October 2007 Archives

KUJH-TV going to YouTube... anybody familiar with my blog knows where I stand on this. In the first blog of the year I said that everyone should put their news on YouTube, to me it's just common sense.

So before I wrote this blog on putting KUJH on YouTube I tried to think of any possible negatives from putting videos up on YouTube. Here's what I came up with...

Putting videos on YouTube takes away viewers from the KUJH website

This is the classic argument that this will hurt by pulling people away from our website. However, the main purpose of our website is to showcase the news and the work of our reporters and anchors and YouTube does just that. Not only are the videos now on two different websites but by being on YouTube they are more likely to be seen.

YouTube has millions of visitors each day and odds are a lot of these visitors will stumble across a KUJH video at some point. It gets our brand further out on to the web and even if they only stay on the video for a 15 seconds the will likely see a KUJH logo in that time.

I don't want to make it sound like subliminal messaging for KUJH, but really that's what it is. At the time I'm writing this blog this story has 63 views and has only been up for 4 days. Even if only 10 percent of those viewers see KUJH for the first time, that's 6 people that have learned about our station in the past 4 days. Keep on that pace and it would be more than 500 viewers learning about us in a year, just from that one story.

News stories are only remembered on YouTube when they are embarrassing.

If you asked me to name 3 news stories I've seen on YouTube they would be 1. News lady falls while smashing grapes, 2. The Boom goes the Dynamite guy and 3. My personal favorite, the Leprechaun.

All three of these stories have their charms, but in the end I remember them because the reporters, anchors and news stations embarrassed themselves. A disaster like that could be harmful to KUJH.

But here's the beauty of our newscast (and I hope I'm not letting out a huge secret here), we don't show things live!! If any of these moments had happened at KUJH they would have never made it onto air and consequently never made it on to YouTube.

Viewers may laugh at bad sound, bad video or even how much bigger Sam looks when he anchors next to Stephen but there certainly won't be anything that makes a classic YouTube moment.

Putting videos on YouTube creates more work for me

As a last resort I decided to get selfish. I decided I would argue against the extra work I would have to do. However, this argument was trumped the first time I tried to upload a video. It only took about 2 minutes and it was easy enough that I didn't even have to ask someone else for help.

So, I finally realize that all of my arguments are null and void. As much as I try there is nothing wrong with putting KUJH on YouTube. YouTube is the future of the Internet and I'm now happy to be a part of it.

I can finally claim to be famous—I'm on YouTube! Now anyone in the world can see my face, watch my anchoring blunders, and study my reports. But will they? I'm excited about the possibility of getting more hits for KUJH-TV stories by adding them to this video sharing site. I even tried dressing up more and spent more time primping my hair, in hopes that I would present a better image for our station with all this new traffic. However, I'm a bit wary about any spectacular results that may come out of this venture.

The big three networks all have YouTube channels. Oh wait, no they don't. NBC pulled its official YouTube channel last week with no warning, likely because the channel had run its course. My dream would be that KUJH-TV on YouTube grows exponentially popular and then jumps over to a new medium when it comes along. In reality, I don't think much will change. It will be nice to allow comments on our stories, as well as having the ability to see ratings and the number of views. However, knowing our audience, I'm suspecting most of these will come from our own brilliant class and from proud parents who want to show off the work of their young journalists (At least in the case of my mother, I know this is completely true. She sits at her computer every Thursday, pressing "refresh" until my 3:00 update comes up).

Have I been so jaded by past failures at our humble station that I can't see positives in the future? Maybe so. We've been talking about going live on KUJH-TV News since I've been at KU. Could YouTube finally be the way to get viewers of our stories? I doubt it, but I would love to be wrong. First, we need to figure out how to drive traffic to our channel. The media train may have already pulled out of the station without us, and I hope we have someone speedy enough to jump on the caboose and catch it.

Aside from the fact that Second Life bogs down my computer, my surroundings take about 20 minutes to load properly, the lag time is excruciating, I can't go five minutes without my avatar being groped (which in real life would result in my very real fist in someone's very real face) and the minor obstacle that hardly anyone will talk to me, I think SL is…ok. That means it's growing on me, though, because I used to hate it.

When I first created my avatar, Rosie Schmooz, I felt ridiculous. I laughed when people said, "It's not a game. It's a virtual world." I couldn't even imagine reporting "in world" (check out my SL lingo).

Through further investigation, however, I realized that Second Life has its own groups, worlds (sort of like countries), politics, sex, parties, fashion and news. It also has its own challenges, addressed in this BlogHer discussion with members of the Second Life media. A lot of these things were problems I ran into myself.

For example, how do you find a story in Second Life? I still have no clue. You can't look to other news sources or blogs, because then you're just regurgitating their ideas. Hardly anyone would talk to poor Rosie when she tried to strike up a conversation. When they did, the lag time made it difficult. How do you find sources? The BlogHer panelists mentioned making friends, joining groups and attending events – networking. Ok, this seems eerily similar to reporting in the real world. Do you cite sources by their avatar's name or their real names? I would certainly never give out my real name.

Once you have a story, how do you report it? Second Life TV is not like real TV, which allows reporters to easily use visuals to tell a story. It's probably pretty painstaking for people to create those videos. SL isn't good for a lot of text either. Using Second life as a news medium appears to be very hard.

Finally, how do you make money? Most SL reporters are balancing reporting in world with reporting in the real world because being paid in Linden dollars sucks. Until this problem is solved, people aren't going to be able to really invest enough time in Second Life to really produce the quality news they're capable of.

My avatar, Layne Liotta, and I had quite the repulsive first Second Life experience. Some guy named Blackjack couldn't stop grabbing Layne's rear. He made us look like two mating drangonflies. Annoying.

Here it goes… I'm going to flat out say it. Second life… I'm just not that in to you. I'm not a gamer but some say it's not a game, and that's fine. Call it what you may because either way I don't want to play.

Here's the brutal honesty of Second Life:

• It's a waste of money
Why spend real money to get Lindens for a virtual person? I'll never get to really wear the Armani clothes. Not happening, I'll shop for myself before I shop for Layne.

• It's a procrastination tool
We definitely do not need more of those in our lives. I can't waste time, I need all the time I can get.

• Do you really not have anything else to do?
I live in the first life. You know, the one where I have loads of homework and a job.

• Where's the truth?
Everyone you meet has a fake name and I know not everyone in this virtual world is skinny and tall, yet most avatars are. Interesting. It's tricky to find what's fake and what's real in a place like Second Life when most people are posing as something/someone they're not.

I never thought I would see the day where "true" journalism can exist in fake world. It blows my mind that the Second Life Herald and Reuters are considered forms are real journalism. If I wanted to be a part of a story I could probably convince anyone that I'm Paris Hilton's second cousin.

Another thing that itches me is that there are real events happening in the real world. Perhaps some people should stick their head out of the virtual game that has no conclusive point and catch up with what's really going on around them. I just don't understand how "reporters" can turn virtual, fake events into what they call "real news" because there are bigger, better things happening in real life.

I'm one of those who just don't get it. Layne Liotta is going to have to find a way to entertain herself because I'm surely not going to be her 24/7 personal tour guide around Second Life. I need to chauffer my own butt through the real world. Sorry Layne.

Imagine a world where you can change the way you look on a whim, get free designer clothing thrown at you, have safe, anonymous sex with any number of beautiful partners, do drugs without consequence, and gamble to your heart's content. Unless you're a celebrity on a weekend Vegas trip, then Second Life is the only option to live in this hedonistic vision of Eden. And you can still get busted for the drugs or sex.

Unfortunately, Second Life doesn't really deliver on any of these fantasies. You don't really look like that, and neither does your sexual partner. The sex is unsatisfying (or so I'm told). Your clothes are pixelated. The drugs aren't really making you high. And the gambling...well, the gambling can be real. Which means you can lose real money in a fake world. That's a whole other discussion.

Don't get me wrong, Second Life was a great idea...when it was called The Sims. Ever since the first caveman picked up a shiny rock and saw his reflection, people have wanted to change their appearance, congregate with others, engage in consequence-free promiscuous sex, and gamble away their possessions. So it's not surprising that a virtual world was created that theoretically fills these base desires.

It's also not surprising that, in its first fully online incarnation, it virtually sucks. The graphics leave too much to the imagination. The control of your character isn't crisp. The loading times for the environment could make a monk impatient. And, worst of all, in a world where virtually anything is possible, there's nothing to do. Even the most basic of Second Life functions, communication, is terribly inefficient compared to "real-world" programs like chat programs, text messaging and even email.

So in a world where everybody is granted omniscience, what is newsworthy? People can have sex in public, metamorphosize at will, and fly. Violence doesn't exist, except where others give permission. There are very few consequences for anything an avatar does. So what events in this virtual world have enough of an impact on others that creates the need for news?

Granted, there's griefing, which has resulted in a group of extremely bored and disturbed individuals staging virtual terrorist attacks, and there's "real-world" news that can affect "play" within the Second Life universe. But do these events really constitute news, outside of briefly interrupting the mindless repetition on which Second Life thrives?

In its current form, Second Life is a long ways away from becoming an effective and efficient conduit for journalism of any consequence. As it stands now, Second Life is to MySpace as ?????? is to Facebook. MySpace was a great idea, and pretty popular for awhile, but then Facebook came along and improved on virtually every aspect, leaving MySpace to die a slow and lonely death. Whatever comes next in the arena of virtual worlds will undoubtedly condemn Second Life to the same fate.

In other words, nice try, and better luck next time.

Nothing can beat face-to-face interaction. I realized that this past week when catching up with old friends in Scotland. We had e-mailed, instant messaged, and often talked on the phone and on Skype over the past few months, but that all paled desperately in comparison to receiving hugs from those three guys. Second Life is continuing to change the way people interact and view their world, but I'm honestly not getting it. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's confused.

It's called "second" life for a reason—real life interaction should come first. I like the idea of politicians and other big names (read: our famous professor) engaging in chats with people who can't physically be around for an activity, but I'm still confused why 3D characters representing people need to be present. I would much rather watch the people on TV, where I can see their real faces and real reactions, not a marionette-like version of reality.

Citizen journalism finds yet another niche in Second Life, where anyone can dig up stories, whether newsworthy or not (reminiscent of YouTube). By eliminating the gatekeeper, even real news corporations are taking advantage of quick and easy stories. While in Scotland, I saw an advert (I sound like a local, right?) for Sky News, asking for Second Life reporters. I don't like the idea of random creepers sitting online, groping for sources and ideas like they groped my avatar. This stuff doesn't happen in the real world, so I don't get why it's cool online.

So while some techies see Second Life as the wave of the future, I will stick to seeing people in front of my face. If distance prevents that, I will use real pictures and real webcams. We wonder why people have such a difficult time in social settings—it's because they're stuck perfecting a fake reality in front of a picture. Not me.

From an online perspective, I have a Second Life. But my Second Life, as opposed to many other's serious second lives, is just like my first life except that I'm a much better dancer than my second life suggests.

Before I made Melodie, I was tempted to forgo my real-life, all-American disposition and create a bow staff wielding, butt kicking, female warrior princess (a look I always thought I could pull off in real life). But alas, since we were in a classroom setting and I didn't necessarily want to attract a bow staff fighting warrior prince, I opted for the "girl next door" template and made my avatar, Melodie Thursday.

As Melodie and I transported around, I simply concluded that Second Life is an interesting place. What is it that makes millions of people interact through a virtual world, with a virtual persona? Frankly, I don't really understand the appeal. Especially when it comes to "in-world" reporting.

Second life is by definition, "imagined by its residents." People are more likely to present themselves as they want to appear rather than who they really are.

Melodie, for instance, is in full ballerina attire because I have always wanted to be a ballerina. That's the kind of information you use to write a novel, not a news story.

When I learned that there are actually on-assignment, paid, full-time reporters on the Second Life beat, I was taken aback. I have trouble seeing Second Life as anything more than a thinly veiled social networking site.

How do you gauge the credibility of a story coming from an online world created by its users? I don't trust any news story that can be credited to a fox-headed avatar named Beezle Bathwater.

Second Life is too surreal to reach me as a valid news source. I want to hear stories about your first life, not your second.

I'm old school. I'm not going to deny that I'd rather watch Top Gun or an episode of Saved By the Bell than see Grey's Anatomy. I always pay cash wherever I go and enjoy a good old-fashioned game of Super Mario Bros. over any of the Halo series games. Also, computer games aren't a hobby I'm planning to pick up anytime soon.
Doom- not a fan. Sims- no thanks. Second Life- teleport back?...I think not.

The virtual world of Second Life is a game without a desired focus or goal. Yes, Second Life is a game. It has no journalistic purpose and I don't see how and why it is considered real by any means. How can people spend hours upon hours on this stuff? I found it amusing to see what Avatars people chose (especially Bradizzle Fizzle), but I don't think Second Life has anything useful about it. If I can create myself to be 6-foot-4, 220-lbs with steroid-like muscles and incredible dance moves, then you know this game lacks realism.

Yes, you can communicate with one another, buy and sell goods; but I wouldn't travel into Second Life just to be a part of a global community. More power to the people that chomp at the bit to login to Second Life. I'm not one of them and I'll just stick to the Super Nintendo.

There are a million and a half reasons why I don't like Second Life or any video game for that matter. They contribute to inactivity. They waste people's time. I could go on and on but the main reason is it just plain creeps me out.

It's not the random people who come up behind you and grope your avatar. It's not the half human half animal characters. But it is the fact that they could kill me.

When I told a friend about our assignment to experiment with Second Life he sent me a link that really got me thinking. A recent New York Times article addresses the possibility that our lives could be a simulation or virtual reality like Second Life and that these programs could become self aware. Basically your life could be someone else's Second Life.

I might have just brushed this article off but within in one hour of creating a character in Second Life his own appearance changed without me prompting it.

You have inevitably seen a movie that deals with this genre "science fiction". But according to some computer experts a computer capable of "creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems" will be available in the next 100 years. Looking at technological advances in the last ten years makes me think that estimate might not be too far off.

It's unsettling to think that nothing is real and that I have no control over my own life.
Nick Bostrum, a professor at Oxford University says that there's at least a 20 percent chance that our world is not real but rather that we are virtual puppets.

It gets worse too. What happens when a "character" becomes aware that it is a simulation? According to Bostrum's logic the simulated world would seize to exist. Why? Bostrum follows the chain of thought that if our world is simulated and we continue to make other simulated worlds such as Second Life eventually there would be a lack of processing power to fuel our virtual reality.

It may be a wacky theory but I'd rather not test it. This is why I'll never turn on Second Life again.

The good

Second Life is any 12-year-old boy's dream. He can chat with girls without fear of his voice cracking and stay in his chair for hours. Actually, guys of any age would love this world; it's similar to the video games my 24-year-old brother and his friends play.

Second Life isn't such a dream for journalists, but we can find it useful. Reporters can change their avatars' appearances to fit in with the crowd they are interviewing. This may eliminate social barriers that stand between reporters and sources in real life. A person who feels uneasy chatting with a professional in the real world may be more gutsy online.

Also, location isn't a restriction on Second Life. Moving half way across this cyber world is as easy as clicking a button, so reporters can go anywhere to find more information for their stories. Similarly, people from all over the world log on, so reporters can have sources with a variety of perspectives, expertise and backgrounds.

The bad

It's easier to lie to reporters' avatars than to their faces. Consequently, journalists may run into phony sources who claim knowledge and identities they don't really have.

A lot of what happens in this cyber world is of little interest to us while we're in the real world. Consequently, no one is going to take time to read about Second Life in the newspaper, so the interviews with people from all over the world do little good. While on Second Life, people may be interested in what's going on around them, but they won't spend a lot of time reading. They didn't log on to participate in solitary behavior; they logged on to interact with other people.

The ugly

While Second Life is cool to play with, I don't see it replacing a press conference any time soon. Holding conferences in virtual life could help spread news faster by allowing reporters in every nook and cranny of the nation to be part of the event without traveling. This would save publications a fortune, but Second Life lacks a sense of professionalism and resembles a video game too closely. While the concept was neat, I was bored with the limited visuals available during the blogHer conference.

Imagine for a moment, a virtual community where people are brought together from all corners of the world with their diversity and unique life experiences. Picture also that you are a reporter in this community and get to tell the interesting stories for why these people are in this community, what goals they have, and what they have achieved. Oh, imagine the possibilities!

Actually, you don't have to. These virtual worlds already exist, and in turn, journalists are given the opportunity through the Internet and its evolving web communities to obtain information from just about anybody, anywhere.

Virtual-world communities are similar to real-world ones, and reporting is done much like community reporters, or more so mojo journalists. Both real-world mojos and virtual-world reporters gather and filter news stories by being proactive in their communities, building a reliable network of friends, and applying their journalistic skills of integrity and impartiality to their writing.

While both are paving the way in redefining news and reporting styles, virtual-world reporters are redefining journalism, but doing so in-world from a global web community, like Second Life, as oppose to a mojo's real-world local community.

For many people, Second Life is hard to comprehend. Many people, myself included at first, question the credibility of sources in virtual worlds, where people gender and race swap, go younger or older, can mold themselves to be animals and zombie look-a-likes and pretend to be almost everything they aren't in the real-world. Yet, after watching the BlogHer teleconference on Covering a Virtual World, my skepticism faded on the usefulness of this evolving technology for reporting.

Reporters in Second Life cover a niche, like technology and business (Cybergrrl Oh and community stories. Other journalists, like (Starr Sonic), create cable programming shows, but all find stories pretty much like they do in the real world.

They use the same real-world journalism ethics in the virtual world. They act independently, seek the truth and invite dialogue. However, virtual-world reporters run into some difficulties:

• Quick deadlines.


• Have to troll through and subscribe to numerous blogs to find a story.


• Must deal with the limitations of the virtual world, such as only being allowed to join 25 groups at a time.


• Get paid poorly in U.S. dollars. (In Linden dollars, though, they can buy a lot of clothes for their avatar.)


• Technical problems with hardware can make it difficult to communicate with sources.

When a reporter gets passed these challenges, gets a hang of the virtual world, and the operating of their avatar, reporting is easy and enjoyable, according to Cybergrrl Oh and 57 Miles.

A reporter even has the opportunity of finding sources for real-world news stories in-world as well. BlogHer editor, Kim Pearson (SL name: Khadijah Burali), went into a Reuters' news lounge the day after Suddam Hussein was executed and started a conversation with a Iranian graduate student who was living in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. This interaction was the equivalent of a man-on-the-street interview, but was a valuable interview that she wouldn't have been able to get without Second Life and its ability to bring a global community together.

Journalsim in Second Life has its challenges and critics, but as a journalist, I can see the benefits in being teleported anywhere to be connected instantly to people from around the world. Through virtual worlds, journalists are able to access national and global stories that they wouldn't be able to get from where they are in the real-world. The question of whether virtual-world reporting is cutting edge and will make history or not is still being determimed, (and I am not sure myself) but inevitably, I think that virtual-world reporting is evolving journalism by developing a new journalistic approach.

Hi, I'm Sam, and I'm an addict. Or, I was.

Way back in the pay-per-hour days of America Online, circa 1994, I used to run up ridiculous bills playing an online multiplayer game – I was addicted to it.

And back in my day, we didn't have fancy graphics. Our fantasy scrolled on in line after line of text. Imagination worked overtime conjuring images of spells and knights and trolls. It was like living in a J.R.R. Tolkien novel, but ten times more engrossing, because there was no end.

That was the Golden Age. But the fantastic collaboration of so many imaginations began to break down, as one by one the imaginations fell victim to greed and became zombies.

What happened? Instead of manually typing in commands, players replaced their own input with a scripting program.

Then they'd leave their computers while their in-world characters performed endless chains of commands, returning to find a stronger, richer character.

But character by character the world became weaker and poorer. There was no one left to interact, no one to roleplay.

The rise of scripting eventually eroded the quality of the experience so much that the whole point of the game—to have fun imaginative experiences—was lost.

Well, it's 2007, and 3D graphics have replaced text and the thousands have turned into thousands of thousands. But, surprisingly, the spread of zombies continues throughout online worlds.

When I log into Second Life, I see droves of avatars that appear viable in world, but are, in fact, "zombies." What are they after now? This time, it's real money.

10,000 Lindens was about $35 the last time I checked. With camping benches that pay just 2 Lindens every 10 minutes, it would take about 34.7 days to get 10,000 Lindens.

35 bucks a month isn't too bad a deal.

But imagine if you had 10 different characters logged into Second Life. Imagine if you had 100.

I'll take $3,500 a month. Hell, I'll even quit my job. Sure, it's a bit dramatic, but this motivation is real.

And this motivation spawns millions of avatars that have no actual mind behind them. They're asleep. Zombies.

And they hold the potential to erode Second Life like any other online world.

There will always be a place to find richly textured characters in Second Life, but they are truly going to be the diamond in the rough, and active users will have to seek them out one at a time. Meanwhile, millions of avatars will be collecting their paychecks, 2 Lindens every 10 minutes.

Your roommate exercises all the time. She runs, does the StairMaster, works on the elliptical, rides the bike and attends fitness classes. She does all of this for hours a day in order to burn more calories than she eats. She may even mentally calculate the number of calories she takes in per meal and snack. She feels pangs of guilt after eating one more chip or having dessert after dinner. But, it will all be okay when she takes her nightly run around the neighborhood for an hour or two.

Your roommate's dedication to fitness and nutrition is a healthy habit, but the extreme way she has gone about it is dangerous. Most likely her friends commend her for her self-discipline and commitment to excercise, but they aren't aware that her behaviors are signs of a serious condition. Your roommate is suffering from the newest type of eating disorder called exercise bulimia.

The psychological disorder was identified just over a decade ago. It affects mostly women and is difficult to notice. In a society where skinny is in, however, it's no wonder people are excercising excessively to look like the models and celebrities they see on TV. Everywhere you turn there's a magazine article or a makeover show that deals with getting people looking great and feeling great by making them hotter and skinnier.

Then, there are network news stations that bring to light American's growing childhood obesity problem and obesity, in general. While information about obesity is helpful to fight it, it also feeds into society's call for its members to get off the couch and hit the gym. Thus, it feeds the skinny frenzy.

Many young women are self-conscious and unhappy with their bodies. They are impressionable and have an overwhelming desire to be pretty or media beautiful.

Dove recently launched the Campaign for Real Beauty to teach girls and women that the "perfect images" they see on TV, billboards and magazines are not real life. With movements like this one, our society is one step closer to stopping people from running themselves sick by trying to live up to these fake standards. They get them to realize that our perception of beauty has been skewed.

Note: I have had two roommates who have suffered from eating disorders. I know firsthand that they are very serious conditions. If you believe someone close to you shows signs of an eating disorder, contact the Wellness Resource Center, located inside Watkins Memorial Health Center, for more information on the diseases.

So as most people on our fine campus probably know, "U" defeated "State" in football this weekend. I didn't go to the game, declining to purchase a $70 ticket for the privilege of sitting amongst the largest gathering of Kansas yokels since the NASCAR race the weekend before. (Attaboy, Biffle!) I know, how could I turn down a chance to go to Manhattan (KS), right? Instead, I chose the comfort of my home, the company of a few friends, and the consumption of a few too many Miller Lites and way too many slices of pepperoni, beef and onion pizza.

Of course, the friends, food, beer, yokels, ticket prices and the general unpleasantness of Manhattan weren't the only reasons I chose to stay at home. There was still one very important factor that played into my decision to forgo personally witnessing the biggest win for Jayhawk football in two decades - I needed my Internet.

You see, I'm a member of the Jayhawk Slant. It's a Web site that provides in-depth coverage of KU football and basketball. While its coverage of the games and players is nice, it's the recruiting info and message boards that compels me to cough up $10 per month for membership. If I'm not at the games, I'm on the Slant. It's an addiction.

And I'm not the only one. Immediately after the game, over 500 KU fans were logged on to the Slant, expressing their joy via the "Memorial Stadium Suite" premium message board. Early in the basketball season last year, nearly 1,500 KU fans were on the Slant to vent their rage after the Hawks' embarrassing loss to Oral Roberts. KSU's site blows away these numbers. On April 5 of last year, on the day the basketball head coach Bob Huggins announced his resignation after one year, over 5,000 angry, drunk K-Staters vomited their venom into their Internet machines.

The popularity of Internet communities to sports fans shouldn't be surprising. The Internet has largely grown up around the intense fandom associated with niche genres, such as fantasy clubs, gamers, puppy/kitten enthusiasts and porn. Given the extreme popularity of sports in America, it's no surprise that many fans are willing to pony up a fee each month just for the privilege of speaking to like-minded people and/or to textually harass their rivals.

While I'm definitely not breaking new ground here, Web sites like Jayhawk Slant provide a valuable insight to news organizations on the behaviors and interests of Internet audiences, and how best to appeal to those interests and create a passion in your product. Most people want to belong to a community of like-minded people with similar interests, passions and goals. Many of these people will even be willing to pay for this. Only when news organizations can find a way to tap into this feeling of community will they be able to harness the full potential of the online medium.

And while you, the reader, ponder the deep and insightful words I just crapped out, I'm going to check the Slant for the 13th time today. Rock Chalk.

Last Halloween my friend dressed up as Facebook.

That's a pretty scary costume when you think about it. Granted, no child has woken up screaming because she thought there was a social networking site under her bed, but as I get older and older I understand that unrestrained displays of public information are a lot more frightening than the boogeyman.

The popularity of personal profile Web sites like Facebook have exploded over the past few years. A lot of users get duped into thinking there's some element of privacy to it. The truth is, there isn't.

I am thrilled by the worldwide accessibility of the Web, and I can recognize all the potential benefits of belonging to a network like Facebook or MySpace. By the same token I'm not so naive that I'm going to trust them with information I wouldn't give to my doctor or photos I wouldn't show to my grandma. But a lot of people would.

These sites are so socially stimulated that anonymity is all to often sacrificed for popularity. Personal profiles are accessible worldwide. That means anyone can see anything you post, from your pictures to your address. Taking it a step further, once you've posted something onto the blogosphere, it will spiral away and out of your control forever.

Incriminating photos and distasteful profiles are costing graduates their jobs as well. It's not difficult for employers to gain access to profiles and screen applicants based on what they're willing to publicly display. For a lot of users, that's a lot.

So what is it about these sites that makes us feel so protected? The fact that we need a password to get on? The clean blue and white design? The overall juvenile tone that includes "sheep throwing" applications? Whatever it is, it's not there to decieve, but it can lure you into a false sense of security.

Follow the ad council's advice and think before you post. On a positive note, maybe while you're thinking you'll come up with a good Halloween costume. This year, I'm thinking chat room.

It's been a long time since I was in elementary school, but I still know the "Reading Rainbow" theme song by heart. I always loved books, and I still do today. You really can be anywhere and be anything when you read. The benefits of reading are clear. Not to mention, the literacy rate in the United States is 99 percent. People should be picking up a book… right?

This is why the fact that fewer than half of American adults read literature astounds me. Even worse, the number of adults who read any type of book at all (hey, a trashy romance novel has to count for something) is also declining dramatically, according to the National Endowment for the Arts. As of 2002, about 44 percent of the population didn't even read a single book in 12 months. And while women appear to be reading more than men (go girls!), female readership is still declining. Things have not improved in the past five years. One in four adults didn't read a single book last year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

Now for the part that really ticks me off: the NEA reports that over the past 20 years, young adults (18-24) have gone from being the age group most likely to read to the least likely. How did this happen?

The NEA report blamed the Internet, movies and television. That makes sense. This doesn't spell doom for reading though; there are still glimmers of hope for book worms like me. One that shines the brightest is the e-book.

Yes, books are going digital and Google is at the forefront with about 10 million books per year. Just take a look at books.google.com. I guarantee you will find something you like. To me, the idea of an e-book sounds ridiculous. To other people, it's probably awesome. A digital book is portable (because a real book certainly isn't), you don't have to trek through six library floors to find it, it's great for research and the potential of hyperlinking texts together (I'll admit) is pretty cool.

Are books going to become extinct? No. Is the way we look at them and what we even consider to be a "book" going to change? Yes. And as long as people start reading again, I'm ok with that.

I knew I had a good idea brewing when I woke up that July morning, but I didn't know it would become my passion--my obsession, really. After a trip to New Orleans in June to rebuild from Hurricane Katrina, I was frustrated. My inability to properly swing a hammer limited progress. The lack of positive coverage focused on this ravaged region bothered me. I knew I could somehow make a difference, but it wasn't until one morning that everything just clicked. I was going to make a documentary about volunteers who rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding areas. I didn't know how, I just knew I had to do it.

Now, I'm in the business of hope. After opening a business account, I realized I was going to be spearheading more than just some flights down South. Project: Katrina Hope began to morph into an entire organization, with word-of-mouth bringing e-mails to my inbox. It became more than a documentary; it became a mission to send volunteers to rebuild. The creation of the Web site was a push into the deep end of the pool for me. I didn't understand a proper layout…I just wanted people to become aware of the mission.

So many opportunities have already presented themselves through Project: Katrina Hope. I get to travel to a city I love for three weeks next year, shooting volunteers in action and allowing them to tell the stories of what inspired them to bring hope to people still struggling. I am overwhelmed to open my mailbox and find a $50 or $100 donation on a weekly basis. We have "Hurricane Change" fundraisers in two states. I have connected with hundreds of people who are willing to help in some way and just as many who want to volunteer and restore New Orleans. My parents are sometimes concerned that I'm missing out on my youth by sitting in front of the computer, soliciting helpers for my organization. I would say that I'm incredibly lucky to have found out so early on what motivates me and gives me the determination to see this project to completion. My pride, my joy, is Project: Katrina Hope.

I thought Jayhawk football games were intense and exciting… wow was I wrong. I spent my first trip ever to the lovely state of Texas, where everything is bigger and better, during the infamous Red River Rivalry, Texas vs. OU football game. If you thought KU and Mizzou were intense rivals, y'all ain't seen nothin' yet!

I'll admit I never understood what it is about football that gets Texans so hot and bothered, but now I get it. Texas football is the epitome of exciting college football. It's hard to explain but, Texans have a love for the Longhorns greater than any other love for a college team.

Now of course the Longhorns vs. Sooners game just wouldn't be the same without the Texas State Fair! Come on Kansas… let's get a state fair for our long-standing rivalry football games. Who wouldn't agree that Fletcher's corny dogs, a cold Coors Light and whirly whip around rides operated by carnies makes for an even better time? That's the ultimate.

Here's the thing: football is a big deal in Texas, and most people just don't get it. There was a time when I didn't understand why. Then, I went to the biggest football game that Texas only sees once a year, and now I get it. If you want to experience true college football with the whole sha-bang, you need to go to this game. The disgustingly over-priced game ticket is totally worth it. I promise.

I can actually say I was quite sad to see Texas loose. I'll still cheer for you Longhorns (until you play KU that is).

If you ask me to write about anything, it's always going to be sports. If you ask me to write about one team it's always going to be the Royals. Not the most pressing issue in the world but definitely the one I think about a majority of my time.

People talk about love at first sight, but my love affair with the Royals began as more of an overwhelm you with gifts so you have no choice but to love me moment. The first game I ever attended was Game 7 of the 1985 World Series when the Royals defeated the Cardinals.

I was three months old and dressed in a full Royals uniform. I was brought to the game by my parents who spent the better part of the game chasing around TV cameras trying to get me on TV.

The reason I bring this up now is because it's October, Major League Baseball playoff season, and my Royals haven't been back to the playoffs since that night in 1985. The Royals haven't even sniffed the playoffs in 22 years. Making it worse, I live with a Yankee fan who is now complaining that they have made the playoffs seven years in a row without winning the whole thing. Oh, what I would give to have just one of those years.

I'll watch Arizona and Colorado fight to go to the World Series this year and lament the fact that neither of these teams even existed when the Royals last made the playoffs. It's like watching my little brother take the prettiest girl in the school to prom while I don't even have a date. Why does everyone else have all the luck?

But I can't stop loving them. Over the years the Royals have broken my heart and they've often made me laugh. They've made me believe right before they pulled the chair out from under me as they head towards another 100-loss season. Having a girlfriend is like a merry-go-round compared to the roller coaster of being a Royals fan.

And I wouldn't have it any other way...

It's now 15 days since the Royals season ended and I've already convinced myself they will make the playoffs next year. They played over .500 from June to September this season and their young. They have players on the team who are younger than I am and their starting to play the game the right way. They play hard, play defense and actually have pitching for the first time in a decade.

Yes, next year is the year! The year of the Royals, when it all comes together! Next year the Royals will do it! No, seriously, it has to be! Doesn't it...?

I love Perez Hilton- I'll openly admit it (ignore, for a moment, my previous vlog about celebrity obsession). I think his blog is funny, it's updated frequently and it's easy to navigate. Plus, he has pink hair. The online community must agree with me too, because he won one Bloggie this year, was nominated for several other categories and is in Technorati's top 20 most popular blogs.

What puts a blogger or vlogger on the A-list?

• Readership/viewership. My boy Perez has more than 75,000 people linking to his blog. The number one blog has more than 800,000.
• The nerd factor. That number one blog I just mentioned is Engadget, a blog all about new technology. Need I say more?
• Content. Blogs like the Huffington Post draw people in with their commentary. Frequent updates help a lot.
• Weird but cool. PostSecret, winner of Weblog of the Year, is definitely worth checking out.
• Stickiness. Does anyone really know what Boing Boing is? I'm not sure, but I got sucked into that abyss for hours.

Each of the blogs I referenced meet almost all if not all of the above criteria. A vlog like Ask a Ninja is another good example. Sadly, my blog doesn't really meet any of them. I'm definitely on the D-list, if not the J-list.

But just because a blog isn't on the A-list doesn't mean it isn't good. I'm proud of what I've done. Hey, Kathy Griffin may be on the celebrity D-list but she's still a multi-millionaire (and damn funny).

Three lessons I learned from Second Life:

Lesson 1: There is still no substitute for face-to-face communication.

One of the first lessons I learned in reporting was that the easiest way to get a good source was to call them on the phone or show up at their door. Seeing your face or hearing your voice makes it more difficult to say no and will always lead to better interviews than E-mail or any other online source.

Second life's version of this provides virtual face-to-virtual face communication. I can see another person in front of me but I can't hear their voice or see the expressions on their face as I ask questions. There are many new technologies that make reporting easier. The web allows instant contact with anyone in the world but it can't give the same emotion that a face-to-face interview can.

Lesson 2: Nobody wants to talk to a six-foot tall fox.

If Second Life taught me anything it was what it is like to be a minority. I made the mistake of making myself a fox when I first created my character and found out later I had no way of changing this.

I would go up to talk to people and they would quickly walk away. I even had one guy tell me to leave. He said quote, "Bradizzle Fizzle, it's a little to crowded in here. Can you teleport somewhere else." I looked around, saw nobody else in the room and got the hint.

I was the virtual world Rodney Dangerfield, I get no respect.

Lesson 3: I just don't get it.

I'll be honest and say I may be missing something. I just couldn't grasp the utility of Second Life. I like to think of myself as up on technology. I mean, I do have my own blog and I got the new iPod as soon as it came out. I just couldn't see it with Second Life.

I've seen my roommate sit on World of Warcraft for 5 hours a day and thought about what else he could do with his time. But at least with Warcraft I could see that what he was doing had some point and some goal to achieve. Second life has none...

It's useful for communicating but there are so many other options out there. Facebook atleast gives you a way to confirm your source really exists and as far as I know phone calls are still an effective tool.

Maybe that's why they call it Second Life because much like my first life it's just full of people standing around trying to find their place in the world.

I've said it before in this blog, and I'll say it again. I love the Ask a Gay Man vlog. It's my guilty pleasure. Why am I addicted to this fashion guru? He inevitably uses an expletive that typically irritates me in the first ten seconds of his vlog. By dwelling on fashion he promotes materialism and self-obsession and I wear whatever is clean and try to live minimally. So why can't I get enough? The simple answer: William Sledd is entertaining, charismatic and funny. That's all it takes for a blog to make my A list. Take me away from my everyday problems and make me chuckle in the process, and your blog will be book marked on my computer.

I'm certainly not alone in this practice of turning to trivial blogs to escape the harsh reality of life. We just have to turn to the Bloggie Awards for proof of this. This year's winner of the Best Entertainment Weblog is just smut. It's like gossip that floods the halls of middle schools. And like middle schooolers, we get feel better about ourselves by criticizing others and trying to bring them to our level. Go Fug Yourself is hardly alone. Other popular blogs, such as Gawker, put a gossip angle on the news to make learning about the day's happenings juicier and more inviting.

The winner of this year's Bloggie Weblog of the Year, PostSecret, is another example that people turn to blogs to escape reality. They use this blog to send in what they really want to say out loud.

As Shel Israel, a social media consultant, said, the most popular bloggers start a conversation. And the more superficial and trivial the conversation topic is, the better the dialogue will be.

When you think of people who are on the A-List, some names come to mind: Tiger Woods, Brad Pitt and Madonna. Athletes, movie stars and music icons usually lead the list of who can skip the lines and not pay a cover charge. But what about bloggers? How do they reach the red carpet in their online world? Well, it's through the Bloggie Awards or the OSCARs of the Weblog.

I don't know much about the Alexa Rankings, which measures traffic trends for Web sites; but by looking at winners of the Vloggies (People's Choice of the best of the best) I saw some interesting perspectives about different subjects. Nontourage for example won the Best Female Vlogger as well as Best Original Music. The vlogosphere is rapidly evolving where anyone can find themselves at the Vloggie Awards.

Here is a list of some people associated with top blogs you haven't heard of: Joanne Colan (Rocketboom), Brian Conley (Alive in Baghdad) and Kent Nichols/Douglas Sarine (Ask a Ninja) are household names in the world of blogs. The creation of these vlogs are popular in their own right in the online community, but it's the appeal to a different crowd that makes them stand out.

Soon one day Colan, Conley, Nichols and Sarine will be synonymous with Tiger, Bradgelina and Madonna. Who knows maybe the A-List might be known as the B-List (or BlogList) from now on. So save a spot for the bloggers on the celebrity scene because the VIP treatment is right around the corner.

Last week, my journalism professor told the class that we would be responsible for blogging about what it takes to be an A-list blog. It seemed like an impossible task. I have only been blogging for 6 weeks. (That's only 6 blogs.) How I am suppose to know what it takes to be on the blog hot-list when I am having a hard enough time finding a consistent, original voice, or my own for that matter?

In the interest of my grade, I started doing some research. He suggested that we look through Web site ranking sites, like Alexa, and the winners of weblog awards. So here's what I came up with:

Blogging is a means of communication that anyone can use as they please. But to blog the best takes more than simplying knowing how to write, it's a craft. You have to be passionate, risky, consistent, provocative, humourous, and for the better, more than one of these characteristics.

Some of the best blogs I saw, or that kept my attention the longest, were Postsecret, Say No to Crack and Go Fug Yourself. Their topics range from revealing people's true feelings, humor and celebrity fashion flaws.

To be an A-list blog, even temporarily, I believe it takes adding your own flare to the page and your writing in a relatable, entertaining and unique way. Blogging is mainly about getting information out and stating your opinions. So when you write what you really think, in whatever form that may be, as straightforward and as understandable as possible, people will take notice and interest.

A-list blogs also draw interesting commentary through their content. Their posts have people returning to their sites daily because they are intrigued by what they have said and are eager to see what they say next. Mainly, an A-list blog, from what I can see, are the ones where the blogger blogs his/her heart out.

The regrettably famous pop artist Andy Warhol once said, "Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes." Pop culture is littered with the corpses of the briefly-famous, completely mediocre individuals that, for one reason or another, captured the fleeting attention span of the public long enough to eventually become a humorous trivia question.

As blogging has begun its entrance into the mainstream, it also has succumbed to the fickle pressures of pop culture. Many bloggers engage in the medium for nothing more than Warhol's 15 minutes, or to be all "Web 2.0" about it, 15 seconds (give or take) of fame. Unfortunately, as is the case with "artists" that paint soup cans different colors and become praised as geniuses, the "A-List" of blogging celebrity is largely made up of forgettable fluff-masters that carve wordplay into cute but empty diatribes on the dumbed-down debate of the day. (And there's absolutely no irony in that sentence, you cynical bastards.)

Naturally, the formula for attaining A-list status in the blogging world is very similar to the recipe for fleeting fame in other pop culture mediums:

- Find a general topic that will appeal to your niche market (sports, celebrities, politics or relationships always work - extra points for combos!).

- Make lots of jokes, even if they aren't the least bit funny (see: Dane Cook).

- Try to incorporate photos/video of attractive women, babies, animals, baby animals, or attractive women holding funny-looking baby animals.

- It helps if you can write well, but this isn't required.

And voila! You're the new Wonkette! Time.com will be calling soon with a job offer.

Now, of course, there are many exceptions to the rule. Some A-list bloggers actually incorporate, you know, substance into their work. Some famous blogs actually rose up to A-list status due to their quality content and their ability to spread information that can actually inform and improve humanity. But, much to this blogger's chagrin, blogging fame seems to be doled out in the same indiscriminate, soul-crushing fashion as Warhol's 15 minutes are distributed in other galaxies of the pop culture universe. For every "Knocked Up" that is produced, there's like a million "Good Luck Chucks." So it goes.

Perhaps the best method to enjoy today's top pop blogs is the same way people admired Warhol's art back in his heyday: ingest huge amounts of psychedelics and act like an giant asshole. Looks like I'm already halfway there.*

*For the record, I was referring to the "act like a giant asshole" part. I say no to drugs.