April 2007 Archives

I get much of my sports news from espn.com. There are several occasions where I'll come across an interesting headline, only to find that I need to be an "ESPN insider" to access the full article. The same goes with several scouting Web sites like scout.com.

I can't imagine a day and age where the majority of newspapers attempt the same thing. Isn't the point of the paper to make people want to read it? I could see them charging for something in-depth, but I don't want to pay for news. I'd say I have a right to know what's going on without paying somebody to tell me.

These journalists, who think it's a good idea to charge for news, need to revisit their business models. They aren't making money because of the news they're putting out. The papers are making serious money because of advertising on the Web site that a ton of people are seeing for free, not because of subscription fees. Do they really need that $10 a month for an online subscription? What if their online readership is cut in half because half of their "loyal" readers decide they'd just rather get their news for free from the paper down the street's Web site? As a result, advertisers will stop paying for advertising on the site because of decreased traffic. That's a lot more money lost than the $120 a year they'd get from subscribers.

ESPN can charge for their articles because people will pay for the professional insight that no one else is giving written by their well-known sports journalists. I suppose the same thing goes for business journals with great insight. If there is a hard news story that's that big of a deal, it will find it's way out there for all to see at no cost.

I was surprised when I did what us narcissistic college students often do: I Googled myself. (Image search, too!)

What surprised me was the number of media outlets where I found my own work posted. My most popular/infamous stories are about Facebook, fires, or student-athlete crime. I stopped counting the number of sites in which my stories appeared after the 10th Google page—I was too pissed off.

My literary music had been pirated.

(I'm partly lying: I wasn't really that mad, since my work was getting far more exposure than the Kansan could offer. But still.)

I love the Internet and the instant/free availability of content. But many of these stories were golden info for NFL or MLB draft prognosticators—in fact, several draft sites copied and pasted my KU athlete crime stories wholesale. Or should we say "no sale"? Because that's how it happened: these sites got the benefit of my specialized information completely for free.

Non-profit organizations and government offices (Kansas' alcoholic beverage control, for one) also copied and pasted my stories on fires or lawsuits or underage drinking to their Web sites. Attorney blogs loved the Sara Driessel lawsuit story. No charge, sir—it's all free today!

On the still-legal side of things, my stories also found their way via the U-Wire university newspaper wire service (to which the Kansan belongs) onto Yahoo! News, CBS's CSTV news, and even into other college newspapers.

Baltimore Sun columnist Jay Hancock nails this problem head-on in his recent article "Newspapers Need to Do it Different on Getting Paid."

Call me a hypocrite—I'm certainly not in favor of the hardline measures taken by record companies and film studios in response to pirated music or movies. But why not do it the way book publishers do? I'd be happy to sell my articles to anyone for a tiny royalty per view, or for a simple flat fee.

That's the rub. Is my content worth paying for? I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal in print and online because its content is worth the money. I don't subscribe to my internship-mater, the Kansas City Star, because it rarely publishes content I want that's unavailable someplace else. What I do know, however, is that content ownership and money must meet soon—I've got bills to pay.

Among all of the big questions plaguing journalists, one keeps owners of newspapers up at night: How the hell do we make money on the Internet? Jay Hancock of the Baltimore Sun dealt with this recently. I don't agree with everything Mr. Hancock argues (especially the special exemption from the Do Not Call registry. I don't need calls for a newspaper subscription anymore than I need calls for vinyl siding). However, one point rings true:

Much of what newspapers do - restaurant reviews, crime reports, high school and college sports stats, movie reviews - are valuable long after publication.

A few lines later…

It's more like being in the database business than the news business, which is why papers don't get it.

Yes sir! It is like being in the database business. The deeper your content goes, the more useful it is, the more users will come and the longer they'll stick around your site. News organizations that act as their community databases add value to their sites beyond the news. People want databases.

Don't believe me? Let's look at some of the most popular American Web sites according to alexa.com:

2. Google: the database miner.

3. MySpace: a database of people.

5. eBay: a database of worthless crap merchandise (full disclosure, I make part of my living from selling stuff on eBay, so I feel perfectly justified making the worthless crap joke).

6. YouTube: a database of video.

7. Facebook: see MySpace description.

8. Wikipedia: Professors warn that this database is run by the Imp of the Perverse.

9. Craigslist: a database of worthless crap, but cheaper to use than eBay.

10. Windows Live: Bill's answer to Google.

11. Amazon.com: I use Amazon as a reference tool more than I use it to buy crap.

16. CNN: the highest rated pure news site.

18. The Internet Movie Database: do I need to give a description for this one?

19. Flickr: A photo database.

See a trend? Again, people like databases. Newspapers are positioned better than anyone else to build local databases. Beyond Mr. Hancock's list, add biographies of prominent (and maybe not so prominent) locals; local history; video tours; photographs of everything anyone might want to see in town; public documents. A city has plenty in it that can be documented.

Sure, you might say, that's great. But that doesn't explain how we make money. For both advertising and subscription dollars, you have to have a product worth selling. News, all by itself, isn't enough. The world has plenty of news. Build a hyperlocal database, fed by a quality news organization, and no one else will have that. You've created something different and valuable.

Only fools believe they have all the right answers.

A more pragmatic approach to dealing with any problem is to either consult an expert or read up on it before you shoot from the hip and land in arrears.

It's interesting to watch—in a twisted social experiment sort of way—how some major newspapers are tilting at the online windmill in an attempt to relive the glory days of the industry.

"Maybe we should charge for online access?" they think. Think again. Kids these days don't like paying when they don't have to. It may have become cliché to claim that the "younger generation" doesn't read newspapers. That doesn't mean they aren't tuned in, they're simply going elsewhere. And, chances are, they get their information free of charge. Making the decision to charge online readers for content won't win many eyeballs, let alone the hearts and minds that sustain online communities.

Instead of staring backwards at the past for answers, or shaking down Generation X and Next for loose change—that's like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip—progressive or fiscally-minded news organizations should look at some successful online companies for answers.

Jambase is one example of an online company that "made it big." It was started from scratch in 1998 and now has more than half a million unique visitors a month, and around 2 million page views each week. The site is free of charge for all users, and offers a variety of ways to personalize the site for each visitor. Despite not charging anyone for content, the company is still making decent coin: good enough for a little over a dozen people to work full-time in a downtown San Francisco office.

Online monetization isn't really that complicated. More clicks equal more ad revenue. That's it.

The difference between what Jambase experienced and what the newspaper industry is facing is significant: newspapers actually have a head start with product placement. Instead of thinking about "print" and "online" like oil and water, news organizations should embrace online evolution as a natural outgrowth of the industry. Get the smart folks at the company in the same room, brainstorm about hyperlocalism for a solid hour or two, and then get crackin' on the website: if you build it, they will come.

A defeatist attitude about progress accomplishes nothing. Maybe a little Churchill will inspire, then: "The pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."

Online journalism today isn't just about bloggers sitting in their parents' basement, doing haphazard drive-by's on mainstream media. It's about scratching an itch that no one else can quite reach.

It's not that the pajamas media is any better or different than the printed word folks either. They just happened to figure it out first...out of necessity.

Newspapers that are thinking of charging for online content are inhabiting a fool's paradise. The past is gone, and it took its economic model back with it.

Mr. T may be known for saying "I pity the fool," but he also said "It takes a smart guy to play dumb." Once again, Mr. T saves the day. Let's just hope the big wigs tuned in.

News organizations need to suck up their bloated sense of pride and take a couple notes from the proven online heavyweights. You can still claim that the idea came from your conference room: just leave out the part about turning on the computer.

"Another Sad but Seminal Day" for CitJ is the headline of a piece at Poynter Online in reaction to the shooting. Amy Gahran writes:

"…we'll be poring over the first-person blog entries, Twitter posts, forum discussions, Flickr photos, podcasts, moblogs, YouTube videos, and more from those unfortunate enough to be on that campus today. The most poignant content will get highlighted and examined; the harshest and most tasteless will get excoriated."

Many, including Poynter, continue to preach the established line that citizen journalism's greatest value is having eyes and ears on site when horrible, breaking news happens.

However, those paying attention will note that other content not related to shaky cell phone video appeared at the same time. A real, honest to god news story, the kind that looks like the beginnings of investigative journalism, was broken by a blogger:

Breaking News: People Already Profiting from Virginia Tech Shooting

At Second City CEO, the writer noted that within minutes of the news of the shooting, horror speculators started snapping up site names related to the massacre. Some examples (of dozens listed):

virginiatechshooting.com
virginiatechmassacre.com
vtmassacre.com
vtshooting.com

Wired News picked up on the story (and gave credit), then fleshed it out with some more research and information. While this story is not as important as direct coverage of the shootings, it is valuable information that tells us something of the culture we live in and the parasites that feed off that culture.

It also shows that the citizen journalists can do more than just hold a camera and point it at what is happening. They can think, analyze, research and break a story all by themselves. Over and over, I've seen journalists comment that citizen journalism's greatest value is in breaking news coverage. They can be there when we can't. Maybe thinking that makes some journalists feel safe. If that's what CitJ is good for, then our jobs are still safe. We'll still do the important stuff, the stories that require more than a video cell phone. I really don't think CitJ will replace us either, but as it grows, we will discover value in it far beyond just breaking news.

First of all, it must be said that the citizen journalists in Blacksburg, Virginia on Monday April 16, 2007 placed their own lives at risk in order to "capture the moment." Citizens who put their lives at risk by recording history should be commended for their bravery in helping the rest of the country and world understand the events that took place on the campus of Virginia Tech that day.

If you log onto CNN this morning the coverage would look the same as any other major story over the past few years. The main page is dominated by the story with up-to-the-minute information and video of official press conferences. However, delve a little deeper into the page and you come across CNN's I-Report.

To me, this is citizen journalism breaking ground on a major news story. Instead of generic TV interviews of "where were you when IT happened?" CNN has a slideshow showing viewers where citizen journalists were when the shooting happened and what those citizen journalists were doing at the time.

For the first time I can remember, traditional news media tried to recount what happened instantly. For as long as I can remember, traditional news has focused on the aftermath of a major event and waited for official reports or press conferences to report on the event itself. Citizen journalism is ushering in a new era of reporting, we now focus on the actual event immediately following its occurrence. Looking and reading through CNN's I-Report slideshow instills the fear and terror that must have been flowing through these student's bodies during the attack.

One photo struck at my heart above all other. It was taken by Nancy Love, a civic and environmental engineering professor. The photo is labeled the "eerie view" because it shows 13 ambulances lined up and waiting for victims. Traditional news outlets would never have been able to get this photo. Journalism, like the photo taken by Nancy Love, is helping this country understand and cope with this tragedy. On a personal level, I am grateful to those brave souls who stood up and took pictures and videos in the face of danger to tell this horrific story to the rest of us.

Walking into the newsroom at The University Daily Kansan yesterday, I was immediately confronted with a group of people circled around the television watching the chaotic scene at Virginia Tech.

Damn, I thought. Virginia Tech. My uncle lives in Virginia. His son, my cousin, goes to Virginia Tech.

At that moment, the worst possible thoughts engulfed my brain. How could I find out if he was all right? I didn't want to overreact, but as the death toll kept getting higher, I had to find out if he was okay.

That was when I figured out how I could learn of his safety. I would use the most ubiquitous tool on college campuses, Facebook. I went to a computer and pulled up his Facebook profile to see if there was any information on his safety, and it was there I found my solace in nine simple words.

His status read, "Ryan is fine but without a cell phone signal."

Right there on the Web was all I needed to know. He was fine and I had nothing to worry about.

CNN reported later in the day that Facebook had been used by a number of students to inform one another of their well being. One, group "I'm okay at VT" sprang up after the shooting and had several thousand members by the end of the day. It appeared as though several students had the same idea as me. People wanted to know if they were all right, and Facebook was the most effective way to let them know.

Later in the day, ever the news hound, I exploited the power of Facebook once again to see if my cousin would talk to a Kansan reporter for a front-page story we were working on.

My cousin said no because he was sleeping during the incident. But his roommate, Christopher, who was in a building across the street from the shooting, was willing to speak. Could he pass along the reporter's information and have Chris give him a call?

About an hour later, our reporter had Chris on the phone getting a firsthand account of what had happened. To the best of my knowledge, The Kansan article was the only piece of campus media to have an interview with a student from Virginia Tech.

And that was how my day unfolded. The same Web site I use to post pictures of my vacations and write drunken messages to friends allowed me to confirm the safety of my cousin and set-up an interview with a witness. People like to knock social networking sites such as Facebook, but yesterday proved that in my generation they can be used effectively to provide comfort in times of tragedy.

The war is over. Citizen journalists have proven time and time again that, when it comes to crisis coverage, traditional media outlets can in no way compete with firsthand accounts by cellphone-armed citizen videographers for breaking news. As we journalists piece together the puzzle of how this affects our profession, one glaring message stands out: We know that citizen journalists play a vital role in covering breaking news like yesterday's shootings at Virginia Tech., and now it's time to figure out how we -- traditional journalists and citizen journalists -- can work together fulfill our role as public servants and do whatever we can to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

It's always been a competition between news outlets to see who can get the story first, who can get the breaking news, the newest information, the previously undisclosed tidbits from authorities, so they can draw viewers (and ad revenue) with titillating coverage. At the same time, on-scene professional journalists face the burden of providing the freshest info and can spend little time looking at the bigger picture. Citizen journalists nullify this whole process, and it seems that mainstream media are taking note. They know their reporters can never get that first shot of an incident, like Jamal Albarghouti did. What they need to recognize now is the opportunity that citizen journalists give them: the opportunity to provide meaningful analysis of crisis events and discuss what measures we can take to change the culture that we live in. Until young people stop seeing senseless public slaughter as the only answer to their problems, mainstream media need to encourage discussion about how to deal with this problem at a higher level than installing metal detectors in schools.

To report an event informs the public that something happened, but it rarely sheds light on why it happened. Journalists are oftentimes faced with such strenuous deadline pressures -- especially in the new media age of the Internet and 24/7 TV news cycle -- that they have little time to step back and look at the social context in which the event took place. When we see reports of events like the VA Tech. shooting, we see fragments of mayhem and are left with more questions than we started with. When we look at the psychological profiles of student shooters and aspects of the cultural conditions that might have prompted their actions, we can begin to understand and work to counter whatever forces motivated them to do such dastardly things.

The beauty of citizen journalism in crisis coverage is that it alleviates some of the pressure on mainstream journalists from reporting up-to-the-second news on events. It allows them some time and energy to step back and look at the issues, instead of just the actions. When we see isolated incidents in the news stripped from their social contexts we tend to assign responsibility to those immediately involved. When we step back and look at the broader social contexts in which events take place, we can start to see patterns and themes that permeate separate incidents. It's not enough that partisan documentary makers do this kind of work months or years after the fact (think Bowling for Columbine and When the Levees Broke). Mainstream media, from which most of the American public learns about what's happening in the world, needs to step up and start answering some of these questions themselves. Now.

Citizen journalism gives them an opportunity to do this. Professional journalists need to take that opportunity and run.

Jamal Albarghouti put his life on the line as he whipped out his cell phone to take video of the chaos around him. Unaware of what fully was going on, Albarghouti continued to take video

His video ran continuously throughout the day on CNN. Later, reporters on site did traditional stand-ups and updates as a part of the all-day news coverage. But it was Albarghouti's citizen journalism coverage that hit America the most. That's the thing about citizen journalism and how technology has made it a possibility for viewers to be on the scene. In this case, citizen journalism allowed the most real news coverage anyone could ever get. Updates throughout the day had people talking, "I heard this, I heard that…," but it was Albarghouti's citizen video that put people at the scene. The cell phone vid sent chills down viewers' spines as they watched intently.

The actual video also is news in itself, and that can be seen by the feedback Albarghouti got when he received multiple facebook messages making sure he was okay, after people saw him in danger from his CNN appearance. Those who didn't even know Albarghouti could easily contact him through the online network in a matter of seconds, something unheard of not very long ago.

The Virginia Tech shootings coverage exemplifies what is happening in our generation of news reporters and news watchers. Technology and citizen journalism make for more genuine coverage, faster response times, and more involvement of those who watch the news.

My newsroom shift was yesterday afternoon, and I did little other than watch reports from CNN and FoxNews stream in. When nothing new was being reported, we got antsy and decided to see what the online community was discussing.

In the hope of finding something new, I jumped on Phishhook, a highly-trafficked message board, and—sure enough—there were several dozen posts, some from students at Virginia Tech. They reposted emails from the University, cut and pasted items from Wikipedia, and generally had a pretty good handle on the situation.

Then, after glancing at the site for several minutes, Multimedia Coordinator Patrick Lafferty and I logged onto the oft-maligned Wikipedia database. To my amazement, the site was more on top of its game than CNN. It had updates from more than a dozen different news sources, and posted breaking news well before CNN got it. It was interesting to watch the progression of the case from multiple angles. I'm not contending that Wikipedia is an infallible resource, or that CNN is a knuckle-dragging monolith--but it is fascinating to watch the online community and citizen journalists eclipse the single organization many Americans use for news.

CNN even had a caption at the bottom of their screen indicating that Virginia Tech students were posting items on Facebook and MySpace about the shooting. Within minutes, we examined the sites and discovered that more than 200 Hokies had signed up for a group discussion.

Simply put, there was more happening online than in the "real world" of fact gathering. How and why did this happen?

"Necessity is the mother of invention."

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the world stopped and people huddled next to their TV sets for an answer. Newspapers wouldn't have an answer until the next day, so what else was there? Television created the cohesive narrative for a nation in grief.

By placing all students under a beefed-up "house arrest," Virginia Tech University paved the way for electronic communication. What other choice did students have? There was a need to discuss the most tragic shooting in U.S. history.

Eleven years ago, Reader's Digest called Blacksburg, Virginia, "The Most Wired Town in America." The infrastructure was there. The University also boasts nearly 39,000 people on Facebook. When you sequester grief-stricken college students for half a day in a highly connected campus, online outreach is inevitable.

My inelegant point is this: There is no single national narrative anymore.

Some people may tune in to CNN or FoxNews and never change the channel. Others may wait on Wikipedia for updates. Still others, seeking connection or condolences, may use MySpace or Facebook for their information and interaction. And then there's the international scene: last night, BBC World News devoted 14 of its 30 minutes to the shootings, airing literally the longest sound bites I had heard on the nightly news.

The anchor no longer overshadows the story. With the JFK assassination, the world watched as Walter Cronkite peeled off his glasses and choked back tears of disbelief. When 9/11 hit, Aaron Brown went from a no-name to a household name within hours. The story isn't about what an anchor or any single person thinks anymore, but the grief is no less palpable and the events no less tragic.

The story behind the story is that the whole concept of news and reporting has changed. Focusing on the quality of video or who filmed what is little more than a sideshow. Just as Virginia Tech students heard about the tragedy in different ways--some over PDA, others by word of mouth—the general public now gets its information from more sources than ever. The national narrative may have been lost, but our collective sense of bewilderment and grief remains.

The Virginia Tech shootings illustrate the power and importance of citizen journalism. While a gun-toting student went on a killing spree Monday, Virginia Tech students caught cell phone images and video of police arrivals and gunshot sounds. Before reporters arrived on campus to report the story, students who lived the tragedy had already captured it themselves.

Even though the cell phone footage was shaky and grainy- it still was the most detailed, timely and honest account of the situation. No reporter could capture it the same way. News stations agreed, flooding their coverage with images and videos caught by students, playing them over and over again as a depiction of the day's events.

It's amazing how everyone now-a-days can turn into a reporter by reporting and finding news (being in the right—or wrong— place at the right time with a cell phone). Jamal Albarghouti, Virginia Tech student, caught footage of the second round of shootings in Norris Hall. He was told by police to take cover. He followed orders but, while doing so, he shot video with his cell phone.

Reporters can't be everywhere and, though loads of frivolous content comes from citizen journalists, incidents like this show the importance of citizen journalists and their ability for on-the-spot news coverage.

Monday's shootings resulted in the death of 33 people, including the shooter himself. This is the largest school shooting in U.S. history. How different coverage of this event would have been without Virginia Tech's student footage.

Wiki-news, not mere citizen journalism, rolled out the news of yesterday's horrorific shootings at Virginia Tech University. Information came not only from degree-holding arbiters of What's News, but from folks literally in the line of fire.

The Roanoke Times disdained using the traditional format for the story, instead opting for moment-by-moment blogging by several reporters. AP producers and reporters jumped online to use Facebook, blogs, Xangas, and email to find student sources for their stories, like Mr. Resnick from Washington (right).

Jamal Albarghouti's cell phone video wasn't the only submission from wiki-reporters, though. CNN had about 100 additional content submissions—video, photos, and enough heresay to worry any newspaper's lawyer. (For example, some folks quickly misidentified an innocent but "Asian" student and vilified him online before the alleged culprit, South Korean student Cho Seung-Hui, was named.)

We saw mistakes and outright dumb speculation, it's true. We also saw as much information (or even more than) the official news gatekeepers at the scene provided. As a journalism student, I want to work to get the story right; but I also want as much information as possible. Wiki-news will allow some mistakes to slip through, but I'll let that bother me as soon as newspapers become mistake-free themselves.

Monday night mass confusion and fear spread across Virginia Tech and many college campuses. Virginia Tech students and others across the country searched for answers that may or may not actually be there. Some students stumbled across Wayne Chiang's personal Web site. It seemed too obvious for those looking for answers to believe the lone gunman could be anyone else.

Police reports said the shooter responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre was an asian male, college aged and possibly had a recent breakup with his girlfriend. Wayne Chiang fit the profile: He is a Virginia Tech student, asian, recently broke up with his girlfriend and lives in the dorm the first shooting occurred. He also has made it public that he likes and collects guns through his Facebook account. This evidence alone had given the public enough reason to name Chiang the person responsible.

According to his site, Chiang claimed he had received numerous death threats via Facebook. Thus acknowledging the mass chaos that ensued once Web users realized he fit the police description.

"Also, there seems to be some confusion with the issue of death threats. There have been a number of individuals sending messages on Facebook," Chiang wrote Monday night. "I suppose they didn't even bother making the messages anonymous... All threatening messages in nature are being handled by the police."

I find it amazing that within 14 hours after the massacre happened, people had found his site and left 241 comments regarding their thoughts on him and his blog. Most already making their conclusions that he was responsible for the 32 deaths.

At approximately 8:30 Tuesday morning - just under 24 hours after the shooting had stopped - police named the person they believe is responsible. His name is Cho Seung-hui - who is a Korean male, 23-years old and attended Virginia Tech.

It would not have been appropriate for the police to name Cho their main suspect prematurely. It was not appropriate and even dangerous for students and other citizens to accuse Chiang of a horrible crime that he did not commit. There are reasons that police and journalists withhold information from the public. They don't want to jump to conclusions and accuse innocent people.

This is a problem that future and present citizen journalists have - wrong information can become fact.

Now you don't have to wait until the next morning's newspaper or the 10 p.m. newscast to get your information. However, those who do search the Web, need to make sure they're receiving information from a credible source. Regardless of how obvious the signs may seem to be.

The first footage I saw of the Virginia Tech shooting was cell phone video on CNN television by Jamal Albarghouti.

While I don't think Albarghouti's video added much information to the Virginia Tech coverage, it opened a door that allowed others to follow. Students began submitting photos and video to media outlets.

Surprising? No.

All journalists know the internet allows instant access to information. Why is it so surprising that non-journalists can see this too.

It might be because readers aren't smart enough to figure out how to start an audio slideshow — at least that is what some newspapers, like the Chicago Tribune, think.

I mean come on. People aren't that stupid. Online publications don't need a button that says "start" to help readers figure out audio slideshows. The icon for a play button has been the same for years.

The same goes for the Internet. Its defining aspect has been instant information.

Plus, it's not the first time citizen journalism has been used. CNN has a whole site dedicated to I-reports from citizen journalist.

I've said it before — citizen journalism should be used for spot news events. It's a no brainer.

The amount of citizen journalism used in the coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting helped show the magnitude of the event.

Technology and citizen journalism helped feed people who were hungry for information on what was happening in Virginia Tech.

Don't get me wrong, I think the coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech has been done well.

Once the funerals are over, journalists will head back to their newsrooms to debate and argue over the causes and motives of such an act. Everyone will sit and debate whether easy access to guns, videos or television violence is to blame.

Hate to break it to you, but there is a world outside the United States. Those people have access to guns, video games and violent television, too, and you don't see situations like Virginia Tech there. there is a problem here.

Journalists should try looking into it. It's called in-depth reporting.

Unfortunately, citizen journalism can't help you do your job there.

AOL Instant Messanger (AIM) did it a long time ago, calling it an "away message." And Facebook added "update your status" last year. What am I talking about? The ability to keep friends and the public constantly updated on your current whereabouts and activities.

In high school, friends kept me posted on every minor task they performed through AIM away messages, letting me know they couldn't chat online because they were "doing homework" or "watching Dawson's." Almost eight years later, friends still get on and update their away messages. Right now, Buttman615's message reads, "night class." (Remember, her screen name was probably created in 7th grade)

Facebook offers the same kind of up-to-the-minute, pointless information on people's activities. At 4:25 today "Sara Brandenburgh is a Klutz and says screw crutches!" Earlier at 1:04pm, Greg Mallin was "blown away by current events." And at 10:30 this morning, Beth Crandall woke up "wondering why her toes are numb!!!"

Newly introduced in 2007 is Twitter. Twitter is solely the "away message" and "status" aspect of the previously mentioned communication networks. There is no chatting like on AIM and there are no pictures, profiles, groups and event invitations like on Facebook. The sole purpose is to update friends and the public on what you are doing.

I never put up away messages or update my status on my communication networks. I think, "what do people care?" And, I rarely notice the status' on my Facebook's minifeed, because — what do I care? But since 22-year-olds still have the courage to update AIM away messages under screen names like Buttman615, I'm thinking Twitter may be the next big thing. Especially for kids whose lives are glorious enough to share like may my aforementioned friends- Sara, Greg, Beth, I hope you're all okay.

So correct me if I'm wrong... but have I not seen Twitter before? It looks like a geekier form of the "new and improved" Facebook news feed. So please excuse me for sounding like a broken record, but just because I think I might care what you're doing - I don't need to know that much.

I think there's a fine line between being updated or currious and stalking. While many feel Facebook is the cool way to keep track of your friends while you're in college, I am confused why this whole cyber-stalking phenomenon is so popular.

I peeked around at the Twitter site and think it could be useful - if you're into that sort of thing. I think that Twitter could become a small cyber community where people have the ability to share information super-duper fast. However, right now, it's 1 a.m. in the morning, and I could care less that SmileyStalker is enjoying the rain.

Then it hits me: Twitter is like AIM. I can create a profile, name and identity, then talk to other Twitter users. However, I don't see much interaction and conversation going on. The site says you can tell the other users what you're thinking and what you're doing from phone, IM or directly from the site. However, if I don't know you, why would I want to know what you're doing?

Now, I did also notice there are a handful of members who have asked "techie" questions, not user where-abouts. For that purpose, I understand why the quick-paced format of Twitter is so beneficial. You have a question, you get an answer. But I didn't see a lot of conversation. Someone would post a question about how to install a hard drive and 5 seconds later, someone else would say how they like their new cigar.

I don't really understand what the purpose of Twitter is. It appears to be a cross between an internet chat room and stalking Web site. I won't be using Twitter anytime soon because I have a hard enough time keeping track of my friends and family... I can't start to keep track of total strangers.

In the series premiere of Seinfeld, Jerry has issues with a "friend." Jerry essentially wants to "dump" him, but isn't sure how to end the friendship, as he explains to George:

"He lived three houses down from me when I grew up. He had a ping pong table. We were friends. Should I suffer the rest of my life because I like to play ping pong? I was ten! I would have been friends with Stalin if he had a ping pong table!"

The situation escalates, and reaches a breaking point at Monk's when Joel angrily berates the waitress. Finally, the confrontation:

"Listen, Joel…I don't think we should see each other any more. This friendship: it's not working."

--Not working? What are you talking about?

"We're just not…suited to be friends."

--But how can you say that?

"Look, you're a nice guy. It's just…we don't have anything in common."

--Wa—well, what did I do? I want to know what I did.

"You didn't do anything. It's not you…it's me. This is very difficult."

18 years have passed since the episode aired. In that time, MySpace, Facebook, and digital communication have made it more difficult to "dump" friends, but easier to establish boundaries and expectations for the friendship.

Text messaging can be used between close friends that may be busy at the time, unable to take the call, or wanting to exchange thoughts on a game in progress. But it's also a handy device to keep real-time human interaction at arm's length: a "buffer" between you and someone you don't really feel like dealing with.

MySpace and Facebook can be a semi-entertaining way for friends, separated by distance, to maintain (artificial) contact. But it's also a convenient dumping ground for half-friends. Digital communiqués become substitutes for meaningful exchanges. If you didn't take a phone call or answer an email, you can slap a sentence fragment on that person's profile a week later as a pseudo-apology.

It's easier to have imbalanced relationships with MySpace and Facebook as well. One person could have little to no interest in another, yet have them as a "friend" on a social networking site. These "half-friends" in turn take an unusual interest in the other person. Seinfeld experiences this during his attempted breakup:

--Jerry, I don't understand – how can you do this? You're my best friend!

"I've never even been to your apartment."

In the digital age, an easy solution for a surplus of friends is to corral them onto your MySpace or Facebook page. Many people's "my friends" list reads like a Rolodex of contacts from the past five years: some people you genuinely like; others you just happened to bump into.

It's tougher to eliminate friends in the digital age. And while the Seinfeld episode may have aired before the Internet went mainstream, his concluding thoughts seem fitting here:

"I've come to the conclusion that there's certain friends in your life, where they're just always your friends, and you have to accept it. You see them—you don't really want to see them. You don't call them—they call you. You don't call back—they call again.

The only way to get through talking to people you don't like or have anything in common with is to act like you're hosting your own little talk show. This is what I do: you pretend there's a little desk around you. There's a little chair over there. And you interview them.

The only problem with this is that there's no way to say ‘Hey. It's been great havin' you on the show. We're out of time."

Twitter is just the newest creepy Web site that has popped up so we can keep tabs on our friends and even people we don't know. The PERFECT tool for stalkers, Twitter allows a user to see what someone is doing up to the second. "Allison is doing the dishes! That means she is home, I am gonna go break in!" says the hypothetical stalker. Yeah...

Why does this (my) generation care so much about others' lives? Is there such a thing as privacy anymore? I'll admit, I have dabbled and continue to dabble in the phenomenon that is online social networking. I commonly visit Facebook and Myspace. Though I have not spoken to a lot of my so called "friends" on Facebook since I graduated from High School, I can sure tell you what their major is, if they've gained weight since being homecoming queen, and what music they enjoy. What is the fun in a 10-year reunion anymore?

I believe the reason why we enjoy these types of sites is because we enjoy ourselves too much. We like people to know what cool things we are doing. We like to display to millions that we just made a kick-ass batch of peanut butter cookies, and they didn't. We like to post our "Spring Break 2007 in CABO!" photo albums online to make all of our cyber "friends" jealous. We are a self-indulgent, self-centered, materialistic society, and social networking sites are just another way for us to let the world know how great or not so great we have it. I think this generation is afraid to be alone, but at the same time, aren't we technically alone when we are sitting in our rooms reading about our friends online? Go to a bar and hang out for God sakes!

Will I join Twitter? Not a chance. I do not see why anyone would want to put that much information out to the world. It is asking to be stalked. Plus, I think "Big Brother" is all over that stuff. Also, if people on Twitter are ever suspected of a crime, instead of asking "Where were you on January 5th, 2006?" the lawyer can just log onto to Twitter, and see for themselves where you were....

One word: Creepy

There are just some people out there that I do not want them to know where I am. What makes this new twitter social networking site different from others like myspace and facebook is that an emphasis is placed on updating where you are and what you are doing. Although you can do that on facebook, Twitter takes it to a whole new level. Constant updates to show my exact location? Are you crazy?

Now that text messaging and facebooking are a whole new form of communication, the future kind of scares me. With all these social networking sites depriving people of real one-on-one talking conversations, what if we all lose sight on the vitality that comes with the ability of being a "people" person? What about generations to come? Will text messaging and online communication become so prevalent that they deprive people of necessary people skills? I really, really, REALLY hope not. I definitely don't want my kids to lack the social skills necessary for things like job interviews and being able to talk your way out of a speeding ticket. Maybe instead of limiting their MTV watching during a week, like my mom did, I'll have to limit their facebook time per week.

So if I did sign up for this Twitter thing, what would I do with those people I really don't want to know where I am? Take them off of my Twitter friends list? Then they get offended. It's just really creepy, stalkerish, and not for me. And frankly, I really wouldn't be one to constantly check on where my Twitter friends' exact locations are and what they are doing. For those I really care about, I can just call them up. Or maybe just text message ‘em.

First it was AOL Instant Messenger, then it was Facebook, then it was MySpace, now it is the creepy, stalker-like Twitter. I feel as though twitter is just a souped-up version of AOL Instant Messenger.

First of all, AIM was created so that you could talk with your friends through typing to specific people. Twitter puts your every action on the internet for anybody to read. I don't know why someone would take the time out of their day to do this, however. Why would anyone want to read about it? While looking at the site, the most recent comment is, "wishing my ice chips were a steak." Frankly, I don't care if you are eating ice chips and would rather have a steak.

Secondly, this website should be considered a threat to public safety. Criminals could use this website to find patterns in daily life, which could be used to rob or injure the general public. Beyond that, court-restraining orders become unenforceable when it comes to a Web site such as this. What are we going to do? Prevent stalkers from using the Internet now? That's not possible or constitutional. This Web site threatens the public from crazy stalkers trying to get into our lives and disrupt them.

Twitter is the next generation of stalking and should be examined by the general public and government as a public safety concern. Beyond that, if this is what the general public is coming to, we are definitely in a sad state as a society.

*You are currently subscribed to the following Twitter feeds:
1. John Edwards in '08!
2. David Linhardt, KU senior
3. Cosmo (cocker spaniel)

David Linhardt, KU senior, is wondering what's so interesting about the most mundane moments of anyone's life less than 10 minutes ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! is about to take a power nap on the campaign bus 8 minutes ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) is trying to remember if he peed on the chair leg last week, or if it was the rug in the kitchen 8 minutes ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! woke up and and is feeling a strong need to defecate. Mexican food in New Hampshire = bad idea. 7 minutes ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) went ahead and peed on the rug AND the chair leg, and had enough ammo left to douse the bushes by the porch 6 minutes ago from the Internets.

David Linhardt, KU senior, thinks we all can now admit in polite society that we are big-time voyeurs 5 minutes ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! took the best dump of his life and decided to finish his nap on the toilet in the back of the tour bus 4 minutes ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) watched his owner and her roommate fight over who forgot to TiVo last week's episode of "America's Next Top Model" less than 4 minutes ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) lost interest in girl fight and decided to lick himself for a little while 3 minutes ago from the Internets.

David Linhardt, KU senior, is bored to tears (if tears are made out of whiskey, that is) 2 minutes ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! is looking at himself in the bus bathroom mirror—does his ass look bigger to you? less than 2 minutes ago from the Internets.

David Linhardt, KU senior, doesn't get it, if by "getting it" you mean "is a weird, creepy voyeur" less than 2 minutes ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) is getting smacked with a newspaper for licking himself again 1 minute ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) is watching his owner change her away messages and check everyone else's away messages again as she illegally downloads a movie 1 minute ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! has decided his ass isn't too big (but he will stick to SlimFast for the next week), and that he might need a hair-cut soon less than 1 minute ago from the Internets.

John Edwards in '08! is running his fingers through his gorgeous, flowing locks less than 1 minute ago from the Internets.

Cosmo (cocker spaniel) is wondering why his owner thinks dog farts are gross less than 30 seconds ago from the Internets.

David Linhardt, KU senior, is being made stupider by this Twitter web site less than 10 seconds ago from the Internets.

(A much more in-depth and personable analysis.)

Twitter does not make people too connected. It never can and it never will. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Twitter and other less-frantic "social" tools make people less connected to other people, and more connected to machines. It does not connect people to people ("us"), it connects people to machines. It makes them interact with machines--constantly, enthusiastically, dementedly.

We do not talk to people on the internet. I type, you read. Is this a form of interaction? Yes. Can it be useful? Yes. Is it very fulfilling? No. The miniscule amount of actual connectedness that each Twitter entry provides makes it impossible for any number of entries on any number of Twitter-like sites to equal one actual interaction with one actual person who is sitting in the same room with you, talking to you, trying to get to know you and let you know them.

Occasionally, books are published that contain written correspondences between authors, thinkers, politicians, etc., and their associates. They can seem like the most poignant, insightful conversations one could ever hope to witness. Of course, they are not actual talking conversations, and they don't pretend to be. The reason they are enjoyable to read is because they are so intimately telling about those who wrote their contents. They were telling their thoughts to someone else in a personal way. We learn about them, and in some way we learn about ourselves. Call it what you want. Empathy, maybe. Experiencing someone else. A true connection that can circumvent time, geography and history, because we feel it in ourselves.

Twitter content, on the other hand, does not tell us about the people who write there. They have neither the time nor the interest to allow a reader any further into their lives than the bare descriptions or their actions, peppered with a few poorly chosen adjectives. They write in gerunds. Gerunds do not breed empathy. I cannot relate to a noun-verb. I cannot learn anything about or from them that will prompt me to learn anything more about myself than I live in a culture that is abandoning interaction, connectedness, for virtual interaction. Virtual: almost or nearly as described, but not completely.

Nick: writing his blog.

Or did you not care? A lot of people probably would care. Those people are on Twitter right now. When I first heard about the site, I immediately thought, "It's already be done. It's called Facebook's News Feed."

It seems to me that Twitter is only a small part of what we already have in Facebook and MySpace. Twitter lets you keep your "friends" updated on what you're doing on any of the Web sites via the actual site or by texting with your cell phone. To update your Facebook, you have to have the Web on your phone; whereas, you just need texting capabilities for Twitter.

The biggest difference is that Facebook and MySpace gives you SO much more information on people, which is really what you're after if you're on those sites anyway. From what I can tell, most Twitterers aren't even using the site to really tell people what they're doing. It's mostly just jokes.

pindec: remembering i am weasel less than 5 seconds ago from im

That's not even a funny joke. This leads me to another comparison: AOL Instant Messenger. Remember how cool that was...in high school? Of course I still use it, but not nearly as religiously as I did six years ago. And how cool were you if you came up with a funny, original away message? That brings it back to the Facebook "status." So as far as Twitter goes, my feeling is: "Been there; done that."

All in all, Twitter's not revolutionary. There are reportedly 100,000 + users, but that pales in comparison to Facebook, MySpace, AOL IM, etc. And since it has little more to offer than those sites, it won't last.

Nick is: not impressed.

Right this second one of my friends is probably smoking a cigarette, eating a grilled cheese sandwich, or putting gas in their car and I don't care. That is not to say I don't care about my friends, just not the mundane details of their daily life.

One Web site, twitter.com, is trying to turn the everyday details into the hot new social networking service. The site alerts users in real time of changes made to your status and also provides your location via a Google map.

I would have to agree with the people at G4 TV that the reason I don't like twitter is because I don't get it. I don't want to be more connected. I don't want to know what my friends are doing 24 hours a day. Most of all I don't want someone to be able to pinpoint my location in the United States with a Google map.

Imagine the negative aspect of being able tp pinpoint people anywhere in the country. If I am trying to ditch someone they can look me up. It is only a matter of time before Web savvy parents figure out how to check their child's Twitter to make sure they went to Jill's house. Homeland Security? Don't think this hasn't tweaked their appetite for future endeavors.

Maybe the reason I don't understand it is because I already feel connected enough in my daily life. I have e-mail, a cell phone, Facebook. If someone wants to get a hold of me, then can do so without difficulty which is exactly my point, if they WANT to get a hold of me.

If a friend calls and wants to chat I have no problem. I they want to send me a friendly e-mail or write on my wall, I will respond. I just don't understand the need for me to give them unsolicited personal updates.

Some people spend all day on the computer. They live online.

I am not talking about checking e-mail and sports scores on your phone. I am talking about people who literally spend all day in front of their computer "living" online. These people are either in chat rooms and on forums as themselves, or having a Second Life "residency".

Is Twitter something to talk about? I don't even feel like I should answer that. I feel like I should be asking if that is a serious question or not.

Twitter does not even make the list of cutting edge online living and use. Myspace and facebook have the exact same personal status and information updating capabilities as twitter.

Cyber communities like Second Life are different, though.

Second Life provides it's own Second Life videos and news from the Second Life world. Don't worry you ol' folks, there is an offical guide with "crucial tips and resourses" for the cyber community.

Plus, Second Life is making a much louder sound than Twitter with more than 5 million "residents". I wouldn't describe that as a twitter. Granted, some "residents" might be a single person registered more than once, but still...

Let's say that every person registered with Second Life had two "residencies". That is still about 2.5 million people living in cyber space in just a single Internet community.

When I checked out the site at 2:20 p.m. on Friday, April 6 there were more than 32 thousand people out and about in the Second Life community.

Twitter is the 90s' giga pet with a bonus 70s' pet rock.

In other words, get ready for some fun kids.

I am indebted to Mark Z. Danielewski for having all to clearly described my opinion of the phenomenon known as Twitter:

Who has never killed an hour? Not casually or without thought, but carefully: a premeditated murder of minutes. The violence comes from a combination of giving up, not caring, and a resignation that getting past it is all you can hope to accomplish. So you kill the hour. You do not work; you do not read; you do not daydream. If you sleep, it is not because you need to sleep. And when at last it is over, there is no evidence: no weapon, no blood, and no body. The only clue might be the shadows beneath your eyes or a terribly thin line near the corner of your mouth indicating something has been suffered; that in the privacy of your life you have lost something and the loss is too empty to share. – from House of Leaves

The Internet is a serial killer and Twitter its latest weapon. Have you twittered away any time yet? Don't bother. The tool is just the latest way for people to exchange worthless drivel. Its only difference that it allows the fools to do it en masse and in real time.

The Internet: How it stalks the minutes and hours of our day, insidiously slicing off bits and pieces as it circles its chosen prey. What's worse? We don't try to run. We don't hide. We don't fumble with the power button, desperately trying to sever the jugular of this beast. No, we embrace it. We love it. We deliver it a feast of irreplaceable moments and minutes. We ascend to the top of the sacrificing temple and lay our chests bare, inviting the knife stroke and anticipating the fall into the fire pit where our flesh will burn as an offering to the twin gods of pixel and protocol.

Pray, brethren, that should we feed this latest weapon the time blood of enough early adopters, it will fade away into the past like so many other bullets of bad ideas the Internet has thrown at us.

Peruse the headlines on Midwestern newspapers and you will see some of the same news found in big cities on the coast.

A sampling of today's headlines shows citizens of Omaha grappling with the grisly murder trial of a 19-year-old girl. A judge in Iowa is interpreting a citizens right to fly the United States flag upside down in a classic free speech case. The Minneapolis-Tribune investigates the effect a concealed carry law has on their community.

These are stories of pertinent interest to their respective communities, but according to an article by Michael Massing in the Columbia Journalism Review, they will never grace the eyes of a national audience.

Massing asserts that the Midwest is a "black hole" for national news were reporters of major national papers never venture.

The problem as I interpret it is not that national newspapers, such at the New York Times, are doing a bad job covering the Midwest, it is that we the Midwest are doing a bad job covering ourselves.

The reason the aforementioned stories will never see a national audience is not because they are poorly written, it is because they are the same as anywhere else.

What would make a New York man eager to read about a murder trial in a city where similar events happen almost daily? What motivation is there to study a first amendment case in Iowa when the same is happening down the street?

Their lack of coverage is not due to them not caring, it is due to our not making them care.

A series of strategically placed bureaus will not help national outlets cover the Midwest, it will only keep feeding the beast of homogenized news.

The solution to this problem does not lie in new endeavors by national outlets trying to determine our problems and report. The media of the Midwest should step-up and provide quality reporting the will draw new readers into the populous center of an increasingly interconnected country.

Bob Huggins leaving K-State after just one season may be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

It's the athletic equivalent of serving your spouse with divorce papers in the middle of the honeymoon.

There are some Jayhawk backers that actually are troubled by the development. "It's bad for the Big XII," they cry.

Get over it.

All the talk in recent weeks about KU losing to the Bruins because the Big XII was a weak conference is just that: talk.

A supposedly weak conference had the national player of the year, two first team All-Americans and three teams in the Sweet 16. Regardless of the stature of the conference, the games you played in January and February make little difference when you go 14 for 33 on dunks and layups. KU lost because the shots didn't fall, not because of a "weak" Big XII North.

That's almost beside the point anyway.

K-State fans were quick to adopt a new sense of swagger this year. Huggy-bear promised to make their dreams a reality. Beating the Jayhawks was guaranteed.

Wildcat fans were living in Huggieville, which is like a 21st century hobo camp for a motley crew of one-and-done phenoms and shady timebombs given their third or fourth stab at success.

The Wildcat fans weren't even that excited about the current year. "Just wait—"they would say with a smile, "two years or three years from now, we'll be beating you guys regularly."

How sweet it is, then, that the apple of Manhattan's eye jets after just one season.

I thought it was interesting that the online community seemed to be ahead of the curve on breaking the news. Message boards were slammed with reports from sports fanatics with too much time on their hands, and details trickled in: the only reason he didn't take the job six years ago was because of the president of West Virginia, who is now stepping down in a few weeks; the provost at K-State was trying to transfer to West Virginia as well; and, the kicker – some sleuthing at FlightTrack revealed that a private plane was heading from West Virginia to Manhattan, Kansas. Later that day, the online murmurs were confirmed around 2:20 central time as Bob Huggins made the announcement.

At the press conference, K-State's distaste for Huggy Bear's move was palpable. Maybe part of that had to do with the laughable buy-out Huggins had. West Virginia had to fork over just $100,000 for the rights to Huggins…compared to $2.5 million that Michigan paid for the rights to West Viriginia's coach.

I could go on for days, but I'll stop here…and drop this essay quicker than Huggy left K-State.

Actually, I'm going to scan ebay for a K-State "Welcome to Huggieville" shirt, or maybe one of those "blackout" shirts: there should be plenty that were only worn once.

When I was young, my father told me stories of how him and his friends used to finagle free Coca-Cola out of vending machines. I guess in those days you had access to the bottle, but you could only remove it after you paid the requisite amount of money. To circumvent having to pay, my dad would simply pop the cap off the bottle as it nested in the machine and empty half of the contents into a cup.

Vending machine technology has improved considerably since then, and the price has increased just as much. One thing about the vending machines on-campus plagued me for a long time. I would walk over to one which appeared to be shut off but when I got close it would turn itself on, almost as if it was sensing my presence.

I kept this quandary to myself for quite awhile fearing people would think I'm crazy. When I finally put my inhibitions aside and started asking around, I found people were just as curious as I was.

"I don't know either," I was told by a friend. "But it really freaks me out."

I asked more and more people, unable to obtain an answer until finally someone gave me a straight answer: the machines are hooked to motion sensors that turn them on when someone enters their field, much like security lights in a yard.

The solution seemed so simple that I couldn't believe it. I went to investigate and sure enough, on the ceiling near the tops of the machines, was a tiny motion sensor rigged to turn them on. I can't believe I had missed something so basic as a motion sensor, but then again how often do you look at the ceiling?

Solving my mystery was partially anticlimactic. I would have much rather blogged about a laser on the front of the machine the scanned your retina and to turn on the machines and chill a Coke to your pre-determined temperature. But with the current solution I no longer have to fear going near the vending machines at night.

"It's one thing to fly in and cover a news event and fly out. To understand the full context, you have to live in the community…There's no nationally distributed heartland perspective."

--Victoria Ekstrand, Asst. Professor of Journalism at Bowling Green State University

If you aren't finding a satisfactory answer, maybe you're asking the wrong question.

The notion that "there's no nationally distributed heartland perspective" is patently absurd: that dated logic is about as useful as a card catalog.

Didn't you get the memo? The World is Flat and the digital age has obliterated time and space.

What precisely is it that you'd like to know about us little ol' "Midwesterners" anyway? (We're downright flattered thatcha care enough to ask).

Turns out we're not as shy as you might've imagined.

Of course, you can always get a decent bird's eye view of the landscape by checking out the major regional newspapers.

But it's not tough to dig a little deeper for some local flavor.

Want to know "what's up with Missouri?" You can find out what's poppin' in Branson, if you're interested. Curious about the latest in politics in the Ozarks? Gotcha covered. Missouri republicans have their own community site as well. Missouri Democrats? Local politics in the greater Kansas City area? Random thoughts on Missouri politics from a self-described "grassroots guy?" Check.

What are farmers from the heartland thinking?

And while we're at it, What's the Matter With Kansas? If you don't want to take the time to read the whole book, you can always check out one writer's thoughts on the whole "science, evolution, education, religion, politics and more" debate. Or check out what a grad student at KU is thinking.

If you want to know what's going on in any Midwestern Podunk town, you can probably find it—sometimes in places like…"A Town Called Podunk."

The days of wasting human bandwidth by pounding the pavement are over.

The days of leisurely immersing yourself in a pseudo-ethnographic study to learn the inner-workings of a group of people are over.

You can learn a surprising amount about anything without leaving your living room.

You just have to know what you're looking for, where to look, and the correct questions to ask.

It's part and parcel of Journalism 2.0.

While generals dropped like the dead flies they neglected to have swept from the windowsills at Walter Reed because of a Washington Post exposé, and CNN jiggled its way further toward utter triviality with all the sweaty-cleavage coverage of Anna Nicole Smith you could ask for, there brewed the beginnings of what has become a major news story in a place where such things are becoming more and more common: the blogosphere.

It goes a little something like this:

Bush's darling Alberto Gonzales will likely resign in the coming weeks (Slate.com has a running meter of how far along Gonzo is to his departure). It has been a long time coming, but from the front-page New York Times piece that ran today, we trace the paper trail back to where the story first began to bubble, in the hands of bloggers for the TPM Muckraker, a popular political blog.

The Muckraker's full-time, paid bloggers were tipped off by devout readers to two interesting stories in two very different parts of the country: the firings of U.S. attorneys in eastern Arkansas and San Diego. Both stories came from local papers, not wire services. With perked ears the TPM people listened to the growing murmurs of more firings and eventually made a case that there was something stinky happening. Lo and behold, the bloggers listened to the local papers and pitched a story the big boys picked up on and now we're looking at an ousting of a top government official (do you remember that he, and another architect of the firings, Harriet Meier, were both nominated by Bush to become Supreme Court Justices? Yikes.).

Hopefully you can see where this is going as far as covering the middle of America. Even though this particular example leads back to Washington, there's no reason that the same model couldn't be applied to cover other news in urbanly challenged sections of the country (of course, this depends on local papers having at least reasonably functional websites, unlike the paper in my home town). Journalists at the major national dailies can be assigned a geographical segment of the country and be responsible for checking out news reported in that region's local papers. Whether or not they're actually located there is becoming more and more irrelevant, but it would be good to provide the reporters with some context, although if they spent a significant amount of time reading the area's papers they could gain a feel for the place anyway.

The east coast media bias misses the good stories in the Midwest because they lack a presence here, according to an argument presented in the Columbia Journalism Review.

So what stories do big media blow by when they fly over through our friendly skies? Ripped straight from last week's headlines, a story that should (and may) go national.

Senate passes gambling bill

After many years of routinely getting their legislative rears handed to them over gambling, proponents finally passed a bill authorizing casino gambling in Kansas. In the CJR article, the author uses the Detroit auto show as an example of a jumping off point to examine the effects of job cuts not just on the industry, but on the communities that support the auto builders. Of course, almost no one attending the show actually wrote those stories.

In the same way, the push for gambling allows reporters to delve into all of the side issues.

• Proponents say it will help alleviate that pesky $663 million repair job facing the state's universities.


• How does the state continue to fund itself with declining jobs and population in most counties?


• How does the state counter a trend that may turn Kansas into a "giant retirement community" by 2030?


• What does it mean to our state to have state owned casinos?


• What effect did campaign financing (PDF) have on this year's gambling vote?

Covering a singular event like this vote is easy. Decent reporters could cover this story from their desk. Call some folks, report the vote totals and quote somebody from each side.

But to understand, and explain, the history and future of gambling in Kansas requires having spent considerable time here.

Ah, East-Coast bias.

Rewind to Monday, March 12. NCAA tourney brackets just came out, and inexplicably Duke was a sixth seed going against Virginia Commonwealth University. Why was Duke ranked so high? The game was going to be close, but it seemed obvious that VCU was going to stick it to Duke. Why did ESPN commentators talk about how Duke would probably lose in the Sweet 16? Didn't they see VCU play in the Colonial Athletics Association championship?

Nope, they didn't. If a tree falls and the media in New York (or Bristol) doesn't hear it, then the fall never happened. Hell, the tree might not even exist!

The same miscoverage issue happened when George W. Bush won reelection in 2004. Headlines like "How could 59 million be so dumb?" made me pause--How could journalists be so dumb themselves? People aren't stupid simply because they aren't trendy left-wingers or because they don't live in New York. Surely there's more to that story than stupid voters. (I suspect many of the 59 million merely thought Bush to be the more manageable of two evils. My granddad might have said something cynical/clever/ironic like, "Bush is a dumbass, but at least he's not a smart-ass.")

If the Midwest had a national cable news channel--call it Anschutz Heartland News in assumption that high-profile KU donor Philip Anschutz would bankroll it--then I ima