February 2008 Archives

So, I was reading Revelations in the Bible last Tuesday, as I do every Tuesday, and I believe I've come to my own epiphany: Steve Jobs is the Beast of the Sea, the False Prophet, the Antichrist.

Only a deal with the devil could put your whole life into a small device with an eight-hour battery and exactly thirteen babies' souls. Neat! And now it comes in 16 gigs of memory.

The great thing about Steve Jobs (and I'll get to the point soon, I promise) is that, though his deal with the devil has inevitably sealed his soul in Hell for all eternity, the hand basket he'll be riding down will have sleek titanium walls, will be thinner, lighter, and have GPS.

Say what you will though, people are on top of their news and media more now than ever before. My friends went on a spur-of-the-moment road trip last week and without so much as packing a bag or hitting up Mapquest, they grabbed a handful of underwear, their toiletries and their iPhones.

Fifteen minutes on the road and they had their trip mapped out, weather conditions for the next three states, and traffic conditions for the next 300 miles, all while listening to ABBA in full stereo (I know, real geigh).

With information so readily available, where goes the news media? Will I want to look at Katie Couric's annoying-ass face anymore? Not if I can help it. In fact, with $400 I'll never see her again.

I don't think the iPhone or any other PDA/cell phone will ever replace ALL media, just certain aspects. You can get your news 24/7 but who do you think is bringing it to you? It certainly isn't Steve Jobs, he's shopping for sex toys so he can ready himself to be Hitler's lady friend. The news will now and forever (a very long while), be brought to you by reporters.

If only there was one extra hour in every day. Why can't we ever accomplish everything in one day? The truth is there isn't enough time in a day.

America's on the move. We thrive on busy lives. If you have extra time on your hands, then let's be honest- you've got an unhealthy problem.

With the invention of personal electronic devices like iPhones, we now have a companion to help set the pace for our busy lives.

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 24% of people DON'T use their cell phones to perform Internet searches but would like to. As the need for these electronic devices grows, so do the expectations. Before we know it, you will be able to use your electronic device to purchase things, lock your front door and probably even scratch your back. Oh wait, these things are already in the makes (well, hopefully not that last one).

The average Internet user spends less than one minute on each internet page. Web pages have to be extremely eye catching to make someone want to spend even a minute of their life on it. But first of all, let's think about these iPhone features. The screen is the size of your palm. So surfing the net is even more difficult than the average computer. But we rely on these little devices to be available anytime, anywhere.

This only adds pressure to, say, the online news business. The Internet already made the business more quick-paced with constant updates. Now these little iPhones are going to require the online news business to work like speed demons. If the Internet is available anytime and anywhere, and the average user spends less time on each page, then online news needs to find ways to not only update their information quicker, but present it in an easy way where you can read all you need on that teeny screen.

With the world in your hands (almost literally), online news needs to react and adapt. So get moving, and fast. Because in the time it took you to read this blog, the average Internet user would have visited about three Web sites already (or maybe is still trying to zoom in and out to read the news on their iPhone).

Being vertically challenged and somewhat clumsy, sports have never really been my thing. By a fluke of good luck I made varsity tennis in high school, so that's about the only sport I follow. Now, if I want to know what's going on with my favorite tennis hottie Andy Roddick, all I need to do is visit his Web site. Not only will I find a feed of the latest news, but also his personal blog, exclusive photos, and a proshop where I can buy a steamy autographed 2008 calendar. Yes, please.

The Web is allowing athletes and teams to cut out sports journalists by combining reporting, paparazziesque photos, gift shops and forums all into one outlet. How does a sports reporter compete with that? In the past, journalists have remained a reliable source for sports news because of their knowledge of the game and an unbiased, yet witty approach. But with sites such as bleacherreport.com that turn fans into sports experts, it's difficult for a hardworking reporter to stay in the game.

However, ESPN seems to have this puzzle figured out. When reporter/blogger Henry Abbot headed to New Orleans for the NBA All-Star game Sunday, he had a request for his readers: help me. Abbot asked people to contribute to a public wiki to make sure all the "best articles, blog posts, video, and original anecdotes about what's happening in New Orleans" got covered. And…it worked. By connecting the reporter directly with the audience, this Web site initiated discussion and linked readers to legitimate sports articles by reporters from various news outlets.

Maybe ESPN really stands for Extremely Smart People who Network. Or, maybe they just got lucky. Either way, sports and news journalists everywhere should take note. By networking online reporters can engage their audience, without letting them take over, and they can also acquire an endless supply of story ideas and readership.

As long as sports journalists continue to step up their skills and embrace the changes in media and technology, they can remain a strong competitor in the game of web vs. reporters.

In three months, my journalism degree and I will be unloosed upon the world in all our glory. In three months, I'll start worrying in earnest about finding a job in my field. And hey, the Web is the place to be! It's the hip news medium of the future, right? That's what I keep hearing, anyway. But what if my brilliant career as an online journalist is doomed from the get-go because of the Web's very nature as an interactive medium? Will the unwashed masses eventually figure out that they don't need us and start producing the news themselves? Gasp! What a horrible thought!

Yeah, and probably one that will never be a total reality. Let's face it; no matter how important citizen journalism is (and I do think it's important to our media landscape), people have come to expect certain standards as far as content and writing quality go. No one wants to read text that looks like a bunch of preteens chatting on their Myspace pages except for those preteens (believe me, every time I time I end up at a site with writing like that I click the "back" button post-haste).

One of the Web's great strengths -- that of allowing any and everyone to become a writer and post their work for all to see -- therefore, is also one of its great weaknesses. It doesn't have a copy editor. It doesn't have someone to run around verifying facts, spellings and math for it. The Web also has a convenient screen of anonymity. That person claiming to be a lawyer, doctor or what-have-you might be telling the truth, or he might be Joe Jackson sitting in his basement wearing fluffy bunny slippers. So in the end, who are you going to believe? The guy in the slippers, or the people who get paid to get it right and are fired if they get it wrong or fake it? I'd answer the latter, every time.

I sat second row at the Orange Bowl and I can guarantee that I wasn't the only one providing up-to-date game coverage.

ESPN's Web site is my homepage. I like ESPN because it sheds a different light on sports coverage. But ESPN and other sports media companies are going to have to rethink things if they want to stay alive against team and league Web sites.

With the popularity of the Web and Web-savy entrepreneurs, companies like ESPN had to think of original ways to gain readership. ESPN offers up-to-date coverage via Web and text messaging. It turned to hiring well-known names like Rick Reilley. Its prior success isn't enough. It wants the names and the talent behind its company.

But how far is talent going to get ESPN? Is fame going to make viewers neglect team and league Web sites and the competition they offer to the big wigs? Is talent going to make them want to wait, even if just a few seconds, for a story when they can get breaking coverage elsewhere?

ESPN provides unique talent behind stories with original style written by well known writers. But talent alone won't get ESPN the viewers; maybe just win a little respect in the end.

I go to ESPN first for sports coverage. But where does the average viewer go? Why do viewers go to team and league Web sites? The quicker coverage postings? Content may matter to people like myself but it's the facts that are beginning to matter more, not just the quality or talent behind a story.

As sad as it is for me to hear in a world of journalism, talent or "fame" may not always be the answer. If I provided instant coverage from the Orange Bowl, would you have read my story or wanted the innovative skills of the big wigs?

Very sneaky, Uncle Rick. Asking us whether the Web will replace sports journalists, when we're still struggling to define "the Web" and "journalists" (and maybe even "sports").

Let's say the Web is compared to a non-stop flight between the fans (in New York) and their favorite star athlete/team (in Lawrence, Kan.) with sports journalism just being that inconvenient stopover in Connecticut.

Well, then, Barry Bonds is innocent (according to Barry Bonds).

And there was never anything rotten in Durham since in 1,295 press releases, the first ones to address the lacrosse controversy were on April 11, 2007, when the players were cleared of all charges (according to the official Duke Athletics website). Of course, anyone just following the situation on the Duke website might be a little bit confused by these sudden victorious posts, as nothing about the situation was mentioned earlier.

But at least, little Tom can talk directly with Ben Gordon on his MySpace, or if that's not enough, he can follow BG on his personal website.

And if, by chance and not wishing anything bad to come to him, Gordon does screw up, I am sure that he will use both of these outlets to accurately report all sides of the story.

Here come the journalists (aka the stopover in Connecticut where there's probably five inches of snow and one hour turns into four…).

Are journalists really as inconvenient as all that? In an age where all relevant statistical information on a team can readily be found on their site, the commentary of the players can be found on their sites and Digger Phelps is hailed for his opinion, why does sports journalism still exist?

Because a huge part of sport is opinion. And passion. And rumors. And bashing Missouri. What does all that sound like? I'll give you a hint: it starts with a "b" and rhymes with "Phog."

Someone once made a case that bloggers are journalists, too. And bloggers are doing a pretty good job of sharing commentary and opinion and passion and rumors and bashing MU. They even set up interviews and exchange opinions with other bloggers as was the case with Rock Chalk Talk and Bring on the Cats prior to the KU-KState matchup at Allen West. Sometimes this "amateur" commentary is even more enlightened than that of paid professionals *cough*ESPN*cough*.

Sports journalism isn't going away. It's just changing like all other aspects of media. And just like sports has been on the cutting edge of new media in the past, it still is today.

Of course, if I want to know what time the game is on Saturday, I'll go to kuathletics.com. But if I want to know if anyone else thinks the ‘Hawks looked a little sluggish against Colorado, I'll read Mark Dent or any one of the seven blogs on kusports.com or any one of the 774,000 on Google.

So maybe the new sport journalism isn't like that inconvenient stopover in Connecticut, maybe it's more like getting on the plane and finding out that everyone else is also a fan of your favorite team.

P.S. Google search "MU Tigers blogs" - there are only 214,000.

Where, oh where, have my sports highlights gone? The internet – that's where. I used to be able to flip to SportsCenter at 10 P.M. and find out everything I wanted to know about my hometown teams, but that has since become a thing of the past. If I want to be sure I get the score from the Suns game, I better be ready to check the Arizona Republic's website. And for that matter, I'm sure I will find video highlights and extra game notes that SportsCenter couldn't give me.

The shift from print, to television, and finally to the internet doesn't just affect sports writers. We've all heard it over and over again, to be a successful journalist you better be able to write, shoot, and edit. Heck, if you want to be really good you should probably be able to post your stuff online. The internet has totally eliminated the need for the middle-man. Now all you need to be a journalist is a camera phone, pen, and paper.

Convergence has been knocking on our doorstep for some time and we are now beginning to see how multi-dimensional journalists can be. My favorite TV station at home employs a KU grad just to cover online-exclusive news. I talked to Nat this summer and she says that even though she works with other online people, she is responsible for putting together her own packages (hmm sounds like what we do here in 692).

The reality is that people are spending more and more time online and getting their news from multiple sources. We no longer need TV stations or newspapers to be the gatekeepers of what is or isn't news. The internet allows anyone and everyone to decide what needs to be put online and the technology to do this is only making it easier. Sports media may be the guinea pig for all of this, but rest assured that everyone else is following in their footsteps.

When I was in junior high, I wanted to make a statement and achieve something that no other girl had ever accomplished. So, instead of joining the volleyball squad, I played football.

By that, I don't mean a "powder puff league," or touch or flag football – I'm talking knock-you-on-your-ass full contact football. I loved it so much as a seventh grader, I even played again my eighth grade year.

In college I entered the field of journalism to pursue my love for sports and writing, hoping to join the ranks of Linda Cohn and Robin Roberts. I got my feet wet as an assistant for The Wichita Eagle sports desk. I also gained much experience as a sports beat reporter for The Sunflower. I saw my dreams slowly taking place. I couldn't have been happier.

But through the last couple of years, I have seen the evolution (revolution?) unfolding. I realized I could be more than just a rambling talking head on TV, giving my daily insight to the highlights of the day. I began to understand that most sports reporters' opinions were like butt holes – every body has one. Everybody says it, writes it, and has poll results that confirm it.

Jeff Jarvis took a crack at this question last year: If you think about it logically, sports are most vulnerable to online. They require up-to-the-minute, highly targeted, multimedia, interactive reaction. Sports scores are a commodity. Beat reporters are expensive and useless in today's world of live streaming.

Today, anybody can be a columnist. Sportingo.com is a community and news forum for sports fans by sports fans. People who know sports best can submit their opinions and articles to be edited and published by professionals. The site currently focuses on European soccer and tennis, but the concept is a standard for sports journalism.

Sports bloggers are leading a movement against the ho-hum nature of traditional journalism. But if they can do it in their own free time, with as much passion as an athlete during the game, then why is it such a bad thing for them to say the things that need to be said, yet a professional journalist could be fired for?

I sat for several minutes trying to think of a clever way to begin an article on sports journalism with little to no avail. Okay, let's not kid ourselves, I sat for at least 45 minutes, sipping my doubleshot espresso, so that I could hate my ideas in fast forward all while making a noose out of my scarf hoping the sheer panic of impending death would inspire a breakthrough.

Continuing with honesty, I never once in my life desired to be an athlete, and (maybe a bit more surprising) I never wanted to be a journalist. I still have no desire to do either. I'd much rather be opinionated, write novels, paint and sculpt works of art and be drunk on wine with my pet penguin by at least 11 a.m.

Though I study in the journalism field I've always seen myself a bit more of an artist than a go-getter man-in-the-field. To add to the discomfort that sports journalism provides me, the very idea of being in a dugout with overweight men resembling the Geico cavemen, makes me want to zest my testicles with a cheese greater or forcibly peel my fingernails off with pliers.

I'm sure, being as far removed from the sports world as I am, I don't realize the competitive fast-paced industry of sports journalism, though I can't imagine I'm alone in the discomfort of being surrounded by tectonic morons an ogres day in and day out. There will always be the few and the select that desire the on-the-road lifestlye. These men deserve the jobs that are out there.

Those who decidedly stay home and just listen to rumor and chatter, attempting to take these brave mens' careers will never have the depth of journalism the men in the locker rooms are getting. Leave the reporting to the hard working men on the field, leave the opinions to the bloggers. It's not our place to take the jobs of the men shoving microphones in athletes' faces, unless we're willing to get off our asses and...

Rick Reilly, Bill Simmons, Joe Posnanski, three reasons why sports journalists will never be considered irrelevant. Telling a story and creating images with words is what these men do best. They can create emotion by telling a different side to a story. The thing about them is that they use sports as the subject of their stories. The majority of the people that read their articles get them in magazines and newspapers.

Sports journalism has transitioned from being statistics and data to being another way to express artistic talents. Gone are the days of sports shows that only show the scores and the statistics. In present day "Real World", sports shows give the viewer a reason to watch television. They have video montages displaying phenomenal plays of the week and stories about people who have overcome huge obstacles to persevere through sports. All of this comes about because we the people of the United States and the rest of the world have sports journalists out there who care about getting a different story to us, the fans. There are so many feel good stories out there involving athletes that get overshadowed by all the negative things going on in the world. Many of the positive acts that they do, get overshadowed by the negative acts that take place and by the amount of money that athletes make. Every so often though, one person takes their time to find a story that will inspire thousands of people to take action, and it's those stories that make sports journalists indispensable.

The internet can't replace these fixtures as the new middleman, it just doesn't work. It doesn't go sport, internet, story. It goes story, journalist, journalistic expression. Sports is one entity that will never be relevant if people aren't involved.

Sports journalists aren't going anywhere. They can't, without them there is nothing else to sports besides the sport itself. Sports are the lifeblood of American culture. America needs sports, and sports need people to tell their stories. Without sports, there would be no next year. And without sports journalists, there would be no story.

Today I palmed through the local sports page more intently than I have in years, and I visited a professional sports team's official Web site for the first time ever.

I am not a sports fan. I do not know who won the Super Bowl and I don't know when the World Series occurs. That said, that I have absolutely no interest in batting averages or what color a team wears, I am interested in how people obtain and consume their sports-related news.

The Internet has killed certain services and changed others. As Thomas Friedman noted in "The World is Flat," how we rent movies, plan vacations and obtain stock quotes has changed with the Internet because we no longer need video renters, travel agents or stockbrokers. The question is, will the web make endangered specie out of sports journalists, too?

It is a question of economic moat. If the Gill Principle (What can be done on the web will be done on the web) is correct, then the new game is about who can best provide information, not who has it.

Official team Web sites like www.kcchiefs.com have much of the same material you'd find on any traditional sports page. They have sports commentary, results, stats, injury reports, projections… They also have stuff every Chiefs fan would love, including apparel for miniature dogs.

However, the Chief's site lacks something that the Kansas City Star's Web site does provide: a way to interface with all the buzz the provider is providing. Of course, this user-interaction is not possible in print.

In my sports-illiterate opinion, the printed page is not the future—nor the present—home of sports entertainment news. Sports, after all, are a form of spectacle. And whomever can best entertain and inform fans with whatever it is they want—from official apparel to franchise news to a place to bitch about the latest botched call—will be the winners of the sports news game.

Sure, the Internet provides a place for me to shop without paying taxes or shelling out extra money to pay the salary of the mindless clerk who scans my items and puts them in a bag. If I were in the business of predictions, I imagine there would be a lot less storefronts here in a couple decades. But, when I go out looking for information, I don't think I am gullible enough to believe everything Joe Blogger has to say. Yet bloggers do have a valid position in the news industry.

I can't say if bloggers will completely replace traditional reporters. I do know that bloggers provide a check and balance system for reporters. Bloggers have the forum to call bullshit. But reporters and traditional media have the benefit of transparency on their sides. Reporters put their names and reputations on the line when they present the news. Of course, bloggers could have probably told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, whereas reporters took the bait from Washington and reported what was being said, even though it was false.

I will never fully trust that all bloggers are who they say they are. But bloggers and reporters need each other. It is a new world where there is competition for the news and free speech is at its height. This is the beauty of the free market our country is based on. But, if traditional reporters want to keep up, they are going to have to move with the times and innovate ways to present the news that has the spice of a blog but the meat of cold hard facts. This meshing of media is a metaphor to what is happening everywhere else that the Internet touches.

If somebody told me that I'd be gathering infoberries instead of hunting meaty stories, I would have stopped sharpening my arrowhead (pencil) years ago.

Such is the new journalism trend: newspapers are merely supplemental information providers. People go to the source's blog for information. (With this in mind, I'm trying not to say goodbye to my journalism education!)

Wait a minute, isn't the information highway full of some shitty drivers? Who's to say if these info-speeders are any good behind the wheel? If somebody creates e-roadkill, doesn't blood get all over the web?

Here's what newspapers should consider their new duty: become a picky, fact-checking aggregate of knowledge. Not just a creator of original content, but also a seeker of the good stuff – keep the crap at bay and point to things deemed worthwhile.

The concept is an extension of what (most) journalists are (maybe) good at: using their judgment. Even though we would be mere gatherers of info on the ‘net, together we could be a collective crap-killing machine.

Here are three steps to journalists keeping their place in the world, salvaging a paycheck and feeling like their lives aren't ruined by this www-dot-doohickey:

1) Find the news of the day
2) Use a source's blog for their side of the story
3) Report any gaps that remain

Think of it like to Digg or BoingBoing combined with newspaper reporting. If somebody already made their case on their blog, don't summarize, just link! Just like hard data can serve as the best storytelling method, a source's blog can summarize a sentiment better than re-reporting ever could.

BoingBoing is close: the readership sends in an idea, the editorial staff deems it BoingBoingworthy and posts the story with some links. Now, add some research and you too can be an info aggregate!

With this, journalists would open the gates for people to find good info and close the gate for nonsense. 'Course, a bit of reporting would still be required; otherwise, the industry would passively take whatever people give it.

I'm pretty new to this whole anchoring gig, but I've already figured out why people think that news anchors have no emotion. While I try to give the news a little bit of my own personality, the teleprompter seems to ruin everything. That black screen with words scrolling across it always seems to give me a case of amnesia – I can never actually remember anything important about what I just read. What you see on TV is me reading words but not actually comprehending them.

This being said, I think it would be fun for each of the KUJH anchors to have their own blogs. What better way to see our true personalities than through blogging about the stories we just told you about. We gave you the basic facts on TV, but with a blog we could link you to more sites, give more information, and really talk about how we feel.

One of the biggest jokes in the newsroom is, "Don't worry about messing up, nobody watches us anyways." Well heck, if they're not watching us then maybe they'll read about us. Everyone knows that my generation spends more time getting news online than from the TV anyways.

I think that if we started blogging on tv.ku.edu and could convince the university to let us link from the KU homepage we would definitely see an increase in traffic. And who knows, maybe if more people see us on the web, maybe they'll watch us on TV too!

A little bit about me: I make fun of retarded people, I laugh hysterically when people trip and fall, I'm horribly prejudiced towards every race including my own (especially my own), and I think babies are absolutely wretched.

If poop jokes are king in my book, the aces would probably be dead baby jokes. Obviously, the queens would be gay jokes, and jacks, whacking off. I can't help but make fun of life when so often it can't help but make fun of me.

So what colors are the reigns to my blog/horse you ask? I'd much rather make fun of the news than report it. I'm not as well informed as Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert who so regularly poke fun at politics but I have a lot broader a scope and a lot less of an FCC filter.

Each weekday there would be a post, bulleted for your pleasure to understand, in laymen's terms, what the days headlines are, both locally and internationally, in the media, and in politics. So, for instance, this great Tuesday the 12th, the topics might be…

… Super Tuesday Pt. 2: The bastard child of Super Tuesday

… People at Job Fairs dress like tools

… Writers' Strike Ends! With a deal with the devil and mass orgy

Then every Sunday, I'd do a week-in-review Vlog. This will scrape up all the tidbits we missed during the week and rehash them as something fresh and delicious.

Now, as a disclaimer, I don't intend or aim to offend anyone or disgrace the university. All of this is written in jest and with a pinch of salt, cumin, and thyme…. Sauté, sauté, sauté. It's merely, what's the phrase, poking readers in the ribs with a ripe banana.

Little ones, political ones, cat ones, fat ones – there is a world of blogs out there. And if your goal is to draw hits, make money and wallow in blogorific bliss, this world can be a scary, daunting place. There are so many! How do I make mine work?

Any aspiring blog god should plan before blogging for the man (the commercial interest you work for). This might mean creating a business plan. You can do this without having an MBA, just think about your goals and the resources you have available to achieve online communicative nirvana.

For instance, let's say I want to start a blog on tv.ku.edu. Never heard of it? You're not alone. Its market audience, students at the University of Kansas, are more likely to visit www.kansan.com, which received a crunchy Pacemaker award in 2007.

Let's avoid a discussion on the particulars of creating a unified jayhawk media brand and assume it already exists. Its Web site would be prime real estate for my blog, equivalent to selling fruit in the parking lot of an already busy corner Walgreens.

But what fruit to sell?

Perhaps a blog covering Student Senate. Too boring? How about Bitch!, a blog about how being forced to pay $5 to appeal a $20 KU parking ticket is total bullshit. And that Lawrence's anti-student housing ordinances suck, as does being price-gouged by publishers pushing CD-fattened textbooks. And that worthless year of western civ., what's up with that?

We've got an attractive site, meaningful content and a throng of Free-for-all contributors just waiting to bitch. Throw in a few photos featuring the ugliest Ugg boots and some advertisements and we're set. Now all we need is for banana activist Brian Lewis-Jones
to create bitchy jingles and our blog has all the sparkle it needs.

Nirvana at last.

I was researching blogging on Monday night and beginning to get a little worried. I know a fair amount about technology, but not enough for a blog. At this point, I'm just a little sick of all the political commentary/blogging. And "Ask a straight girl" just doesn't have the same ring to it. And I'm fairly sure that people already have the whole sport blog market cornered (besides...I'm just a girl). I'm pretty good at links and I am fully snark-capable but without an interesting topic, I'm just not ready for the blogosphere!

As I was beginning to despair (okay, get mildly worried), the answer to my blogging question was literally dropped in my lap by my wonderful boyfriend. (It's okay to gag a little.)

Today is my birthday and he brought me an adorable, half-Siamese baby kitten.

After the initial shock of cuteness wore off, I realized that I had never had a pet and panicked slightly. As a member of my generation, I immediately went to the Internet and started Googling kitten care. I also found dozens of cat blogs.

Eureka! I am a genius. I am not quite as cat obsessed as these crazies, though. They write their blogs from the point of view of their cats. I suspect they are somewhat out of touch with reality.

My cat blog will be about how to raise a cat. I will link to these crazy people and also to legitimate sites. People will use my cat blog to raise their own cats. They will be amused at the story of how on the morning after I got her, she spilled a whole cup of water on my keyboard while I was trying to type this blog.

Perfect!

...maybe it's not perfect, but it's what I got.

Cat blog.

When I picked up my paycheck last Friday at Carruth-O'Leary Hall, I noticed the building's rusty overhang. With all of the payroll money going into that building, I thought, couldn't KU shell out a few extra bucks (read: not my paycheck, please?) to keep the overhang tetanus-free?

I snapped a quick photo of the rust-plagued building with my cell phone. Such "building zits" must be what they mean by "deferred maintenance (PDF)." Cracked pipes, flood damage, shattered concrete stairways – hundreds of examples of KU's worn-down campus surround students every day, but the blemishes tend to go overlooked.

I forsee a bloggy possibility for tv.ku.edu! I'd love to write about a variety of topics – grassroots environmentalism, do-it-yourself projects and political mayhem are a few that come to mind. But a photoblog citing evidence of deferred maintenance could induce interest in the nitty-gritty pitfalls of many campus buildings. But I'd probably need something nicer than my mediocre camera phone. (Can I have a Nokia N93?)

A hyperlocal photoblog could change the way people look at their area. By publishing lesser-known evidence of our tattered surroundings, perhaps the state would have more incentive to fund the upkeep of the University's buildings.

And if the University has already begun fixing building blemishes, the possibility for video interviews and photos of construction would certainly serve as a good status report for deferred maintenance.

So while the Carruth-O'Leary Hall example isn't a strong photograph of a building's mundane looks and haphazard qualities, weekly photographs of "building zits" might encourage tv.ku.edu visitors to take notice of their surroundings and/or stimulate more state funding for the integrity of KU's buildings.

Usually by the time I get home most nights, I only have a time for a quick hello to my two, four-legged "kids" and a glass of water. Then it's off to bed, where it's easy to fall asleep listening to the wise cracks of the Tonight Show's Jay Leno.

But sometimes Leno doesn't have to try very hard to keep me from getting some shuteye (or it could be the insomnia that goes along with being a journalism student). He has my attention the moment he takes his show to the streets for Jaywalking -- a reoccurring segment where unsuspecting people are questioned about political and current events.

It absolutely amazes me the intelligence level of certain individuals that appear on his show. Sometimes I question whether it's all just an act to boost his ratings. But then, through my own conversations with individuals, whether I am at work, school or even with my own family, I feel as if I'm the talk show host interviewing ignorant individuals.

Leno's tidbit is entertaining. But I think the argument can be made that it has dramatized the need for more attention to hard facts and significant information.

This is exactly the kind of entertainment, controversial, eye-opening segment that would complete KUJH-TV. Last semester we added a section for viewer comments, which has seen much success. This semester, let's take another stand -- video comments.

Not only would our own version of "J-walk Hawk Talk" add comical value to hard news (and would probably increase our traffic), but we would also be getting more information about what people care about and what they are paying attention to.

Let's find a better way to interact and relate with our audience. In the end, we may very well be the last news organization standing because we "got it."

Are bloggers reporters? It's funny. If you'd asked me this same question literally last semester, I would have (and did) say no. Looking back, I see that, like Michael Skube, I just hadn't done my homework.

In my ethics class last semester, we had a discussion about whether bloggers were a threat to journalists. Most of us brushed off the idea. Here we are slaving away for four years to get a degree and some guy on the Internet thinks he can do better? Yeah right.

In that discussion, I made the point that even if bloggers earn credibility, we will always need "real" reporters because no blogger is going to go cover something like a natural disaster especially without getting paid. It was a pretty solid point. The teacher seemed (or pretended to be) impressed.

So a couple weeks ago, here I am scanning NYTimes.com (a real news source) and who do I run into? Michael Yon. Great, Irina. Not only is this guy covering a war zone (and has been for several years), he's not getting paid! And, yeah, there's a slant, but no more of one than say Fox News. (And if not "fair and balanced," he's arguably more accurate.)

Of course, there are many other examples of downright journalistic blogs. But you get the point. Bloggers are gaining credibility and being rewarded with journalistic rights.

Maybe the only thing that makes them different from "real" reporters (like Skube) is that they're just a couple steps ahead.

How many rock stars do you hang out with?

In 2005, the guy I was dating became one. Pretty soon, I was living the life of a rock star's girlfriend. We'd hang out with other rockers in their homes. He would practice a ton and drink even more. It quickly consumed him. He didn't want to go out. He didn't want to do anything except play his guitar in front of thousands of screaming fans.

The worst part is – my so-called boyfriend couldn't even play guitar. No, he wasn't delusional. Just like millions of others, my boyfriend was obsessed with Guitar Hero.

And he wasn't alone, Guitar Hero was an instant hit despite not getting much publicity. Who knew that a simple plastic guitar and colored dots on a screen would be so popular and could make people feel so cool?

It's no surprise that its successors, Guitar Hero II and Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock and even more popular than the original game. People who played the game at their friends' houses went out and bought their own game, creating a domino effect in the videogame world. Guitar Hero III brought in $115 million in the first week of sales. That means that nearly 1.4 million Guitar Hero bundle sets (complete with guitar and game) were sold to Playstation 2 and 3, Nintendo Wii, and Xbox 360 owners.

The game does more than just up the revenue of its publishers. The bands whose songs are featured in the game have seen an increase in album sales as well. The developers of the game are also finding it easier to get licensing approval from record companies to use popular songs in the Guitar Hero series.

For three years, the Guitar Hero series rocked the living rooms of wanna-be rock stars all over the nation. But this year, it's been replaced by something even better: Rock Band. Now you can live out the fantasy with three of your most hand-eye coordinated friends.

And even people who know how to play real instruments rock out on Rock Bank. Rob Henry, University of Kansas senior and former guitarist for a real band, says, "It's not much like real guitar at all. It's just something fun to do while you drink and pre-party."

So whether you're a sometimes fan or you have delusions of grandeur, just remember – being great at fake guitar does not make you a real guitar hero.

Kansas weather is unpredictable, to say the least. This makes dressing tricky during cold months, when temperatures drop significantly from sunrise to sunset and wind chills can be deadly. So, what are the kids wearing to stay warm this winter? A better question might be, what AREN'T the kids wearing? The answer: clothes.

Girls wear mini skirts with gigantic boots that could pass for small furry animals. Too bad their legs are freezing. Guys brave the frigid air without coats. Joggers run around campus in shorts and T-shirts (don't worry; they're wearing gloves).

It seems that no one knows how to dress appropriately. But doctors say that if you don't bundle up, you could get sick. A study at Cardiff University's Common Cold Center found that keeping your nose warm is a good way to fight infection during cold and flu season. The study also found that having cold feet increased the chance of developing cold symptoms. That means no more flip-flops in the snow.

So how should you dress? The Red Cross recommends layering breathable fabrics, such as cotton and wool, so you can easily adapt to changing temperatures. You should round out your winter wardrobe with a hat, mittens and waterproof boots. Make sure to keep tender areas such as noses and ears covered (especially while exercising) because frostbite can attack bare skin in less than a minute. Keep those layers on even if you're working out, though -- the Red Cross says sweat evaporates more slowly in cold weather, causing chills.

Strange as it sounds, you can even be allergic to the cold. Mayo Clinic allergy specialist James Li says that some people have a rare condition called "cold hives," which causes their skin to itch and swell. So next time you go outside, beat Ol' Man Winter to the punch and bundle up. Now that you know what to wear, you have no excuse not to (wear clothes, that is).

I'll admit it, the first time I heard the word CAUCUS out loud I giggled. But then I realized that I didn't even know what a caucus was, so why was I laughing?

Caucuses DO matter. They matter for reasons some may not understand. But some may not understand because they don't know the simple facts about caucuses.

The truth is, the majority of people aren't familiar with voting in the caucus world and it doesn't help that little is known about past caucuses here in Kansas. In fact, according to the Kansas Democratic Party and Kansas Republican Party statistics, the last Democratic caucus was held in 2004 and the total voter turnout was only 1,300. The last Republican caucus was held in 1988 and no records were kept from this event. These records are apparently "not accessible." Hmm, there's an unsolved mystery.

In order for you voters to "rock the vote," don't you need to know what you are doing first? What is a caucus, how do caucuses work and why do they even matter? Chances are you don't know and chances are you should probably pay close attention to the following.

In Kansas, caucuses are a statewide election conducted in order for both the Kansas Democratic and Kansas Republican parties to vote for candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations for President of the United States. Basically, you have the chance to cast yourself as a ballot that WILL affect the future of our country.

The Kansas Democratic Party and Kansas Republican Party have slightly different guidelines for their specific caucus and the way they run. But both give you a chance to voice your opinion.

So, you're registered to vote, right? And now you know the gist about caucuses. So what's stopping you? Caucuses DO matter and taking part in caucus and primary elections will decide the future of our country.

The political power behind the peel

Mmm, bananas! High in potassium. Seedless. The butt of every phallic joke. We can put them in our cereal or even use them to shine our shoes.

Indeed, bananas are America's most popular fruit. The delectable fruit accounts for 2 percent of supermarket profits; the average American even consumes 28 pounds of bananas per year!

"Wow Mom, how did bananas get so popular?"

Well, in 1870, a man named Lorenzo Dow Baker stumbled across bananas in a market in Jamaica. Impressed by their taste, he took bundles with him back to Boston. Bostonians found the fruit rather a-peeling, so Baker later joined up with two other men, Andrew Preston and Minor Cooper Keith. Together, they created the United Fruit Company in 1889. They bought plantations in countries like Guatemala and Nicaragua, where it's warm year-round.

Companies like United Fruit promoted their interests in banana-producing countries by creating PR packets (which proved influential in our foreign policy).

"Didn't the people there mind, Mom?"

Of course not! Wonderful leaders like William Walker and Estrada Cabrera took care of people in banana countries. They let them work on the banana plantations and even fought off the commies! (Or did they?)

Banana plantations invaded places like Ecuador, where most of the clean water was used for agriculture. The people were left drinking water infested with parasites. One woman is at KU searching for a way to clean the water in her country. (Good luck fighting the Big Banana!)

"So Mom, if the people in banana countries are so sick, why is the Chiquita Banana lady so happy?"

First of all, everyone's happier in tropical climates. But also, just take a look at the banana companies' Web sites and you'll see the difference their optimism, generosity and corporate responsibility has made in banana countries! Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte actually have very complex histories.

"That's great Mommy, but how can I know where my bananas come from?"

Well, if you look at the sticker on your organic Dole banana, you can visit their Web site and track where your banana originated.

I'll never forget the day I ran into my high school counselor at the meeting for election workers five years ago.

"Look at all the gray heads in here," he said.

It was true. Mr. Archer and I were the only non-elderly workers in the entire room, even though it was a paying job. And sadly, the demographic of people who showed up to vote that year looked pretty similar – nearly every person I handed a ballot to looked to be over 60 years old.

The "gray heads" phenomenon was not limited to my hometown - youth apathy has been a problem for years. Ever since the early 90's, campaigns like Rock the Vote and Vote or Die thought the solution was to make voting cool again by using celebrity sound bytes. P. Diddy's Vote or Die even got endorsements from stars like 50 Cent and Paris Hilton (who, it turns out, didn't even show up to vote).

Well, these trendy get-out-the-vote campaigns underestimated us. It turns out the formula that MTV used to boost their ratings didn't end up boosting youth turnout in elections as much as they hoped - maybe because we're smart enough to know not to take political advice from multi-millionaires.

Sure, young people like watching celebrity news. But they also like feeling connected, and that's why Facebook and YouTube are so popular today. For the first time, there is a way to find what we want, when we want it, and to voice our opinions in an open dialogue.

Facebook and YouTube maximize our options, showing anything from Obama girl to issue oriented debates. We can now watch speeches and debates, read news feeds, view live polls, contribute money to candidates online, interact with reporters, discuss issues and post videos anywhere, anytime. The political process has never been more within our reach. Politicians and the media have recognized the power of young voters, and the results have been impressive.

Recently I had a dream that I went back to my hometown's polling booth and all of the "gray heads" took their wigs off. Maybe this year, in some twisted way, that dream might just come true.

Here's hoping.

Social networking sites are making the youth vote relevant again. After years of apathy, the number of 18 to 20-somethings who vote is growing. All it took was for politicians to engage them on their own turf.

We're talking about sites like Facebook, YouTube, MySpace and others that are serving as many candidates' platforms for debate, information and action. As these sites are massively popular with young people, they can help determine who is getting the Millennium Generation's vote.

And they are voting, now more than ever. In New Hampshire's recent primary, the youth vote more than doubled 2004's numbers. In Iowa, it tripled, giving first blood victories to candidates Obama and Huckabee.

Young voters are turning out in record numbers, and ABC's partnership with Facebook and CNN's with YouTube are channeling this power. YouTube users, many of them young adults, sent thousands of questions to CNN for use in its autumn Republican and Democratic debates. According to the non-profit Rock the Vote's assessment of Rasmussen Reports research, 77 percent of those aged 18 to 29 reported watching the autumn presidential debates, more than any other age group.

Facebook's US Politics application lets users access ABC news and analysis, form debate groups, vote in polls and support candidates who have Facebook pages. Obama leads the way with more than 288,000 Facebook supporters, Clinton has 82,000 and Ron Paul rounds out the top three with a hip 79,000. These numbers are constantly growing.

Rock the Vote even has a widget embedded in the application that allows users to register to vote on the spot. If the organization is correct that 80 percent of young registered voters will actually vote on Nov. 4, we might need to give cool-with-the-kids candidates like Ron Paul a more serious look.

As the new adage might go: "As Facebook goes, so goes the nation."

Especially since voters younger than 30 will comprise more than one third of the electorate by 2015.

And don't think all this just applies to presidential hopefuls. Just ask my future Facebook friend Kathleen Sebelius and MySpace buddy Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Peer pressure shapes my train of thought. In kindergarten, I learned from the "cool table" that swearing was (goddamn) cool. Now, Facebook friends tell me that politics are hip. Go figure: I believe them.

One of my Facebook friends even invited me to "Presidential Election 2008." I feel special despite the 1.2 million other users who received the same invite (login required). So far, about 600,000 people have accepted the solicitation, while a solid 400,000 declined. I'm trying to build tension by withholding my response.

Even though major news corporations like ABC have pooled and polled Facebook users like fish in a barrel, this election event was devised by a Drury University Facebook user. And a news group didn't provide me the invitation – rather, the offer came from a friend.

ABC and like-minded news organizations do good by spurring political debate with applications like "US Politics." But the majority of political conversations I see on social networks originate from other users vying for their causes. Political advertisements have switched from dinnertime phone calls to event invites. In its most utilitarian form, the Internet is an accessible platform that allows millions of users with millions of opinions to speak from almost anywhere. News organizations can, however, help distribute user opinions (CNN's YouTube debate, for example).

While 600,000 Facebook users have accepted this particular Facebook invite, the number isn't earth shattering compared to the more than 19 million users who are eligible to vote or the 125 million Americans who voted in 2004. Still, the fact that I can view which friends plan to partake in the presidential fracas could help me determine my own set of convictions.

If you still think that the Internet doesn't affect our political process, I have two words for you.

You're old.

No, but really:

Ron Paul.

This Internet wunderkind has shattered all sorts of fundraising records and littered college campuses across the country (surely, it's not just Wescoe Beach) with signage.

The success of his campaign might get analysts, who follow the logic that anyone on the Internet must be under the age of 25, all excited about us kids getting into the democratic process.

They can also point to the ABC correspondent pages on Facebook and the hullabaloo over the CNN/You Tube debates (and the ensuing ABC/Facebook debates) as an example of traditional media getting through to youth through hip, new avenues.

Much like MTV in the 1990s, ABC and CNN are now proudly "Rocking the Vote."

But whose vote?

Click through the followers of Sunlen Miller, the ABC correspondent following the Obama campaign, and you'll see more than a smattering of old (post-college) people. And this is Obama, the poster boy of the youth vote.

So what gives?

Well, consider that according to Poynter, "'More than half of Facebook users are outside of college. The fastest growing demographic is those 25 years old and older."'"

Big sigh.

If you're like me, you might have skipped all that jabberwocky up there and gone straight to the conclusion to find out what it all means. Here are the Cliffs Notes.

Are more 18 to 25-year-olds involved in this election? Yes. (I know this is the seventh link, but it's a good one.)

Is all that at least in part a result of the efforts of major media outlets' efforts to engage in youthful channels? Undoubtedly.

Or is it just that the youth vote has been steadily on the rise since the 2000 elections and this is just a part of a growing trend? Also true.

This youth thinks it might be a combination of all of the above, plus other factors that political scientists and media scholars will be arguing over for years.

And for the sake of full disclosure: I didn't even know about ABC on Facebook prior to writing.