though the millennials might question my decision and its accompanying cost, I know I made the right choice. After all, confidence is priceless.

I decided to play cards instead of watching the Emmys, but I watched what I missed on YouTube.

I laughed as host Conan O'Brien sang a show tune about NBC's market share woes: "Yeah, we got trouble/ Here at NBC/ With a capital T and that rhymes with G as in ‘gee, we're screwed'…Then there's the Internet/ At this very moment your kids are on YouTube watching a cat on a toilet."

Conan was right: They weren't watching the Emmys. According to Nielsen Media Research, the show attracted its fourth-smallest audience ever, down 14 percent from last year. No one should spend hours watching the show when he or she could quickly view the best parts on YouTube sans commercials.

Unfortunately, that's not what NBC executives were thinking when they began a partnership with YouTube recently: "These viral sites are interesting to us in instances before a show becomes an asset and we are trying to expose it to people," says an NBC executive. "Once something becomes a hit it's a different story. Our interest here is generating revenue for ourselves."

Amy Gahran writes that NBC should show highlights before shows air. But I would go further. Cat pissing aside, I value YouTube's ability to allow a viewer to skim off the fat. NBC should broadcast extended versions of its best clips before and after the shows air on TV.

More than 61,000 people viewed the Emmys clip as of last night and surely some would return for next year's show just because they saw Conan for a few minutes on YouTube.

But if NBC rehashes its stingy TV promos for YouTube, I'll find another Web site to catch the highlights when I'm short on time.

Last week, I sat in my online production class and came to the surprising realization that I was the only member of the group who had not visited YouTube.

"Man, I feel left out," I thought to myself.

How can everyone else here be up to speed except me? So ya know what I did?

Answer: I went to the site.

And boy, I'll tell you what, after at first thinking this stuff was garbage, I came to embrace it with a lofty smile!

This stuff is flat-out entertaining! And so it happened, I was in. I was part of a group of millions of people visiting YouTube every single day.

In addition to vast online users visiting YouTube on a daily basis, major network companies such as NBC have recently bought into the hype.

In an effort to maintain audience members across the country, NBC reached an agreement with the popular media consumer company to assist the promotion of its shows and fall television lineup.

John Miller, chief marketing officer for NBC Universal, believed that the agreement was a prime example of old traditional media meeting with the newfound media.

Especially due to the decreased trends of watching television evening news, NBC has acted fittingly by playing to the strengths and tendencies of the redefined general audience.

The millions and millions of online users who have contributed to the YouTube hysteria are on a winning team of broadcast media.

Unfortunately for Sean McManus and CBS, he's on a team that still tries to beat the opponent.

I was hungry. As is my usual routine on Friday evenings, I grab a bite to eat at my mother's house. At mom's house the pantry is always stocked and the laundry is always free. And mom is always watching the evening news.

In keeping with the national trend, most people my age are more likely to gather news from online outlets rather than more traditional media outlets like newspapers and evening telecasts. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have Web sites like YouTube readily accessible.

But let's not be too quick to cast aside the importance and lingering popularity of TV news. While it's true that my generation is less likely to tune in to Katie Couric than our parents are, we aren't exactly jumping at the thought of viral video Web sites replacing them altogether.

Sites like YouTube are used more for entertainment purposes. I go there to escape; to watch a funny video in between class; to check out a clip that all my friends are talking about. I don't go there to find out about the latest in the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah. Nor do I use sites like YouTube to find out the latest happenings in my own neighborhood. In that regard, local and national evening TV news programs still hold a bit of importance.

After finishing that ham and cheese sandwich, I made my way to the computer room and check my e-mail. Sure enough, I have been told by a friend to check out a video of the world's angriest German kid. I'm amused. Not informed. And definitely not worried about YouTube-type sites replacing TV news.