September 2007 Archives

Here are a few things you should know about me before you read this:
1) I am a registered voter, but haven't voted.
2) I am only a member of Facebook, which I visit daily.
3) I don't take much of a political stance on anything.

So when I get asked to join some Facebook, presidential support group of Obama's, Hillary's, Romney's, Brownback's, or even comedian Dane Cook's, who's not even in the running; I reject them. It's just not enough to get me to support them, plus it's gotten a bit out of hand.

It's no surprise, however, that social-networking sites, like MySpace and Facebook, and vlogs are having a major impact on the 2008 presidential election; but, I feel that most of what's developing on the Internet now is more for kicks than adding anything valuable to the actual campaign.

Take a look at Obama Girl for starters. She isn't portraying any kind of political message. Just the mere fact that she will vote for Obama because he is attractive. (I guess that's one way to get my generation to vote.) Now, a media frenzy has developed around Obama Girl, and a barely political campaign debate is spewing between Obama Girl and her rivals, Romney Girl and Giuliani Girl. This entertainment driven and non-political vlog has taken away the media attention that could have been paid to the candidates and their issues.

Then there's Facebook and MySpace, which have a done I great job of getting the candidates "friends", but votes...who knows? It's easy to click on accept and declare your support for any of the presidential hopefuls, but it's quite another to actually go to polls and fill out a ballot. In 2004, 58 percent of 18- to 24-year-old citizens were registered and only 47 percent voted, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Voting and Registration pdf. So while making "Facebook friends could be pivotal in the presidential race", it could have no quatifiable impact as well.

It's hard to know what will come of presidential social-networking and vlogging until we see who wins their party's presidential nominations and who becomes the 44th president of the United States. If it's Barack Obama, then we'll know that new Internet technologies are key to reaching voters. Obama is a favorite among Facebook and MySpace members with supporters nearing 300,000 between the two and even has his own site. Yet, until at least the presidential conventions, I am remaining nobody's girl and presidentially friendless on Facebook.

I hate Facebook. I hate YouTube. I think they're both a huge waste of time. But are they the political wave of the future?

Barack Obama and Ron Paul have the most Facebook and MySpace friends out of all the presidential candidates currently in the race for the White House. Obama also has more than 500 groups at KU alone (my personal favorite group name is "Barack Chalk Jayhawk"). In fact, every candidate has groups for supporters and… non-supporters ("Hillary Clinton Makes My Soul Puke," for example).

It's unclear whether social networking sites and vlogs will translate into actual volunteers, campaign donations or just greater overall awareness; but, at least people are starting to take them seriously. Being fake friends with a candidate is stupid; but, using the information they're providing on those sites to learn more about them isn't. Giuliani campaign staffers are actually assigned to monitor and update his profiles and are producing "behind the scenes" content for his MySpace. Sam Brownback is making his own vlogs. The list goes on.

And the Internet is not just another outlet ruled by the talking heads. It's actually changing the political environment for the better. Every American (well, every American who's online) also has the chance for their voice to be heard. Whether it be the war in Iraq, global warming, abortion, who you're supporting or simply making fun of your least favorite candidate, millions of people could potentially get your opinion if you post it on YouTube. The minority can be heard. More political discussions take place. Politicians are held accountable for their actions. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Since you're reading this online, chances are you don't remember the time when we routinely waited until the next morning's paper to see who won an election and — as "President Dewey" found out — occasionally, it still wasn't right the next morning.

These days, instantaneous information on election night is just a few clicks away. The Internet has transformed not only the way we get the news, but also our expectations about how fast we get it.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project recently studied the online political landscape. Among its findings:

• 2004: 75 million used the Internet in connection with a political campaign
• 2006: 26 million used the Internet for news about politics (up 140% from 2002)
• 2006: 25 million used the Internet to fact check candidates

One presidential candidate who's already exploring new ways to reach voters online is Barack Obama. His campaign is working to capitalize on the social network aspects of the Internet with the help of one of Facebook's founders.

In fact, all of the presidential campaigns found success by taking their candidates online. From Hillary's Sopranos' spoof to the video where John Edwards' folks beg for donations after burning a pecan pie (the video brought in about $300,000).

The good news for the candidates is that these videos, like their Web sites, are within their control. The bad news is that the Internet is an anything-goes operation where candidates can't control what people upload or watch. For example, the mashup of Edwards primping his hair or Hillary in an Orwellian video can't make those camps happy. But with millions online looking for political information every day, politicians who don't take advantage of this resource to reach voters really have their heads in the sand.

So, politicians take heart and remember the old saying: "Any publicity is good publicity."

I can't stand voter apathy. We live in a system that allows adults the right to elect who runs the country; take advantage of it. Naturally, I was giddy when I saw ads for YouTube presidential debates and '08 candidates' MySpace pages. But I'm starting to believe that maybe these tactics to reach out to my generation are overkill. It feels like social networks are dumbing down the election, and people are getting turned off quickly.

Take Obama Girl, for example. It was funny at first and boosted Barack's online media fame, but then everyone started in. We joked in class that I should parody "Brownback Babe", but it looks like someone beat me. Though they are humorous, these videos take time away from candidates talking about real issues.

The YouTube debates have promise, as anyone can submit a video question for candidates. That's the grassroots, "voice of the people" democracy I like. There's the risk, though, that ignorant people will come up with dim-witted questions just to get attention… Way to waste your 30 seconds of fame looking stupid.

It's a double-edged sword, in that this election started picking up steam way before any in the past. Because of that, candidates and their teams are exhausting every bit of new technology long before Election Day, and it's overload. A kid videotapes Ron Paul and posts everything on his site. CNN adds political blunders to a nauseating long web page. My friends promote their favorite candidates on their Facebook pages. This politically obsessed girl is even getting sick of it. Why? We'll see on Nov. 4, 2008, if all these flashy videos made anyone (especially my generation) more likely to vote. My guess is that it will be the same, pathetic turnout. At least the world knows that girl has a crush on Obama.

Anyone here remember Howard Dean? If you do, I'll be bold enough to assume that it's not because you find his opinion of U.S. foreign policy particularly moving or because you are impressed by his stance on eminent domain.

Most likely, you'll remember Howard Dean as the guy who screamed "Beeyah!" at the end of his speech at the Iowa Democratic caucuses. It was a scream heard around the world grace à YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook

All ranting aside (pun intended), it is unfortunate that his hyper hoopla played a negative role in his campaign but I'm going to turn lemons into lemonade and say that it's a great example of what political vlogging can do for candidates. I mean, at least you've heard of him.

Maybe you are a lone poindexter who is willing to sacrifice a Thursday night to sit in on a conference about the coal-fired power plant popping up in your state (personally guilty), or to wake up early Sunday morning to listen to the political commentary of George Will. If you are, you're a rarity because politically active twenty-somethings are few and far between.

Political vlogs may be the panacea for the epidemic of young adult voter apathy. While many aren't interested in picking up a newspaper to reflect on the different aspects of every candidate, watching it online is convenient enough and, more importantly, cool enough that it will change the way my generation approaches politics.

If you've stayed silent about your political fascination for fear of the politically disinterested, fret no more. Your days of political hermithood are over. Trust me on this. Political blogging is the newest thing in geek chic.

As a vessel for personal opinion or as a forum for peer-generated debate, online political blogs are revolutionary in their affect on my generation of voters. Political blogging is as savvy as it gets. Beeyah!

I'm not a registered voter. I will have you know, I rarely (if ever) bitch about politics/politicians but, I can bitch about the internet's effect on politics.

I have come to an earnest conclusion that 99 percent of politicians are sleazy, sketchy and selfish. I have absolutely no passion for politics; so, I never do a personal investigation on politicians. If I did vote, I'd be an uninformed voter and no one likes an uninformed voter.

Oh, the trivial ignorant voter. Sadly, many freshly registered voters will be making their ways to the polls soon and they're geared up with candidate information from good ‘ole YouTube.

I can imagine it now… A horny 18-year-old kid goes to the polls to vote for the first time; yet, he can't quite decide who to vote for. A memory of a YouTube video flashes before his eyes and he sees the infamous Obama Girl and Guiliani Girl. Oh, the short skirts and booby shirts! He can't decide. May the hottest girl win.

Wait a second... Isn't it all about the politicians? Well… it was. The '08 YouTube Campaign, oops… I mean '08 Presidential Campaign... has become quite internet savvy compared to the last election. Any candidate would be silly not to advertise their self on the web. Especially YouTube. It's free and a hefty amount of people waste away hours cruising through videos.

To be honest, who wants to sit and watch a talking head when you can watch a snazzy music video to get info on candidates? Not me, but, the Obama and Guiliani girls don't do much for me either. YouTube's hip political vids don't cut it for me; so, my zeal for politics remains minute.

Please, if you're going to vote, do some real research.

I am an easily influenced voter. Essentially a political ball of Play-doh that can be easily molded and manipulated in any way you want.

I know where I stand on most issues. I just don't usually take the time to find out what all candidates stand for and I have a very difficult time weighing one issue against another.

In short, I'm exactly what today's politician is looking for, an easily obtained voter that has his own blog.

In every election I can remember, I voted for the face that was most engrained into my head when I went to the polls. I know I might not be voting for the best candidate. I know it's wrong to decide it this way, but I can't get around it.

In the 2004 election my front runner was John Edwards. I saw him on the Daily Show. I saw him on Leno. Someone placed a picture of him on my car one day. His smiling face was jammed into my head and I loved the guy. I couldn't sit here right now and tell you 5 things he stood for but I was confident that he was the man I wanted in the oval office.

This year, I've got a thing for Barack Obama. I wouldn't call it a full on crush like Obama Girl, who's YouTube video I've seen on multiple occasions, but the guy is young, charismatic and has a smile that makes John Edwards look like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. I've been asked four different times to join the Barack Chalk Jayhawks facebook group and each time I think harder about joining. If the election were held today, Obama would have my vote.

The good news for the rest of the candidates: that vote could change tomorrow. If I show up in class and Sam Knowlton tells me how much he likes YouTube videos and TV appearances have huge effects on the voting tendencies of people like me and the impact is even larger when you consider the increased voter turnout in young people in the last election.

Politicians are attracting young voters not by sticking to issues but by turning themselves into media icons and it just might work. Writing state of the union addresses can't be that much harder than writing scripts for YouTube. The only difference is I'll actually watch YouTube.

This is nice topic for me to opine on, as the proposed subject of my thesis is "Using Facebook for Political Communication." Unfortunately, I've spent approximately 20 minutes over the last 4 months reviewing the research I've done on the topic. So, while I answer this question from a certain level of prior interest and expertise, the expertise is, at this point, quite stale.

In the case of vlogs, the evolution and popularity of YouTube can not be discounted in the potential impact this relatively new medium may have on the 2008 presidential campaigns. A large source of the voter apathy in this country, particularly among young voters, is that politics are largely viewed as "boring" or "unimportant" by the attention-span-challenged youth of America. YouTube, and videos in general, may be the perfect remedy to reach the apathetic populace, as moving pictures can help some poor dullard pay attention enough to at least recognize the name "Barack Obama" or "John Edwards." And in the game of politics (as G.I. Joe constantly pointed out), name recognition is half the battle.

The evolution of politician profiles on Facebook could also play an important role in gaining recognition for a candidate and, idealistically, what he stands for. By being able to add a politician as a "friend," Facebook users can browse the content on their profile pages, instantly gaining a knowledge of who a candidate is, their stances on important issues, and what their favorite movies and TV shows are. This could definitely have a humanizing effect, and may be able to take advantage of that unfortunate segment of the population that votes based on "who they want to have a beer with."

The beauty of vlogs and Facebook in the arena of political communication is that it reaches a young audience that is largely still exploring where they stand on the issues our country faces. Studies have shown that people are unlikely to switch their party affiliation during their lifetimes, affiliations that are usually formed during their young adult years. A young voter gained today is potentially an old voter casting his ballot in favor of the same party for the next 50 years. In essence, the short attention spans of today can actually equal long-term loyalty for the foreseeable future. And any pol worth his worn copy of "The Prince" can see the incredible potential of that.

I've always liked the movie Bulworth. There's something so lovable about Warren Beatty delivering incisive truth through his raps.

I've always thought that if Bulworth were real and he ran, that he'd win.

As the presidential race gears up for 2008, things are getting equally ridiculous.

Politicians everywhere are scrambling to master the oft-misinterpreted "facebook effect."

Sure, facebook is the future, but the future of what?

On the surface, facebook appears to be a platform where empassioned young citizens can organize, leveraging the collective power of adolescent zeal.

Sure, people appear to support given issues. "Tell 10 to Tell 10" has been a recent one. It asks each member to tell 10 friends to click each day to help fight breast cancer.

I got an invite from somebody (can't remember who), and sure, I thought it was a good cause, so I joined. But do I do my 10 clicks a day? Sorry, I don't.

Let me tell you something: I know that almost every last one of my friends is on facebook and uses it daily. To my knowledge, not one of them has become more politically active than they already were.

I think that the excitement that has been generating about facebooking politicos and events like the CNN/YouTube debate is not so much about new media as it is about the new perspective on politicians that it gives us.

These outlets bring us close to our politicians as people, warts and all, which is a radical shift. Overly rehearsed political speeches, made by Washington aspirants heavily caked in broadcast makeup, are no way to develop rapport.

But let us into your life and we'll be your friend. I'd still vote for Bulworth.

Let's face it, most editorials are boring. I flipped through the Lawrence Journal-World on Monday. Nada. I looked up the KC Star's opinion section online and it was a real snoozeathon. Roadwork needed? Lame. Science in Missouri schools? I live in Kansas. Funkhouser's early success as a mayor? I clicked on this one. Blah blah blah. Colorblind society remains elusive? No kidding. Dog lovers need parks too? I don't have a dog. Nothing was inviting a click.

Until I came across this exceptional nugget of journalism from Wichita Eagle columnist Phillip Brownlee. How do you make an editorial about a proposed coal plant in Holcomb, Kan., exciting? Write a song and have someone dress in drag. You have my attention.

This video is something that could never translate into print. And what's more, it enticed me to actually read other editorials (text only!) on the subject. Brilliant! Plus, I could post my comments for all the world to see immediately. Forget composing a letter to the editor and waiting to see if it gets published. I can get into an argument with an anonymous user right now!

And there were other goodies too. I watched Governor Sebelius make jokes about the video, and explain her stance. The point is, none of this is possible in a newspaper. I love to read the paper, but I love to read it online even more. There's just so much more to offer.

I want more video editorials. The fact that "Coal-Lovin' Governor" made me actually read an editorial proves they are effective. Video, slideshows, comment threads and of all that multimedia goodness make a big difference. They're stimulating, capture my attention and don't put me into a coma. Editorials don't have to be boring if you have a little creativity. Check out this "Brownback Girl."

What's next, "Vote 4 Rudy" and "Obama rocks my socks" signs lining campus bulletin boards? I hope not.

When I log onto Facebook to peruse my friends' photo albums and delay the agony of homework, or when I procrastinate for a few minutes by listening to new musicians on MySpace, I am bombarded with political messages. Before cult followings developed for these social networking sites, TV campaign ads were the primary medium where political messages invaded my life. I could leave the room during commercials and avoid theses ads for a few months before every fourth November, but I definitely can't live without Facebook for two years before the election.

Using social networking sites is a smart move from a financial standpoint, as it's a virtually free means to reaching the masses (that is, if candidates can resist the popular temptation to hire a professional director to create their posts). But, it reminds me of high school. Just like the high school biology teacher who busts her butt to adequately explain the process of mitosis while her students pass notes, the candidates (or their young, tech-savvy assistants) spend a lot of effort reaching the youth who just don't care about politics.

Similar to high school student council campaigns, presidential hopefuls' MySpace campaigns encourage people to vote for the hottest guy or for the girl with the cutest campaign profile.

The candidates totally play to this popularity contest. Hillary tries to relate to the young crowd by insisting that she is "a lousy cook" under her interests. Huckabee tries fitting in with other MySpacers by using simply "Mike" as his name over his profile picture.

This new means is watering down the political system and encouraging voters to pick their candidate based on image, not the issues.

In the enchanting world of Harry Potter there is a magical newspaper, called the Daily Prophet, which we muggles (non-magic folk) could only hope and dream for. The photos in the paper are like little movies. The photos walk and talk, it's one heck of an animated newspaper. The Daily Prophet is the epitome of a supreme form of past and modern journalism united into one. If only it existed outside the wizarding world…

Muggles need the best of both worlds: great editorial writing from the newspaper days and visuals of the modern age. We crave animation in our media.

I can always just read an editorial about how Gov. Sebelius is oddly a coal-lover/environmentalist but, an old guy in a dress singing a country song about the issue really drives the point home and it's hard to forget. Sure, it seems absurd, but I'd read the editorial once and forget it, but I'd watch the video twice, and send the link to someone else.

Seriously, who do you know that snail mails a worthy editorial piece cut fresh from a newspaper? Nobody. On the other hand, I get links galore to videos and vlogs. Hint Hint. Come on you newspaper people… get a camera and tripod.

Let's get y'all started:
1. NO Panning
2. NO Pointless Zooming
3. Shoot on level ground please
4. Don't leave your viewers feeling as if they just got off a rollercoaster and might projectile vomit. Smooth video = good video.
5. Do work son.

I'm definitely not giving up on the old school editorialists, there's some great writing there. That kind of writing combined with video can really do some damage.

Through my days in Journalism I've learned that nothing is better than video to tell a story. You combine that with a voice over the video and you've got yourself the news version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

So, when the idea of pairing video with newspaper editorials came about it was like watching Rahul Sharma walk around the newsroom. There was no way it could be unsuccessful.

Problem is the video editorials I've seen aren't all that successful and the reason for that is simple. The newspaper reporters never bothered to learn how to operate a camera.

I watch the editorials and I'm just screaming at the screen, "No, stop zooming! Stop panning! Is this reporter jumping up and down?"

There is a fine line between making video that helps your story and making video that detracts from your story. As a person who gets paid to operate a camera I watch videos like the ones from the Dayton Daily News and I feel like I'm being tortured. It's death by shaky video.

I've been on boats in the ocean that produced less sickness than some newspaper editorials and it's a real problem. This type of amatuer video draws readers away from the story and more importantly it draws credibility away from the story. When I can't tell the difference between a serious news editorial and a Bentley Green music video. Why should I watch the news editorial?

I'm not giving up on video editorials. I still think it's the wave of the future. The idea of including video behind a quality journalist opinion should lead to increased readership for all newspapers. Someone just needs to introduce the reporters to a tripod and level ground. If nobody else volunteers for the job I'll go around and do it myself for free. Anything to keep my sanity.

People are always looking for ways to enhance themselves from botox and implants to Viagra to muscle boosters. So now the Internet is no different, except here people look for ways to enhance when and how they receive information. Blogs have given them the online lift they want.

But now, they want more. Vlogs have become the enhanced blog so to speak, giving audiences more with video augmentations. In the past two years, over 20,000 vlogs have developed, according to Mefeedia, a blogging directory.

Luckily, newspapers are slowly catching on with their own version of vlogging. With editorial vlogs, newspapers have the ability to tell a story in a new fashion and provide the extra "umph" to attract more people to their Web sites.

Let's face it. Newspapers have the most to lose, so they have to jump on the new-technology train as it passes by. Print readership is down with people turning to the Internet for news. Therefore, the logical answer is for them to adopt these changes, which could end up helping their bottom line.

When editorial vlogs are utilized best, the content of newspaper editorials enhances the written word. They provide a visual story to bring the text to life using pictures and video. You no longer have to use your imagination as you read to envision the grimness of Ohio's death prison or what the inside of Fire Station No. 9 really looks like, the vlog gives you it.

Editorial vlogs also get reporters to expand their reporting skills, to use their creativity in an innovative way. They strengthen a story. Video enhancements can not only revitalize the old style editorial pages, but they also give newspapers a boost in the right direction...longevity.

Nothing beat sitting on Mrs. Brown's story-time carpet in second grade after an exhausting recess of being chased by boys around the playground. I loved listening to Mrs. Brown detail Ramona Quimby's adventures.

Now as a sophisticated 21-year-old, I get my fill of story telling by opening the newspaper, plopping down on my futon (of course, in a very lady-like fashion, mom) and reading the opinion pages of various newspapers.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the simplicity of reading these writers' tales on plain black and white newsprint. The absence of flashy videos forces me to focus on their points and not on the cute boy in the background.

One of my favorite columnists, Garrison Keillor hardly has a Web page. He has a biography page and a page with a plain text version of his column that has notes to the editor before the text. This isn't what I mean.

A little more realistic, and another of my favorites, is Leonard Pitts. His pieces are all easy to get to on the Internet, but have no bells and whistles. He leaves videos and images for the young whippersnappers.

Keillor and Pitts' styles of writing don't lend themselves to ninjas reciting their works. At the same time, an impossible to find page catered to the media is a bit extreme. Including podcasts of the columns and throwing in a couple political cartoons that coincide with the point would be a happy medium.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not an 80-year-old white newspaperman trapped in a young girl's body. I like the idea of expanding on columns- when it is appropriate.

I enjoy Relevant magazine's Web site, which has some web exclusive opinion writers whose works lend themselves to extra goodies. Considering that 20-somethings are the target audience for this publication, the incorporation of the new media works extremely well.

I think I should be from Missouri—the "Show Me" state. Okay, I could never really live there, but I am visual person. Given the choice between reading or watching a story, I pick the video version. But newspapers have begun to figure out that they can let people to have their cake and eat it, too. How? Show us both! Brilliant.

We are beginning to see video newspaper stories, from national news to entertainment pieces. Editorials are a tricky subject, since they are based on opinion. Papers allow opinion, but only in certain sections. The Internet allows opinion in many facets, especially in vlogs. How can we marry the two?

I imagine the future in "Videos to the Editor", where anyone can pick up their camera phone and rant about potholes. It's already prevalent in vlogs, but the challenge comes in formatting that to news sites. Right now, papers are trying out their options. The Wichita Eagle has started producing satirical op videos.

Though I prefer to have a text story tag team a video, the New York Times has done a great job of presenting emotional, standalone videos. The only problem I have is that many of the pieces are done professionally, whether by filmmakers or the paper staff. We constantly hear the term "citizen journalism" alongside new technology, but old editors have refused to open the door vloggers have been knocking at recently. Papers must start allowing people to share their opinion through their voices and pictures, even if it's only a link to relevant sites. Fine, stick it under the "opinion" section. If newspapers are going to survive this tsunami of video opinions, they must adapt and allow readers to become active viewers, as well. Even in Missouri.

Video editorials tell a story that includes more than just an opinion piece in the newspaper. They give you visuals, whether it is pictures or video that coincides with the point they're trying to make. An example I've seen recently with newspapers is taking an uninteresting print story and turning it into a visually appealing video narrated by interviewees. Newspapers use the slideshow format and implement video to better tell the story. Maybe this is a sign of technology becoming widely available and at a much cheaper cost for daily newspapers. Not to mention a way for television stations and newspapers to join forces with online substance.

The old style editorials now seem obsolete because of the growth of user-submitted photos or video. If the readers (consumers) can generate content for newspaper organizations to print or post online, then the vlog scene tends to weed out what we used to know as editorial columns. The news is analyzed and overanalyzed, so is there really a need to have opinion writers continue to write editorials? Maybe. But the age that we're in suggests we put two steps forward and move on from the editorial pages and into computer monitors to form our own opinions of what we see.

Editorial sections or letters to the editor gave readers a chance to voice their opinion. Today, the voice is through comment posting and message boards. The way that editorial pages have evolved into blogs and vlogs shows how everyone has an opinion and aren't afraid to voice it.

When we first broached the subject of video blogs and editorials, I was skeptical. It's hard for me to separate video from the high quality production and low quality content that has come to define most of modern television news. However, after perusing some examples of video blogs, I have to admit, I'm starting to come around.

There will always be a place for your standard, old-fashioned text editorial. Well-written, concise opinion pieces will continue to hold an important position in the media-citizen discourse. But the inclusion of powerful, pertinent visuals to go along with the facts and language of an argument, if done correctly, only serves to strengthen the position of the editorial producer.

For instance, today's editorial in the LJWorld concerning the pursual of a "diplomatic surge" rather than a continued and ineffective military one could be powerfully augmented by visuals of the urban battleground in Iraq that our soldiers continue to fight and die in. While the author's words create a compelling argument, it's much easier to grasp the gravity of the violence with compelling visuals added to the facts and opinions.

Of course, the strength of the visuals also determines whether a video editorial will prove more effective than your standard text entry. In the example of the Springboro Levy issue, the repetitive scenes of construction don't really add much to the producer's argument. It's not until he shows scenes of children exiting their makeshift classrooms, overlayed with text info about the rapidly rising number of students in the district combined with the compelling voiceover, does the argument really take hold.

As is true with any medium, once video bloggers hone and perfect their craft, making the video blog as effective and concise as a well-written editorial, we'll really see the inevitable revolution of the editorial pages.

Want to teach me something? Show me.

In school, I've learned that amount of information I get by reading a textbook can't hold a candle to what I absorb going to class. To catch my interest, going visual is your best bet.

That's why I'm excited to see some newspaper editorial writers creating sort of a multimedia mashup by venturing into the world of online video. It gives people like me something to grab onto besides the printed word. What I've seen so far is impressive, but coming from a TV background, I also see some easy fixes to improve the end product.

• Write to your pictures. Don't just give me random video related to your topic. Hook your words to your pictures and you'll hook me into your story.
• Keep it simple. Resist the temptation to use video camera special effects. Nothing is harder for a viewer to follow than a zoom or a pan (especially in those tiny Web windows).
• Use a tripod. Don't create an earthquake. Steady shots by putting the camera on a tripod or other steady surface.
• Hold that shot. You know your video, but your viewers don't. The people watching need time to absorb the images, so no edit should be shorter than three seconds and most should be in the four to six second range.
• Actions speak. Look for the action that's happening and shoot it. It will be much more interesting than that static shot of a building.
• Keep me close. Video can take us there, but not if all the shots are from 50 feet away. Vary your shot distances and don't forget the power in close-ups.

If this all sounds like a bunch of TV mumbo jumbo, here's a video survival guide written by a newspaper type for newspaper types learning to shoot video. Most of all -- keep on "mashin'."

I am an average person. I only truly care about like five things, give or take one or two. So if you want me to listen to your editorial about something you care about there are only about, four things you can do:

1.) Be an attractive woman

2.) Connect with me emotionally aka make me cry

3.) Make me laugh

4.) Grab my attention with something visually compelling

What is the best way to accomplish any one of these things? The answer is simple: video. Without video I can't tell if you're an attractive woman or not. This is why in Europe they have strip news. It's not ethical, but it works.

I can't remember the last news story I read and cried. I can remember the last video I watched and cried. When someone can see something, it creates instant empathy. Video advertising is more expensive because it is more captivating and personal. I'll be watching TV and those adopt a child for 39 cents a day commercials will come on and every time I'll reach for my phone before realizing my frugality. We are talking about news so it's a little different but we are also talking about editorials which are meant for you to sell your opinion.

Grabbing my attention becomes much harder when visual elements are missing. I watched seven video editorials that my teacher sent me. I still don't give a crap about anything that they addressed, but I did watch them. I wouldn't have read anymore than their title in print.

Don't get rid of print, it still serves a valuable purpose. It will help readers get even more information and get deeper into the story or opinion. Just use a little something that most hard news outlets are finally coming around on, according to The State of the News Media, multimedia journalism.

How can you do multimedia? Once again, simple answer: online. Online multimedia is where news is going because that's where the masses are already. I'm there. I have my very own blog.

I saw "Spiderman". I watch "Grey's Anatomy". And I read The Da Vinci Code. I am not a trend setter. Like I said I'm average and apathetic. So get me to listen and maybe even care then you'll probably have an audience beyond your wildest dreams.

America's fascination with stars has moved far beyond just admiring their work, or even their good looks. We are now obsessed with knowing every possible detail about the lives of celebrities- from their children, to what they're wearing (or not), to who they make-up or break-up with. But some people take it too far when they start believing they have an actual relationship with their favorite stars, a psychological condition called Celebrity Worship Syndrome, among other names.

Gossip is normal, and even healthy in small doses. Celebrity gossip, however, is out of control. Newsmagazine shows, tabloids and celebrity blogs make even the most useless information available at all times. You can even find information on how to throw a "celebrity obsession party" dedicated to your favorite star.

Many people become so engrossed in celebrity gossip because they are unhappy. By becoming involved in the lives of the rich and famous, they are able to escape their own. Consequently, they may become even more unhappy, or even depressed because they will never obtain what they want.

Celebrity obsession can consume a life, and even become deadly. We have to know our limits when it comes to these unhealthy preoccupations, or it can overtake us too.

After a late night of studying, the last thing any student wants to do is wake up early in order to arrive on campus a half hour before class to find a parking spot. Unfortunately, this is a reality for many students.

Circling parking lots is a likelihood as KU Parking and Transit oversells permits for commuting students who park in the yellow zones by 59%. Specifically, 10,141 permits are sold for these zones, which hold only 6,370 spots. As a result, potentially 3,771 students could spend class time in the lots looking for a spot.

This disparity between passes sold and spots available may be the source of rude behavior in parking lots. The combination of students desperate to slide into class before the teacher makes his opening remarks and selfish thinking have caused me some frustration on the pavement. On two occasions, when patiently waiting for a car to back out of a spot, another car pulled up on the other side of the spot and stole a spot that was rightfully mine.

KU isn't the only school dealing with this issue. The parking situation was getting so out of control at Kapiolani Community College in Honolulu, Hawaii, that the school's newspaper printed a list of rules students should follow when cruising the parking lots.

Rudeness in general isn't a new problem, though. Back in 2002, Public Agenda found that 79% of U.S. adults think a lack of politeness is a serious problem in our society. Furthermore, 62% of the respondents were bothered a lot by seeing rude and disrespectful behavior. This problem isn't behind us, if anything, it's getting worse. More recently, in 2006, an ABC News "20/20" survey discovered that 83% of people are bothered a lot by others displaying rude and disrespectful behavior.

What does this mean for KU students? Expect to put your patient hat on when venturing to the parking lots.

No one ever looks at me strangely when I tell the sacker, 'plastic' at the grocery store.
What if I said, "5 million watts of energy, please" or "dead seagull, if you have some."

Bet I'd get some stares then.

Now, I don't want you to look at me and see one of "those people." You know, the ones who come into your home, replace all of your plastic bags with suffocated fish and tirade, "Don't you understand? You MURDERER!" as they stomp their Birkenstocks and tear at their rain-washed hair in agony.

So let's look at it in a different, levelheaded way.

Plastic bags are an unnecessary evil. They suck energy, money, landfill space, petroleum, and yes, animals, right off the planet. Unassuming aren't they? Lightweight, convenient, and so thin you can usually see through them, yet they're one of the most detrimental consumer habits our country has.

For instance, the Sierra Club calculates that in New York City alone, if everyone used one less grocery bag every year it would reduce 5 millions pounds of waste and save $250,000 in disposal costs

Take those numbers to a nationwide scale and the potential impact of eliminating plastic bags is staggering.

Some cities are even going as far as to outlaw the plastic bag altogether. How's that for making a global impact? So go ahead, follow their lead.

There are countless alternatives to the plastic bag, and all you have to do is choose one. Just about everywhere you look, there are ideas for simple, practical solutions to the problem. Switching to a reusable bag for your groceries is a minor change that can make a big difference.

You don't have to be a hemp-weaving, tunic-wearing, organic gardener to help clean up the environment. Take it one step at a time and make your first step to stop using plastic bags.

Prescription Drugs have become problematic in almost every sense of the word. From cost to abuse, every part of the process has downfalls but one of the less documented pitfalls of prescription drugs is Medicaid.

Medicaid is a government assistance program that allows its members to receive upwards of 90 percent of all medications at no charge. Simply put, Medicaid is the best possible insurance a person could have.

So what's the problem? Medicaid, much like high strength pain pills and amphetamines it is used to obtain, is being abused. It was designed for low income individuals but is now growing and reaching more people. The program saw a 12 percent annual increase in enrollment from 2000 to 2004. Not only was enrollment up but overall spending saw a 33 percent jump.

On average Medicaid patients take more medications per person than the regular U.S populace. These aren't antibiotics either, they are pain killers, antidepressants and yes even erectile dysfunction meds (most insurance companies don't cover ED drugs). I'm not heartless, but I don't want to pay for someone else's happy pills.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Medicaid dilemma is that not all its members fit my definition of "low income." In my years in the prescription medication business I have seen Medicaid members come in wearing designer suits, driving Cadillacs and have even filled a script for one Medicaid patient who was on their way to vacation in Europe. Since when did government aid programs raffle off first class flights and five star hotels?

Medicaid has become a vulture preying on the American working class. I don't mind paying to keep people alive, but I draw the line on paying for other peoples sex lives; I have a hard enough time worrying about mine. We can't let Medicaid become the next Social Security because if it continues to grow who will be paying for it? Hopefully not me.

Are anchors worth the money? Come on, I mean spending outrageous amounts of dough to show a face that is maybe on-air for about 15-20 minutes (on an average newscast), is ridiculous. Take Los Angeles for instance, the number two TV market in America, their lead anchors average over $1 million a piece! The salary disparity between a Top 10 market and a 150 market is amazing. I like seeing good news reporting, but writing those paychecks isn't worth it. New York, L.A. and Chicago all have the money to pay for displaying the best talent in America to work in those markets. It would be nice to stroll on into the newsroom 30 minutes before a show and get paid seven figures.

However, with the online-age upon us, it isn't necessary for anchors to put on makeup or slip on a tie. Instead, online news is anchorless and provides opportunities for those to get to a story without waiting for a certain time in a newscast. The beauty of the online format is that anyone can view the content, from anywhere in the world. If I wanted to see a high school football highlight from Texas, I can see it online without having to be in Texas to witness it. I can provide my own analysis on what happened; I don't need an anchor telling me that a touchdown just occurred… I can see it myself!

I don't think we need to get rid of television anchors because storytelling is a part of the business. Newscasts are different from news magazines and anchors guide shows everyday. And we're used to it. It would be nice to see what's it's like without anchors on television. But online, we're already seeing this trend and it won't be seen on TV, because there is always someone willing to write the check.

Call me old fashioned, but I've got a soft spot for television anchors. They are the whole reason I'm even in this class, much less studying journalism. As a kid, I idolized Dan Rather. While my friends were watching the Disney Channel, I tuned into the nightly news. I would even mute the TV just so I could read the closed captioning like the anchors did. A staple holds together a bunch of papers; an anchor holds together a bunch of stories. I'm not ready to change that.

Not only do anchors provide fodder for blooper shows, they are also the one constant in an ever-changing world of journalism. People like a recognizable face to tell them everything is going to be okay, even if it's not. I checked out the definition of "anchor". My favorite: a person or thing that can be relied on for support, stability, or security; mainstay.

Of course, I "get" the controversy about whether or not an anchor is necessary in the online world. Why do we need someone to introduce us to the next story, throwing in cheesy comments as they go along? Well, it's familiar. It's welcome. Anchors guide us through tragedy and celebrate with us in joyous times. Sure, a lot of anchors are overpaid; most celebrities are. However, despite the sprayed hair, the 80's makeup, and the outdated suits, I enjoy a calming voice and a commanding presence when I watch my news. I'm not prepared for anchors to sail away into oblivion.

Gone are the days of dropping everything to tune in to a network news channel so that a trusty man in a suit could read you your evening news. Long gone. But the anchor is still around.

Oh sure, fewer people are getting their news from television sources. According to the Pew Research Center, you'll see that the number of people who watch network and local news regularly is declining, but the number of people getting news online is steadily growing, and Pew has more recent reports to back that up. And most of that online audience is made up of that ever elusive group- young Americans. Hey I know, instead of reading the news online, how about watching the news online (click on TimesCast)?

What does this mean for the anchor? A newer, younger audience that can be reached 24 hours a day. A new medium. Job security. The chance to be creative. Take your pick, there's good stuff here.

And hey, the networks are even getting in on this too. In a recent interview, Jason Samuels, senior producer at ABC News Digital, spoke about the webcast ABC has been developing since 2006.

"We really have no rules to the show," he said. "We can try things that are very different. The mandate is to try to be different and try and engage the viewers who are not right now watching the evening news broadcast."

How cool is that? Before we go getting too excited though, there are some challenges. How do you drive people to your Web site? How do you differentiate yourself from the nutjobs with cameras (oh sorry, I mean citizen journalists)? What can you do for people that they can't do for themselves?

I'll tell you what. We are journalists. We know what we're doing. We are credible. We won't make you read if you don't want to. We can adapt. And most importantly, we DON'T like to be ignored. It might take a little work, but the anchor is here to stay.

In the 1980s, Kansas City's KSHB experimented with an "anchorless" newscast, producing a nightly 15-minute newsbrief called "41 Express." Featuring a series of video stories strung together with a disembodied voice narrating, it was supposed to be edgy and ground-breaking -- just the kind of thing the station thought hip, young viewers wanted.

But the station missed the mark. It discovered that with enough rocks (stories) you could build a pretty good wall (newscast), but without the mortar (anchor), it just didn't hold together. So the now-defunct "41 Express" is left to Wikipedia lore.

I know we've come a long way since the '80s. I have no desire to return to "mall bangs","parachute pants" or anchorless news. Anchors play a substantial role in the news flow.

That said, I have a big problem with anchor intros. I can't stand the sloppy way most are written. If I got a dime for every anchor intro that ended with, so and so "has the story," I'd never have to work again.

That isn't the way it should be. The anchor intro is the start of the story. It should be the first thing a reporter writes. All too often, as Sir Dropham Pants points out, it isn't.

Anchors are there for a reason. They guide us through the news like a rudder guides a boat. Get rid of them and news consumers may still be able to steer, but it's going to be a lot more work.

A journalism professor of mine suggested the extinction of my dream career, which gave me a swift kick in the ass. I guess my new goal in life is to bring TV news back. No pressure or anything… yikes!

News anchors – who needs ‘em? Hopefully everyone, for my sake. I'm convinced most people do, or will, get their news from cell phones and the web. They have little use, if any, for an anchor. The web doesn't need me, and neither do those who get news on their phones (I just got a little nauseous). Do you really need a talking head to guide you to the news with a cheesy introduction?

Please say yes. Please say yes. Please say yes.

Food for thought: without anchors, TV news would be dull as all hell. Anchors add pizzazz and spice! Without anchors, news would be a video reel of murders, crimes, terrorism and sleazy politics. They're like the guiding light through a mess of information. Heck, most of them are celebrities.

I want to deliver you the news someday, preferably on a morning show. Yeah, I'll admit it – I want to be part of the anchor wars. I'll be the first to admit I need some serious practice. I'm not that good… yet.

So why are my parents giving their arms and legs for a college education in broadcast journalism? As I see it, TV news will always be there. People will always watch it. Not everyone sees the rationale in spending $2,000 a year on thingamajigs so you can get the news anytime, anywhere when it's already on your TV at home. TV networks are catching on; they're beginning to feed TV quality newscasts directly to the web. Lucky me – I can still anchor those!

If all else fails I have Plan B: The next Food Network Star (my baking skills need work though).

At 12 years old, when my friends were dreaming of becoming doctors, teachers, actors and police officers, I wanted to be a news anchor. So much so that my best friend, Kim, and I spent our summer nights and weekends making a series of home videos mimicking news anchors from made-up TV stations until we were sophomores in high school. Later, this passion became a reality when I transfered to a new high school my senior year that had a 21st Century program for broadcasting. Now, I am even closer to achieving my dream by majoring in broadcast journalism, but the opportunity may not be around for long.

Some people believe that news anchors are no longer needed to get the news. "Skip the middle man!" they say. Well, in defense of my aspiration and my degree, I disagree.

I understand that news anchors don't prevent us from getting the news, but they certainly play an integral part in gathering and delivering it. Can you imagine a newscast without anchors? (I can and it's not pretty.)

Anchoring takes a lot of dedication and hard work. I interned for Fox 4 News this summer and some of the anchors, like Tom Lawrence and Heather Claybrook, are also reporters. Their passion for getting us the news is so strong that they want to be involved in every aspect. They have learned to adapt their talents in the name of news delivery.

Anchors work long, stressful hours and sometimes their jobs can even be dangerous. Network news correspondents, such as Bob Woodruff and Katie Couric, put their lives at risk reporting from war zones. Without them and their commitment to news, these stories wouldn't be possible.

Anchors are trained professionals who do more than just read a teleprompter. And in the years to come, hopefully, I can prove it.

I have a secret. It's really terrible and I can't believe I'm even telling you now. Sometimes, just sometimes, my brother and I will watch the evening news and laugh at the anchors. There, I said it. It's cruel, it's abusive and you can imagine my shame as a journalism student living in such hypocrisy. But that's not even the secret. My secret is . . .

… my laughter is a farce. I actually like TV anchors. I've even imagined what it's like to be one, to enjoy the life of semi-celebrity. However, after Will Ferrell's parody ‘Anchorman' reflected what I've noticed is the average person's view of the TV news anchor, it's un-cool to admit you actually appreciate them.

This is a tough time to be a news anchor. The August 29th issue of USA Today contained an article about the plight of the news anchor. The numbers don't lie: TV news is fading, and it's taking its anchors with it. As the article notes, in the past 25 years, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News and CBS Evening News have collectively lost 27 million viewers. That's half their audience.

But if I know one thing about people, it's that we like the company of other people. We need our community. What does that have to do with news anchors? Everything. We as human audience trust the human voice, we respond to live expression. We trust the voice on the radio, the face on the TV screen. Just because news media is on the fast track to all-online doesn't mean audiences are ready to eliminate the personal, human connection to their news.

For now, anchors can take a vacation in Middle Man Land with the travel agents and music vendors, but I have no doubt they will come back thriving when the landscape of news media evolves.