March 2008 Archives

I think it finally hit me about mid-week during spring break. Just as the opening round of the NCAA tournament was about to begin, I had an awakening. This is my last spring break and last time to get hyped up as a student during the big dance.

It was a strange, empty feeling. I've always known I would graduate, but I didn't expect it would take me three years longer than it should have. It's just been something I've grown accustomed to – a life consumed as a full time student with a full time job.

I'm sure that most of my peers are experiencing the same kind of "post-graduation" anxiety – a life outside of the classroom. But that is where I differ from my classmates.

I already have a decent career established. Granted it has nothing in common with the degree I'm seeking (try as I may, I never could find a class that taught good customer service ass-kissing skills) and have spent thousands of dollars on. But I love my job and I'm comfortable. I know I'm good at it, and I've been told there's potential to become one of the "big wigs."

Unlike others who are struggling to actually find a job in this struggling economy, I have several doors staring me in the face. I've been approached by Kansas City news stations to begin work BEFORE graduation. Needless to say, I'm still pretty shocked. Never could I have imagined my journalism career beginning in a market like Kansas City's.

I know most people reading this blog (hopefully it's more than Uncle Rick and my family!) would say I'm crazy for even thinking I have a difficult decision on my hands -do I stay with what I know, what I'm content with, and can potentially make a decent living; or do I venture into a career that, quite frankly, has a questionable future and take a cut in pay?

As I weighed my options, I understood I had a fear of the unknown. I was about to join others who are satisfied with "just settling." Contentment keeps us average, keeps us doing all the same things everybody else is doing, simply because it is the familiar thing to do.

I quickly realized this is not the type of lifestyle to which I aspired. I don't think I could have ever really been happy, knowing in the back of my mind I passed on what might have been. I see my journalism career as a different set of skills to improve on. It's finally time for me to prove exactly what I'm made of.

With all this talk about stifled convergence, let's take a moment and examine the future journalistic career path:

Option A: news companies train journalists how to program innovative web features.
Option B: news companies train computer programmers how to read and write in plain English.

With a quick glance at craigslist, it's easy to see that writers aren't the preferred hire at news organizations anymore. Well, only if they know Flash, Ajax, Java, CSS, XML, MySQL and PHP.

So, where does that leave us in our education? Us journalists never had it this rough. We're hated, underpaid and overworked - but only when we can find a job opening.

I guess my college education has been a bit like the Iraq war; even after five years of fighting the system, the quagmire looms.

(A side note: although us writers have it rough, programmers totally have to work harder to stay with the game):

Where does that leave our copy-editing, story-finding, proof-checking, blog-wielding literary minds? Well, we have things that those computer jocks often don't: creativity, perspective and the innovation of old ideas.

So, here's an epiphany: use the Internet and combine other talents with clear thinking and concise writing. What would that mean for me? I think musicvideoblogging would do the trick.

Piano + guitar + trombone + a lyrical news topic + some funky video editing + the lonesome naner (for continuity).

If that dream job in journalism doesn't come along, this might be my only salvation to my journalism and music skills while I work full-time at the coffee shop. And what's more, it would utilize some spare time, good tunes, viral video and maybe - just maybe - a bit of news.

Sports journalism has to be one of the most rewarding professions around. I mean, seriously, where else do you get to watch your favorite teams and then tell others how the game went. And what's really cool about this job is that you're earning a paycheck at the same time. It's awesome, baby with a capital A!

After having an internship with a local sports TV network, it's easy to see why the job of sports journalist is envied. No professional sporting event ever takes place before noon and there is always free food up in the press box. Every time you go listen to Bill Self talk on Thursday afternoons, the KU Athletics Department is going to feed you. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

While the journalists may think the free food is great and just "part of the job", some serious ethical issues come to mind. We all know that an easy way to get someone on your side is to give them a good meal. This being said, if one team serves a nice steak dinner in the media room while another just puts out some chips and dip, which team do you think is going to get the better write-up in the next morning's paper?

I'm not going to say that I don't enjoy the free food spread at every KU home game…because I do. It's one of those perks that comes with the media pass. Should we (journalists) have to be careful about what kind of benefits we take while covering a story? Definitely. If I'm offered courtside seats to a game by the team's owner right before a huge story breaks, I better think twice before I take them.

This just shows that journalism ethics has some pretty broad rules. It's okay for the sports guy to eat on someone else's dime, but as for the political reporter, sorry, you're out of luck. But don't worry, even though we might spend halftime at the dessert bar, we still manage to get the story out on deadline.

Being a sports journalist definitely has it's perks. We get great seats at events, access to coaches and players, decent food and accommodations, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. For me, 90 percent of why I love my job is because I love what I do, the off camera gig that is.

"We remind you again, that this is a working press area, cheering for either team is not allowed," the press box announcer scolds us hooligans on the eighth floor of Memorial Stadium during football games for the slightest, "Yes!"

"Gonzo journalist" Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, "So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here — not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of."

Is that the case with telling me not to cheer? All for the sake of appearing objective? Guilty, on both counts. But is there a line between integrity in sports journalism and involvement? Your honor, I plead not guilty. The defense calls:

Ron Santo
Dickie V
John Kruk
Any other former player or coach currently employed by the media
Bob Knight, Bob Knight and Bob Knight

How's this for a transformation? Bob Knight goes from hating the media, "One or two steps above prostitution," as he once labeled our profession, to joining ESPN. How's that for a conflict of interest? But does that make his NCAA analysis any less correct? Nope.

In fact, if I'm hiring at ESPN I'm calling Joe Pa, Phil Jackson, Joe Torre and I might have even tried to sign A-Rod or David Beckham to a lucrative multi-billion dollar broadcasting contract. These folks have real-world experience in something no journalist straight out of any school has.

And to be honest, I'd rather listen to Charles Barkley or Steve Young on television than Justin O'Neal (who?) I'm not saying there aren't good journalists out there. More power to the Lisa Lings and Anderson Coopers of the world, but please, leave sports broadcasting to the pros... like Brett Favre (oh please oh please oh please...)

Putting together a post-game wrap up isn't exactly hard. All you need are some quotes from the press conference, a few highlight-reel plays, and some stats. Put these in some logical sequence and you can have yourself a pretty nice little segment recapping the game.

If you're at an NCAA tournament, statistics should not be hard to come by. And up until last night, we had no problem finding any number related to Kansas, Villanova, Wisconsin, or Davidson. Media guides were abundant and 10 minutes after game one between Wisconsin and Davidson ended, I had stats on the table in front of me.

Totally different story after the KU game. Being the final game of the night, all the media packed up and headed back to the bunker. The only problem with the setup here at Ford Field is that TV people have a workroom separate from radio and newspaper reporters. Normally we wouldn't complain about this, but we found out last night that the TV bunker gets no love around here.

We had no stats, no restrooms, and no caffeine to get us through the night. Upstairs in the radio/newspaper workroom these supplies were plentiful. I can live without the free food and Coke products, but I really need stats to be able to put together a decent story.

How hard is it to put a table outside the TV workroom with the final stats? Why should I have to go on a wild goose chase just to find out how many points Mario Chalmers put up? The big conversation last night was not about the game, but rather about how television seems to get lost in the shuffle.

I'm not quite sure how the media relations people forgot about TV last night. You couldn't miss the hum that the equipment in the bunker makes nor could you miss the guys shooting stand ups all over the building. Maybe tomorrow will be different, but more than likely I'll be running around in circles chasing the newsies for information that we should have equal access to.

For me, this is the most wonderful time of year. Baseball is getting under way, both NHL and NBA playoff races are heating up, I can head out to play some golf (finally!), and the NCAA Men's tournament is just the icing on the cake. But it's like that cake that has way too much icing; you end up scraping off the excess on the sides.

It never fails. I'll take the corner piece, please, because the icing on the side happens to be the Women's NIT. Now, I know no one cares about the NIT. The coverage share graph looks like pac-man when comparing the NCAA to the NIT. But there is as much madness at these lady's games as there is in their male counterparts.

Imagine you're an elite college basketball player for a moment. If you are really talented (and male), the NBA awaits. If you are a female, playing in your senior year, you're done when you lose.

With the expectations piled so high on the men's side at Kansas the shadow cast on the women is all but black as night. In East Lansing last night, there were maybe 50 KU fans, including Chancellor Bob, Jim Marchiony, Lew Perkins, Baby Jay, and the band.

Don't they at least deserve Big Jay on the road?

It felt like Allen Fieldhouse. Kansas and Michigan State took the game down to the wire and the exciting 58-54 finish was worthy of primetime ESPN coverage. Too bad they weren't there. But KUJH-TV was. We witnessed two teams drain themselves playing in a competition virtually no-one cares about, other than their parents, coaches, and teammates.

Afterward, Bonnie Henrickson looked more exhausted, more frustrated, or more disappointed than I've ever seen another coach; she looked like she had just played in the game herself. I could feel the frustration of Taylor McIntosh; heck of a way to end a career with underappreciated all-star effort. But there was optimism in Danielle McCray's eyes, despite the loss, the lady Jayhawks will be back next year.

I'm hoping for her sake more folks take notice of this not-so-hidden goldmine of talent. Hopefully if more fans get behind these ladies, they'll get that "sixth man" effect from the crowd that their male counterparts receive daily.

Its official…we're spoiled at KU. Almost anywhere we go, we can access the Internet for free. It may not be wireless, but every building you enter has some sort of computer-Internet access. After 24 hours in Detroit, we have yet to find free wireless Internet.

You would think that a swanky hotel (like the Marriott in Detroit) would have in-room access to wireless Internet since this is of course the official media hotel for the NCAA Midwest Regional. So when we called last night to get the Internet password, we were shocked when they told us it would be $12.99 per day. Rumor has it, the hotel lobby might have free wireless, but our room is on the 38th floor and the lobby is on the 3rd floor – not exactly convenient.

And do you think Ford Field would provide Internet access to the media for free (heck, we would even take a reduced rate at this point)? Of course not. Our Internet access at the game site costs an impressive $30 per day, per computer. Our not-so-cheap connection seems to be working well, but that's probably because we haven't tried to upload anything yet.

I always thought that being part of the media got you a bunch of perks…apparently Internet access isn't one of them. Sure, we can get all the popcorn and Coke products we want for free, but we weren't prepared to shell out the big bucks (that we don't have) for internet access that we have always had right at our fingertips at school.

So as we wrap up Day 1 in Detroit, we've decided that our best option might be to buy a Verizon or Sprint wireless card. I'm not exactly sure if that's in the budget or not, but for all of the problems that KUJH-TV Sports has encountered with internet access at sporting events this year, it may be the best solution to an ongoing problem. And just as a side note, we finally found free wireless…in East Lansing, two hours from Detroit.

The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was very confused. "Wiki what? Is that some kind of tropical bat?" Well, not exactly. But it does have tropical roots.

The word wiki comes from the native language of Hawaii and means "fast." Wikipedia, coined as "The free Encyclopedia anyone can edit," allows everyone to get their information "wiki wiki." That's "really fast" for all you non-Hawaiian speakers out there.

No matter how fast it may be, the site is still frowned upon as an academic source. After all, what kind of Encyclopedia incorporates vandalism and lets you pay to have your entry altered?

Founder Jimmy Wales recently said that teachers should let younger students cite Wikipedia in their research, and those who didn't were "bad educators." He also said that once you get to college, you shouldn't be citing an Encyclopedia.

So, Jimmy, should we let students start bad habits at an early age and then yell at them for it later on? I think not. Don't get me wrong, I have no objections to the concept of a wiki. In the right context, I think they're pretty nifty. I just don't think a friggin' Encyclopedia is the place to let everyone contribute.

To become widely accepted as a legitimate and reliable info source, Wikipedia would have to give up some of the freedom that makes it so popular. But cracking down on editing policies has already caused many Wikipedians to go missing.

Speed seems to be one thing Wikipedia has going for it. It can edit and update info by the second. The Encyclopedia on your bookshelf can't do that. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica online can.

So, here's the deal kids. Wikipedia is fast, convenient, and the idea of a database that everyone can contribute to and edit is kind of cool. But an Encyclopedia is not the best medium to apply a wiki too.

When it comes to finding facts, Wikipedia may not be a bad link, but it's definitely a weak one.

Back in my days in high school geometry class, proofs weren't my thing. But seeing as I've grown in age and wisdom (though not in height), I'm going to try one now:

Given: Wikipedia
Prove: It is a valid source.

Well, this is pretty much the easiest proof ever.

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Anything that has a liberal bias must be The Media. How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias when it's edited by anyone? Well, it must. Check out Conservapedia for the Fox-type answer to Wiki.

So point A – Wikipedia is The Media.

Point B – "Several studies suggest that articles in Wikipedia are of a similar order of accuracy and similar rates of both serious and minor errors to Encyclopædia Britannica, that it provides a good starting point for research, and that articles are in general reasonably sound."*

Thus, Wikipedia is just like Encyclopedia Britannica and must be reliable.

Therefore, if Wikipedia is The Media and it is Reliable, it must be a valid source! Done. Take that, every teacher and professor that I've ever had!

FINE TEXT:
Very little actual research was done in the writing of this article. However, this is a blog and I can post whatever I want to it, which lets me pose my opinions as facts without reference. Of course, if I wanted to look like I knew what I was talking about I could just have a long list of footnotes, which people might or might not follow. Footnotes are reassuring.

If I had actually done research for this article, I might have found that Wikipedia has certain rules for articles: they must have a neutral viewpoint, contain no original research and be verifiable. Although according to Wikipedia, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

WARNING: Wikipedia must conform to Florida laws so do not under any circumstances use it to vote.

WARNING: The research for this article only involved looking at Wikipedia.

P.S. The creator of Wikipedia likes to refer to himself as Jimbo. Every time you feel the urge to cite Wikipedia start out the sentence, "According to Jimbo, creator of Wikipedia, …"

_____________________________________
* Reliability of Wikipedia

"Fratitude." You can thank one of my friends for coining that term. All she had to do was add it into Urban Dictionary, an online slang dictionary. And this was done at her own computer.

Weird, right? Wrong. This action of citizen journalism is becoming more common today. In fact, other Web sites like Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, are famous for collecting and providing information. But can these cites really be trusted? I think not.

Wikipedia has editors; editors who check for grammatical and punctuation errors. If you submit information without references, it says it MAY be removed. But anyone can submit articles…and I mean ANYONE, meaning people of all ages and social and cultural backgrounds. Which pretty much makes sense since it is considered citizen journalism.

But who is to say that the references used in a Wikipedia article are accurate? While it does provide a resource used all around the world, I think we should leave it to the professionals to provide the information. Wikipedia is continually updated throughout the day and I wouldn't trust some random person's opinion over someone who has been spending their life researching a subject and gets beaten out by this random person just because they submit an ill-researched article to Wikipedia first.

When I write a paper, it's not about finding resources in a quick and easy way. I take the time to research accurate articles because it's not quick and easy for a professional to write a research article. And by accurate I mean professional articles from professional databases.

So while those volunteers submitting their articles to Wikipedia may think they have major "fratitude," I think they should second-guess themselves and their actions.

There's an apprehension for wikipedia I don't understand. Teachers especially seem to detest the wiki creation—"wiki" meaning that it's a collaborative effort by people online. Yeah, I didn't know either. I've always been told, "Don't use that as a source!" "That is not a source," or "Esto no es un fuente." Luckily I never listened to my teachers, and I never understood Spanish despite the four years I took, so I never did as I was told.

Wikipedia is like the bastard child of a high society family. Ya know, like the kid that grew up in the Bronx with his mom who shacked up with Donald Trump that one night: He's no Ivanka, but he's still getting child support.

For some reason no one will look at wikipedia like the living document it is. Does anyone scoff at the Constitution? It's a living document subject to change, it can be updated when its parts become outdated, and when enough people disagree with it, it's subject to a red pen.

I understand wikipedia is no Constitution, but at its essence it's similar. Say you're looking up the history of the dildo and you know for a fact that the "rabbit" was designed by so-and-so but someone thought it would be funny to say it was invented by Jack Hoff, the site has editors constantly going through entries to make sure that it stays as honest as possible. The public too can make edits in entries. The dildo's history is secure!

On top of it all, when a person writes something on wikipedia, you MUST cite your source which makes each entry more like a term paper than a craft project.

I'm not asking everyone to quit hating on wikipedia, I'm no Sally Struthers, I just hope to show everyone that this great living document online is something to be appreciated not feared.

If you haven't taken the time to get to know wikipedia and read about it's policies on mistakes, take the time to read about it. All links in this blog were brought to you by wikipedia and will take you there.

Life is sweetly ironic sometimes. While gathering my thoughts about citizen journalism and the world of wiki, I went to Wikipedia to see what it had to say on the subject. The first paragraph read as follows:

"Citizen journalism,Abandons objectivity and ethics. CITIZEN JOURNALISM SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! Also known as public or participatory journalism, is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information," according to the seminal report We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information, by Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis."

So if citizen journalism was defined according to Wikipedia and Wikipedia was citizen journalism, then I wouldn't even be blogging about this because the site would be illegal and therefore would probably not exist. But back to the point.

An encyclopedia is a reference work. Its articles are written by experts in science, history, etc. -- specialists in their particular fields of study. Experts don't come easily or cheap, however, which is why encyclopedias like the Britannica cost a lot or charge a fee for the online version. Wikipedia is free and just a mouse-click away, but you don't necessarily get that level of expertise. In fact, despite recent innovations in the editing and fact-checking parts of Wikipedia, you don't necessarily even know if the information is accurate.

News is what's happening right now. It's fresh, it's current, and, yes, sometimes it's dished out by ordinary citizens. This is usually the case in scenarios like 9/11 where something is happening that can't be completely covered by trained journalists, or events like Little League games that aren't so crucial that someone would feel the need to falsify or skew the facts.

We wouldn't pick up an encyclopedia to read about last night's sports scores, would we? Neither would we buy the morning paper expecting to find lengthy articles about Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of brain surgery or the War of 1812. In my opinion, Wikipedia is neither truly an encyclopedia nor an act of journalism. It is an entity unto itself -- it's "wiki."

Wait a minute. Why is it that when I started on this assignment, the first thing I did was to Wikipedia Wikipedia?

Even though I'm told in my classes to never use Wikipedia as a source, it's still the basic starting point for me, and probably for most other students as well.

Why? Because it's easy. It's extensive. It's free. And if you're in a crunch for time- say, preparing a blog entry and wanting to look up that philospher guy who came up with the idea of a democracy of ideas- you're guaranteed to find something.

Never before have we seen an encyclopedia so pliable, so unlimited in its capacity (with over nine million articles in over 250 languages) and so accessible as Wikipedia.

But can we trust the Internet's collective consciousness?

The debate between Wiki "inclusionists" and "delitionists" has raged since the beginning. Inclusionists argue that anyone should be allowed to post anything; the more entries, the better, as long as they're useful to someone. Who's to say what information is valid and important and what's not?

Meanwhile, deletionists argue Wikipedia will retain its credibility if it monitors the quality and relevance of entries. How could we possibly trust an article that anyone can put their thumb print on?

So now, in such a time of turmoil, maybe it's fitting to bring back some famous figures for the Wikipedia debate to hear what they have to say.

John Stuart Mill:: "My child, you must know that the only way for the truth to surface is through a democracy of ideas. Even false Wikipedia entries have elements of truth in them! Having a free exchange of entries and edits will help us to question why our own beliefs are true, and the more people that participate, the better."

Zachariah Chafee: "Information should only be valued if used in the search for truth. Any entry that we deem as slanderous, profane, or libelous should be deleted."

David Irving: "I don't know about Wikipedia...but I do know this. The Holocaust never happened!"

Now that we've heard from those three, I guess it's up to us to decide.

For the time being, I'll continue to use Wikipedia. Even if the actual content is questionable, it's a great way to access external links, for instance.

And in the end, I believe that the nitpicking between philosophers, inclusionists and deletionists will balance out. While everyone continues to upload as many entries and information as possible, experts will review and edit them for accuracy. The idea is noble: Wikipedia is a marketplace of entries that allows its history molded by the entire world, instead of an elite troop of academics or war victors.

I trust that the world is heading in the right direction.

It was clearly one of those events during your lifetime you will never forget. Almost as symbolic as generations before me recalling exactly what they were doing when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon or when President Kennedy was assassinated. No, I'm not referring to 9/11, but to last year's massacre at Virginia Tech.

Ironically, the mass murder occurred the same day I was reporting for KUJH. When word of the slayings came across the wire, and CNN began airing cell phone footage of shots being fired, it was difficult to focus on my duties as a journalist. As a student, I could only sympathize for the 31 victims and those closest to them, who lost their lives so unexpectedly.

The reports of the slaying were continuously altered throughout the day. Major news networks and their Websites updated the latest information instantly. But they all lacked a consensus of how many had been killed and/or injured. Just as we were trying to sort through the facts and what should be reported, someone in the newsroom found a Wikipedia page already dedicated to the tragedy.

We monitored the network reports against those contributions in Wikipedia. What we found was that the Wikipedia page had the most accurate up-to-the-minute facts.

It was strange that as journalists, we were trusting the sources in Wikipedia more than those reported by news organizations who had years of journalistic standards. Even The Roanoke Times noted that Wikipedia emerged as the leading source for detailed information on the event, with more than 750,000 visits to the main article on the shootings in its first two days.

But should we have been concerned that most of our information was coming from a different source of gatekeepers? New York Times journalist Jonathan Dee said it's difficult to trust Wikipedia because, "How on earth can anyone be trusted to get the story right when any version of the story is only as accurate, or even as serious, as the last anonymous person to log on and rewrite it?"

But I think his reason for questioning the online encyclopedia is exactly why it works as well as it does. No where else is there a new organization full of passionate writers who will, at the drop of a hat, take command of the situation and get to "work."

Wikipedia is informational schwag. Referenced authorities do not author entries, and thus learned folk do not cite Wikipedia in scholastic bibliographies. Game, set, match.

Wikinews is just as problematic as Wikipedia. When reading this news, you don't know who wrote it and anyone can change any article anytime. Here are some other problems to consider:

1. Credibility: Original user-generated wikinews has unidentifiable authorship. This means that any PR asshat can generate news about his company's new product release, and any average Joe can submit an article without interviewing a soul. Wikinews cannot be trusted.

2. Accuracy: According to this article, one Wikinews reporter wrote that the late Pope John Paul II died after his feeding tube was removed. This never happened, and another wikireporter later corrected the entry. Key word: Later.

3. Content: Most wikinews consists of chopped up Associated Press, BBC and New York Times articles that a user copy/pasted together.

Though I think it's cute that everyone is a reporter and editor now, it's just not going to work. It is citizen journalism at its worst. It's anarchic. To quote The Big Lebowski: "This isn't Vietnam…there are rules!"

And OhmyNews in South Korea has them. The news site employs a small band of professional newsies to edit and direct the site's mostly citizen-generated content. The thousands of average Joe reporters submit their news content and the professional staff roots out evil and posts the goodies. They also write some of their own stuff.

In my estimation, the OhmyNews staff have an army of 415ers at their disposal. An army of minions—Brilliant.

And thus, balance was brought into the world.

To learn more about citizen journalism, Wikinews and how corporate news suits are coping with change, please let Poynter explain it to you.

When I first heard about Wikipedia I thought it was the coolest thing to hit the internet. All of the sudden I had this resource that could give me instant information about almost anything. Encyclopedia.com and Microsoft Encarta would no longer be my only computer-based references for term papers.

I'll admit, I was one of those lazy students who, for a time, used Wikipedia frequently as a source. Even though I referenced Wikipedia pages, I always had this uneasy feeling in my stomach. I always felt that something wasn't right, that the information wasn't accurate. Finally, I stopped trusting the site as credible and now only use it to get background information or find useless trivia to impress my friends.

I totally understand why people want to banish the site to the "bad link" list. How can we know for sure if the stuff contained on the page is true? Sure there are admins, bureaucrats, and stewards to monitor the content, but can these 1,200 people control the content of 2,274,851 Wikipedia articles?

In an academic and journalistic setting I don't think there is any time we should be allowed to use Wikipedia for a source. There's a reason that they give you links at the bottom of the page – use those to get more information and find a real, live source. I have no problem with people using it to get basic info; it gives you everything you need to know in plain English (or Spanish, German, French, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. But even though I enjoy being able to get all my information on one page, I really like communicating information to others that I know to be true. And while I'm not relegating the site to the "bad link" list, I'm going to put people who use Wikipedia as a credible source on the "not smart" list.

This blog post is a stub that requires the attention of experienced monkeys.

Editor's note: nerd-o-rific links displayed on this page are not endorsed by Brianpedia.

Mama told me never to talk to strangers with candy (caution: nerd alert #1). Still, these bizarros approach me every day: "Hey kid, want some knowledge?"

I'm all-ears for a tall tale, but I'd rather not take the moldy peanut butter and spread it all over the Intertoast. So when a whacked article ends up on Wikipedia, one of the site's editors marks it as such. While editors can be total nutjobs, they can also be keen professionals with first-hand experience.

Consider this reverie: In fifty years, I'll be a retired millionaire. When I travel to remote locations, I won't throw my money at a travel agent who tells me where to take my holiday.

Nope! I'll stick with Wikitravel, the Internet locale filled with strangers giving travel advice. I'd rather throw my money away at a dude or dudette who has visited my destination of choice rather than a travel agent who hasn't left the office since the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (caution: nerd alert #2).

(Caution: nerd alerts #3, #4 and #5):

This travel wiki is one of several new Wikipedia variants. (Other honorable mentions: Wookieepedia, worst album covers and the Knight Rider wiki. And like lots ‘o wikis, experts (and nerds) contribute a good bulk of the info. (Citation needed.)

Editor's whammy: holy shit! That last link aims to RID of citations? Oi vei.

As with anything – yes, even news publications – people should be looking to the original sources for the most reliable facts. And if the original source adds to a wiki, hell, you could trust the wiki itself. In that respect, wikis are like happy little community blogs. But buyer beware – always verify with outside sources and never let the Internet slip you a rufi.

Wikipedia may scare the hardcore academic types, but it has a valid place in the new information game.

User-generated content and citizen journalism is changing the landscape of "the news." Gone are the days when the gray hairs held the keys to the information gateway. It may scare the oldschoolers, but Wikipedia is the beginning of a revolution, a revolution with an unpredictable outcome.

Citizen journalism is growing exponentially, and ignoring it won't make it go away. My mom always told me to look on the bright side, and try to find something positive in bad situations. So what if Wikipedia is putting the door-to-door encyclopedia sales out of business, citizens are taking away reporters' jobs, Web sites are taking advertising dollars from newspapers, and journalism graduates are expected to know how to do it all if they want to get a job. It may look bleak, but sometimes the worst thing today turns into the best thing tomorrow.

I can't predict the good that will come out of it; I'm not in the business of fortune telling. But I can say that I am excited to be around for the revolution. It will be a challenge for traditional information providers to compete with user-generated content, but I'm up for that challenge.

As I sit in my apartment watching the 13-seed San Diego take on the 12-seed Western Kentucky, I think about how thankful I am Kansas wasn't playing in the Tampa Bay regional. I also reflect on the experience I was just blessed with. After one long four hour drive, that consisted of a lot of guessing and hoping, Kyle West and I safely made it home from Omaha. Like the day after any vacation I've ever been on, I woke up thinking I was still there. For a few seconds, I thought about what the tournament would be like today and how my stand-up and story would go. Then I remembered I was on 19th and Massachusetts Street and not a hotel across the street from the Qwest Center.

I know my friends will soon flock back to campus. They will roll in with a tan and some great stories, but I'll never wish, even for a second, I chose to go along with them.

Over the past week, from the Big 12 tournament semifinals and finals to the NCAA tournament first and second rounds in Omaha, I learned more about journalism than I have my entire time at Kansas. The experience I gained is irreplaceable. Although there is so much I could say about the experience, my last blog was much too long and I apologize to those of you who read it all the way through. As a reward I'll comprise a brief list of only the more remarkable things I was lucky enough to experience over the past week.

#1 Media buffets are awesome. At both the Big 12 and NCAA tournament the food was great. My taste buds still tingle when I think about the beef brisket in Kansas City or the Philly Cheese Steak in Omaha.

#2 Professionals get paid for a reason. Standing outside the Qwest Center I struggled to memorize my lines for the Kansas vs. Portland State post game stand-up. As I tried to pound the number of three pointers Kansas took into my head, I suddenly realized how much I had to learn. A reporter covering UNLV, and I'm not sure his name, set his tripod up just a few feet from my own. He then looked over his notes for only a minute or two and began to rattle off almost three minutes, although it felt like an eternity, of stand-up off the top of his head, on live television nonetheless. This sight was motivation for me. It made me realize that although I'm in the same media room as ESPN and CBS and Jay Marrioti, I'm definitely not even close to the same class. It comes through real world experience that can't be taught in even one of the best journalism school's classrooms. I'm so happy I've started to acquire first hand experience now, instead of later.

#3 Press conference questions aren't always good ones. As I would sit in on the press conferences following games, I realized that I've definitely heard better questions directed toward guest speakers in my Journalism-301 class than I did in the press conference following the Kansas/Portland State game. I think Bill Self and Darrell Arthur were questioned about the Jayhawks three point shooting in six out of the total 10 questions asked. I realized that if I'm here I shouldn't be afraid to ask questions, because in a conference like that a good question could contribute to everyone's stories.

#4 Time flies when you're having fun. Being on deadline for a solid four days straight can be stressful, however when it's all set and done, it's 100 percent worth it. Seeing the excitement of the NCAA tournament is priceless. The first round is the best, obviously. With media and fans from eight different teams the city is abuzz. Cal-State Fullerton and Portland State may have been just slightly under represented, but still, with seasons on the line every team is accounted for. Tension and adrenaline penetrates the air. I'm not saying it was as magical as the Allen Fieldhouse student section, but hey, nothing is.

… At least I tried to keep it short this time.

As I was browsing by the team's media guides, the box scores of games, and the play-by-plays of the first round games, I found something that surprised me... a press release of the United States Basketball Writer's Association men's All-American selections. Then I found something that did more than surprise me, it shocked me. Why are no Kansas players on the USBWA Men's All- American list? The three other 1-seeds all have one player on the first team. North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough, UCLA's Kevin Love and Memphis' Chris Douglas- Roberts are all on the first team. The other first place team in the Big 12, Texas, and third place team, Kansas State each have one with D.J. Augustin and Michael Beasley both on the first team. Granted no player on the Jayhawks is Michael Beasley or Tyler Hansbrough or D.J. Augustin. If no player on Kansas is as good as any one them, then why I am still so shocked that none have made the first team or second for that matter?

Certainly Brandon Rush, Mario Chalmers and Darrell Arthur are better players than Shan Foster of Vanderbilt or D.J. White of Indiana. Am I right? I assume that the voters of the USBWA are more educated on this issue than myself. However, assuming has made an ass out of you and me before, so I could very well be wrong, or do I mean right. I just don't believe after watching Rush, Chalmers and Arthur for two years now that not one of them is a top ten player in the country in the minds of the media. Collegehoops.net currently has Arthur ranked as the 10th best NBA prospect, while Love is only the 15th. Maybe Arthur just has a higher ceiling in the NBA, I don't know I'm not a scout. Arthur pulled down seven boards went eight for 10 from the floor and scored 17 points yesterday versus Portland State. Yes, the Vikings were a 16 seed, but it's impressive none-the-less. Arthur has even outshined Love on the college courts this season all ready. He scored 16 points, gathered nine rebounds and went for six for nine from the court against Texas in Kansas' biggest game of the season, with a one seed on the line. Is that not worthy of All-American Status? Kevin Love only tallied 11 points and six rebounds versus the Longhorns earlier this year in a loss. Yes, Love has matured and improved a lot throughout the season and Arthur can be inconsistent, but I'm going to try to make a case for Arthur anyway.

First off, I must acknowledge a few things. I'm attacking someone I respect and believe is deserving of the honor, in Kevin Love. If you take a look at his wikipedia he has pretty much been racking in major accolades and awards since the day he stepped onto a basketball court. Secondly, I'm attacking someone named to the first team so that if I do succeed in my objective there is no question Arthur deserves to be there. If I fail, even though my pride or my fanhood as ESPN has so cleverly marketed it as, refuses to let me accept that as a possibility, I will still have a secondary objective out there. This secondary motive is my belief that if I can make you believe it is a close of enough argument between Arthur and Love, then I can make you believe that Arthur must certainly deserve to be placed on the second team. I kind of ruined the concept of that psychology by telling you my back up plan, but I've never been one for keeping secrets.

With that said I must face the difficult task that lies in front of me. Not only is the my first blog, but I must make Arthur look as good as a player the national media has been hyping up to you all year long. I'm lucky I've never been an individual to back down from a challenge. I could talk at two, I think I was potty trained sometime around there and even though I'm not sure if that's impressive or not, my point is that it was hard work but i did it anyway.

Now I have to put off my procrastination and attack Love with the force of a german blitzkrieg. I like beginning and closing my arguments with a cheap shot and put the facts in between the two. It's a strategy that's worked for me in the past so I've stuck with it.

Cheap Shot #1: Kevin Love has the better name. Now Shady is a pretty good nickname and King Arthur isn't a bad gimmick, but he just can't compete with the pure flowing three syllable marketing freight train of a name that Kevin should thank his parents for everyday.

Now I'll put out some stats that I feel are relevant. These stats are out of Arthur's and Love's control, however I feel like they affect the media and how they interpret the talent level of each player.

Both UCLA and Kansas are great teams. Both have a great starting five. However, a contrast most certainly exists when you look at whose sitting on each teams bench. UCLA has four players averaging double figures with Love leading the way with 17.1 points per game, but after that only one more Bruin contributes significant points. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, who's name is certainly not as easy to market as Kevin Love's, is averaging 8.8 points per game. I'll leave the Marketing of Moute's name to ESPN. After Moute the most significant contributer is Lorenzo Mata-Real with 3.2 points per game. Even though after the starting five, the Bruins still have four players playing double digit minutes they don't take very many shots.

In contrast, Kansas has six players averaging 23 minutes or more a game and two more averaging double digits. Like UCLA, they have four players averaging double figures, led by Arthur with 13.1 points per game. However, Kansas has three players averaging 7.3 points per game or better. These three players, after Kansas' top four scorer's, average 24.1 points per game compared to the Bruin's next three who average 15.1 points per game. That's an extra nine points per game. If you distribute those leftover points equally among the Jayhawks' top four scorers Arthur's points per game would increase to 15.4 points per game. That would lessen the gap between Love and Arthur to just 1.7 points per game.

Some similarities between Arthur and Love definitely exist. Both players are part of a four-big man rotation, although Love averages 29.2 minutes compared to Arthur's 23.7 minutes. You could argue that the difference in time played would give Arthur more points, but you could also argue that his tendency to get into foul trouble has robbed himself of those minutes. The shooting percentage of both players is similar as well. Arthur shoots 54.1 percent from the floor, while Love shoots 55.7 percent.

However, there are some areas where Love and Arthur are very different. Love either finds a way to get to the line much more often than Arthur or the Pac-10 officials call games much tighter than the ones from the Big 12. I haven't watched enough Pac-10 basketball to know the answer to that, but Love has taken 127 more free throw shots than Arthur. Shooting 76.4% from the charity strip Love has 103 more points than Arthur does at the line. Now this could be a merit of Love's skill to draw fouls and more than likely is, but even if Arthur even took 50 more free throw shots his average points per game would go up one, to 16.4 and now the gap between the two is less than a point.

Cheap Shot #2: Kevin Love is a freshman. The media is in love with freshmen this year. Since players have been forced to play their freshman season, more talent has come in and I think the fact that Love is a diaper dandy makes his stats seem all the more impressive.

Now I must lay down my closing argument, because quite frankly this blog has gotten too long. I could draw out more stats and say what hypothetically could be but I don't think that will really prove anymore to you than I already have. My maIn point is that there are too many factors that go into account when making a decision like this, for anyone to really be sure if they made the right decision. I think the fact that Kansas is such an unselfish team, something the media has written and talked about all year long, really hurts them. When voting the USBWA should look at that. They might have factored that it in and they might not have but I can't remember the last time a three loss team from the Big 12 didn't have a first or second team All-American on their roster. In fact in the 12 years of Big 12 basketball there have been four teams that have finished a season with four losses or less. All four of those teams have had at least one player that was a first or second team All-American. Two of them had two players on a first or second team. This year's Jayhawk squad will finish with no more than four losses and has the chance to break the school record for wins, still it will have no All-Americans. Your honor I rest my case.

In the beginning, we thought the blogosphere was a democratic place. It was easy: you could start a blog for free, and ideally, if you had something worthwhile to say, you could compete with the best.

There are no machine gun-men in blogland, there are no rules. Anyone can have a blog. Heck, I can't even hook up a VCR and I wrote a blog about my dog (although I don't think many people read it).

To make a living out of blogging is easier said than done, however. The rule of the haves and have-nots seems to have prevailed once more, and a select few blogs keep floating to the top.

How do they do it? What distinguishes the Engadget millionaires and the Perez Hiltons from the millions of other random bloggers out there?

Well, if the blogosphere were a meritocracy, then the blogs that have something original to say (whether it be well-researched, insightful, "snarky" or entertaining) would ideally have the most potential to succeed.

But unfortunately, the blogosphere has become a lot like a high school. If you're in with the "in" crowd, you have much more potential to become popular. It seems to be an industry of you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours: if you support other blogs, then you can eventually expect the same in return.

DoshDosh, a popular internet marketing blog, recommends to "influence the influencers", which means, in addition to submitting your site to StumbleUpon and Reddit, you should email other big bloggers and establish "friendships" in order to win their respect and support. It's kind of like an aspiring baker who might make a visit to the Godfather to get a good loan.

Maybe all this back scratching seems a bit artificial, but it makes perfect sense. How could any one person possibly have time to wade through millions of blogs each day and chose a favorite? It's much easier to rely on what's popular already, and what's popular isn't always bad. Talking Points Memo, The Huffington Post and Boing Boing, for example, are among the most popular blogs out there, and each of them has dynamic content that many people find useful every day.

So, how can we get on the A list? Maybe we need to start with the fundamentals: having something worthwhile to say and an audience willing to listen. We should do what any aspiring high-school freshman would do to get popularity. And in the blogosphere, that means putting yourself out there, posting often, commenting on other blogs, creating dialogs, encouraging group discussions and linking to other blogs.

It all seems a little mafia-esque. But hey, humans are social creatures, so why should blogging be any different?

On Saturday, my friends and I spent three hours at a square dance awkwardly bobbing and weaving to the sound of banjos and fiddles with twenty students from Kanagawa, Japan.

Last Monday, I spent an hour chatting with a group of students and scholars from South Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina about daily life here as compared to their home countries.

Some of the most amazing people I have met at KU have been Applied English Center students, and I didn't even know they were on campus until I began working there last year.

Every semester, between 150-200 students and scholars arrive to KU's Applied English Center from all corners of the globe, and for some reason, we never really hear about them. That's because they spend their days in separate classrooms and even go on separate field trips.

I think it's time that we know more about the Applied English Center students here at KU, and I propose creating a blog that would tell their stories - where they come from, what they study, what brought them here and what their impressions are of Lawrence and KU.

My idea is to select students from different regions of the world and do short profiles about them, including external information about their countries, personal interviews and footage, and their perspectives on life in Lawrence. I would also include information about special events on campus that would give the community a chance to interact with these students.

To direct traffic to the site, I would start by talking with international student organizations like AIESEC and ISA, and also talking to international studies professors about promoting the blog to their students. I could also talk to the Applied English Center about maybe putting a link to the blog on their Web site.

This blog would be another way to connect to KU's large international community - over 1,500 students - and it would be informative, interactive and fun to read for anyone interested in learning about making global connections right here in Lawrence.

Andy Warhol's concept of "15 minutes of fame" is a bit deceiving for bloggers. Doesn't a good blog post deserve a lifetime of attention on the ‘net?

Even though a solid, original post technically lives forever, the sense of celebrity brought with a blog can prove fleeting. If a blog posted under a clever pseudonym gets 1000 Diggs, the blogger could be disappointed when the story gets quickly cycled through the site.

Internet-skimmers might glance at the post and steer away in a about a minute. Is this what Andy Warhol meant by 15 minutes of fame? (Perhaps a 15-minute YouTube video better fits the ticket).

Even through "standard," non-Internet media attention, this brief moment of popularity still doesn't live with a person forever. Memories come as quickly as they go – unless you're an ancient Egyptian, Greek, U.S. president or The Beatles, your chances of getting remembered for eons for merely making the blogging "A-list" remains slim.

But for the present moment – bloggers have to catch a niche and fill it to the brim with candy tasty posts if they want to get known. And unless the blogger keeps feeding the beast, the beast gets bored and munches on something else. This seems especially true in an ADD-prone Internet-clicking generation.

So, take AppleInsider for example: the bloggy news site is constantly updated with Apple technology leaks. As long as secrets of up-and-coming technology get posted to the site, users will keep returning. For up-and-coming blogs, initial popularity is harder to achieve, especially since fewer blog niches remain available every day.

Perhaps it'll take old-school advertising like leaflets and shouting on the street for new blogs to make it. Online ads and links to bigger blogs certainly bring more traffic to the kitchen table, but without an initial popularity boost, a web journal, perhaps one similar to my own, is just another Internet filler. What is good content if nobody gets to it?

Bloggers are like whores. Using what their mommas gave them, they forge ahead on the World Wide Web.

First, a whore must have a product. You can't just be some web-toed, two-toothed, ho with the clap. You've got to be Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman with an affinity for taking it every which way, and do all the things the other hoes on the block won't do. It's got to be new, original, and unique.

That's how A-list blogger Perez Hilton got ahead. With a snide bitchiness, and a desire to "out" celebrities' dirty laundry, he took to the net with a doodle pen and a Mac. He was willing to talk about the closet cases, the sluts, and the divas (and divos) of Hollywood when no other blog was feeding that need.

Second: Advertise, advertise, advertise. Just as a hooker might have a calling card and word of mouth from her johns, you've got to network your ass off. Get other bloggers to link to your blog, link to your fellow hoes, tell people about it on Myspace. The funny thing is, hookers and bloggers alike are advertising on Myspace.

The top rated blog on the Internet, engadget.com, has gotten where it has today (besides its geeky subject matter) because it devotes a lot of time to linking to the right companies, websites, and other tech-blogs. They have a whole section of their website devoted to networking and linking to other sites.

Third, a good blog-ho must have a lot of time on their hands to feed the beast at any moment of the day. Just like a hooker with ten pagers, you've got to update constantly. We, as Americans are raised with different severities of ADD and in order to accommodate that (rather than combat it) we simply write several short stories in a day. This way people can check blogs on the fly.

Just like a good hooker, looks don't last forever, tastes change, and you aren't getting any younger. The most important thing to remember as an A-list blogger is that popularity can wane and an A-list blog can easily be replaced by the new girl on the block.

If I were to create an A-list blog, it would not be about cats. The following is the opposite of an A-list blog (though it does have a list and people love lists).

An A-list blog has to have the following things in this order:

*A fresh voice

*A topic that people care about

*Links to as many outside sites as possible

*Other people linking to you

*Update from five to 10 times a day

*Write things that will encourage people to comment (preferably crazy people that will incite outrage in others)

*Have reasonably good grammar and punctuation skillz

If you have an A-List blog, chances are:

*You have terrible eyesight.

*You type at least 100 wpm.

*You are probably very "geeky cute".

*You have a lot of money, which you'd better invest well because

*If you don't innovate, tomorrow people will forget you.

(This blog is my tribute to Kyle Gray, the next A-lister.)

I have four blogs and a semi-regular audience of approximately three people. In the four years I've maintained the oldest of these blogs of wonder and insight, it has received 18+ comments. The odds don't look good for me. So what's the difference between my blogs and those by the likes of Arianna Huffington? Why has she made it to the A-list when I'm still stuck out here in the blogging wasteland?

The answer is painfully simple, really: She's made her site indispensable to a significant part of the population. It updates multiple times a day (if not multiple times an hour). It has multimedia content, including lots of links to other Web sites that would appeal to Ms. Huffington's fan base. She's made herself into a household byword.

The Huffington Post touts itself as "The Internet Newspaper." And it doesn't just contain political news and it isn't just written by Arianna Huffington. Oh, no. You can also get news about business, entertainment and health and wellness written by a sizable staff.

So it's news -- big deal. There are dozens of news sites. What's so special about Huff Post? It's actually interesting, for one thing. The bloggers aren't compelled to cover their snarkicism like the regular media faces are. It's also geared to a particular audience: the folks left of center. It fills a niche in a big way. The same is true for celeb gossip blogger Perez Hilton. The world (or select portions thereof) wants to know about celebrities, and it's painfully easy to make fun of a bunch of people who take themselves too seriously. Perez blogs with a distinctive voice and has a flair for making outrageous statements.

Maybe I'm not quite cut out to be the next Arianna Huffington (certainly not the next Perez). But if I took a cue from them and started making my presence felt in the blogosphere, then maybe I could at least move up from the Z-list to the K-list or something. Next item on the agenda: Make Web-self indispensable to vast numbers of people.

I walked in to Stauffer-Flint today and saw a guy standing on a ladder holding something out of the ceiling in one hand and holding a cell phone in the other. It looked like he was sending a text message. I thought to myself, what is so important that he has to reply while he is in such a precarious position?

I have a cell phone, but I'm not much of a texter. I even turn off the ringer sometimes because I like the idea of being unavailable. Cell phones and all the neat gadgets that have been attached to them are all fine and good, but they have added a sense of importance to people that I find pompous and annoying. There is nothing I hate more than when I am having a conversation with someone and they stop mid-sentence to answer the phone. Oh, excuse me, I didn't know you were the Queen of France.

Don't get me wrong, I used to text. I even used to have Internet service on my phone back when it was new and unsophisticated. I have a friend with a Blackberry though, so I asked him why he needs it. He said he checks email, reads his Facebook messages and sends text messages (his girlfriend generally rolls her eyes when it starts to ring and he pulls it from his pocket to thumb a response, it happens at least twice an hour).

He said he doesn't look at Web sites or news very much because he can't see the whole page. I see his point. I would rather look at the whole page at once than try to scroll through and zoom in like you do on the iPhone.

It feels like an exclusive club I wasn't invited to. Call me old fashioned, but I like having actual conversations with someone who is in the same room.

Yes, I've heard the lectures and the predictions. I know that the way we communicate and get information a rapidly growing monster with a thousand tentacles and unpredictable behavior.

They say that good things come in small packages. Than again, so does baloney. And bagged dog poop. And cocaine.

Let's apply the metaphor to smartphones, PDAs and the like: They're small, technologically delicious, addicting and kinda crappy.

Yeah, going mobile is fun. All those hipsters on buses and whatnot, probably on their way to Starbucks for a grande half-caf, 2 1/2 shot, 3 pump vanilla, 4 pump caramel, 1/2 half and half, 1/2 nonfat, extra hot, 2 splenda latte machiatto, are way cool with their little devices. Checkin' the emails. Surfin' the Interwebs.

But while mobile Internet devices are easy on the eyes, they are also damn hard on them. Everything is so tiny. Ever watched a full-length movie on yours? Read Hamlet? A news article?

Herein lies the problem: they're so small-screened that to do something like receive news on your pod-thingy requires that everything be repackaged to fit into a dinky space. So, now Websites like Youtube have mobile sites, which have apparently been shrink-rayed to fit those tiny screens.

You can get teeny news bits too. And teeny advertisements! Mmmmmm, annoying!

And let's not forget filthy mobile porn (hyperlink not included).

What does all this mean to the journalist? I hope nothing. I hope that we can just pay a tech guy to re-purpose everything for mobile consumption. Maybe we can coerce a 415 student to do it for free.

Ultimately, I think technology will solve these devices' smallness problem. Little screens, for instance, can be overcome with video goggles.

While I firmly believe that the internet has made the tranisition to wireless devices, it still has a long ways to go. People are now starting to get a feel for how it should be done with the iPhone. Emails and smaller scale pages have been available to many different internet enabled phones for awhile now but the iPhone just opened up what can be done with the internet on a phone.

Loading.......

Sorry, sometimes it takes a second for the information to process. The information that you currently get on phones is a watered down, small scale version of what you can get online, but it is still a viable option for people to take advantage of it. Advertisers and markerters should be making an effort to get their products on these sites that are mobile phone capable.

Buffering......

If there are companies like jamster that can make money off of mobile phones than I think anybody with a good idea is going to be able to market to the mobile internet market.

Loading Data (8k of 12k)....

This medium has unlimited potential and when it gets put together in a quality manner it has can be a strong medium for many things. Advertisers need to take notice and start planning on using this medium in the future.

Page Loaded

Consider this analogy: West Berliners are smartphone users. East Berliners use desktop computers for their Internet. The Berlin Wall represents the digital divide. Armed guards symbolize the economy and Ronald Reagan represents Steve Jobs. Bear with me.

Handheld technology has been around for a while, but the smartphone wasn't successfully implemented until a powerful public figure gave some incentive. Still, there are a lot of people who can't sneak past the armed economy for some digital freedom.

Sure, this smartphone technology will put people up to their ears in information (pun intended), thereby revolutionizing the news industry. But news isn't what makes these gadgets so appealing, no no no. The availability of practical information, like maps and weather, is the true beauty of these mobile devices.

But there are so many barriers to entry for smartphones that it's damn near impossible to get one. If the high price of the gadget doesn't slay you, the service plan might. A friend of mine excitedly bought an iPhone only to realize it would cost him $300 to cancel his Verizon cell phone plan for that of the iPhone's AT&T plan.

‘Course, this service plan snafu is no match for the technologically inclined: plenty of people have hacked their iPhones to work with their own network provider. It has been reported that almost 400,000 iPhones in China have been hacked to work with China Mobile (10 percent of iPhones in the world, at the time).

So until the service plan is more flexible, Wifi is widespread and smartphones are as cheap as a normal cell phone, the technology will remain a commodity for the people who want all the information all the time. Until then, there's a definite barrier that stands between smartphone users and Internet users – one that hopefully won't last decades.

Tap, grab, pinch. No, no, no, don't annoy the kid sitting next to you; that's how to use the iPhone. iPhones and Blackberrys have changed the way we stay connected to work, school, and the Internet in general. It wasn't long ago that we thought that high-speed Internet was a big revolution. Now, it's almost a thing of the past.

Even though I'm a relatively new member to the Smartphone user demographic, I have quickly discovered why it is becoming so popular. I love the fact that I don't have to power up my computer to check my email. If I want to know what time a movie starts, I just go online and find out. While we may be able to access our email 24/7, we're also able to get the news, scores and weather at our fingertips.

As journalists, we have to adapt to meet the demands of the mobile internet users. The funny thing is we're still trying to learn how to please the demographic that has sworn off cable and only gets its news from the Internet. Now, not only do we have to worry about being able to put video and news online, we've also got to make it accessible to mobile users by building mobile-compatible pages.

National news media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC need to be concerned with keeping the iPhone generation informed. Trusted news sources such as these are going to continue to see increased views from mobile-Internet users simply because they are big-name, reputable sources of news. As for local news outlets, I just don't think that the typical Blackberry user really cares about the city council meeting to the point where he (or she) would call it up on the phone.

Honestly, journalists will always be playing catch-up with new technology since there's no way to accurately predict what's going to happen. Our goal for now should be to figure out what we need to do before the carpal-tunnel syndrome sets in and our demographic is lost.

We've been this scared before. It happened, for example, with the TV, which yielded the microwave, TV dinner and even televangelism.

No, I'm not talking about dysfunctional families, obesity or Tammy Faye (although they can each be heartwarming or scary).

I'm talking about the shortening of attention spans and, to a certain extent, the evolution of popular culture that comes when we integrate a new medium into our lives.

I don't own an iPhone and hope to hold out as long as I can, mainly because I'm terrible at multitasking and I really hate touching screens. But I know that within a few years, these devices will become unavoidable, much like the radio, TV and Internet did.

From my perspective, they're are a little scary. As I prepare to become a teacher, I brace myself for a classroom where window daydreaming is the least of my worries. Someday, kids have a constant stream of distractions in the palm of their hands. But, at the same time, they could be used as great learning tools.

It's easy to take the sky-is-falling perspective. Maybe our smart phones will make us become even more withdrawn and impersonal (like we were supposed to when everyone first got TVs). Maybe we'll replace our friends with Myspace pages and our parenting with "mom matters" videos or saved episodes of Roseanne.

What's certain is that having a constant stream of information at our hands will seriously affect our lives. As these devices become more and more dynamic , the news and information we seek becomes more personalized.

As a result, we will look for convenience and speed, which means as little clicking around as possible. As clicks decrease, online news will have to become more concise and find ways to lure the visitors in and keep them there, including interactivity, multimedia, and eye-catching graphics.

As for now, the average times spent on major news sites is slowly declining. However, the future doesn't look so bleak. Sources that readers trust continue to have longer times spent on their sites, especially when important news events take place (such as the elections). The New York Times, for example, had an average of 36 minutes as the time spent per person on their site in January 2008, and, all things considered, that doesn't sound so bad at all.

My phone lets me call people, text people and take pictures -- anything else I have to pay extra for. It's one of those phones you get up to three of free for buying a "real" phone and starting a plan. In other words, I would jump at the chance to own (or even play with) a super-cool multi-function mobile device like the iPhone. The iPhone, along with its cousins the LG Voyager and sundry other Blackberries, not only has multimedia capabilities, but also lets users Web surf, check stocks, get map directions and type documents. The iPhone and Voyager also have touch-screens, which make