April 2009 Archives

One of the most important skills any journalism can possess is the ability to market themself, especially as newspapers across the country are closing their doors and popping up on the Web.

In about an hour, I'm going to make a soggy trek up to Minneapolis for the American Copy Editors Society conference. Before I leave, I'm double-checking the list of sessions offered. About half of them are Web-based. Editing sports online, how to use Flash, how to edit video and audio slideshows, how to design Web sites, how to choose a CMS. All of those sessions and more are there. In comparison, the good old-fashioned "how to write headlines" sessions looks outdated and quaint.

Look at the name of the organization though -- we're a bunch of copy editors. This isn't a multimedia journalism convention or a code writers convention. Yet even among copy editors, the Web is central.

Actually participating in professional Web-based sessions helps me understand the future of the industry better than the gloom and doom news stories I read. It gives me hope that someone, somewhere understands the need to adapt. Instead of bending over and taking it, some of us are doing our best to keep journalism relevant in the digital age by learning the skills necessary to stay caught up.

I think the days of reporters, photographers, copy editors, videographers, etc. are over. Instead, you have a girl with a notepad in one hand, an audio recorder in the other, pen tucked behind her ear, with a laptop bag slung over one shoulder and a camera bag (still and video, both Canon devices of course) slung over the other. The computer bag holds, obviously, a 17" MacBook pro with a pimped-out hard drive and maxed-out RAM, with a small external device to spare. In addition to a built-in Web cam, there's of course Microsoft Office and the full Adobe Creative Suite. Oh, and Final Cut Express. Don't forget the 8 gig memory stick hooked to her keys. She also has a CrackBerry in her purse. I give you the journalist of tomorrow (or today). The only thing missing is the obligatory flask of scotch. She keeps that in her desk back at the office.

So, Mummy, can I have all of that for graduation? Please! I need it in order to work!

While many lament the way we as a society seemingly have devolved into 140-character "tweets" on Twitter, there is credible information coming from some of those tweets. They come in the form of links to other news organizations or people who find and post useful stories.

I see Twitter as a way to pool links from several Web sites into one easily accessible and manageable page. If you don't want to see Ashton Kutcher's latest TwitPic of Demi Moore's butt, you don't have to. And while there are useful and useless elements to this newfound social networking world, that is one thing I think is fairly useful. You pick what you want to read and see. And discard the rest. 

You can also follow journalists and stay in the know, tracking other news organizations. You can track outlets such as the New York Times or the Lawrence Journal-World.

Heck, I even use Twitter to follow all stories posted involving the Chicago White Sox on the MLB.com Web site. 

But the topic Mike posed for this class was "why journalists shouldn't ignore Twitter and Facebook."

So, I wanted to get a take on this from someone who actively uses Twitter in his reporting. I spoke on the phone with Alex Parker, a former KU graduate student in the J-School who now works as a reporter in Chicago for the Chi-Town Daily News. 

"I first heard about Twitter when I was working in PR, and one of my colleagues told me about it," Parker said, "and I thought it was the dumbest thing ever."

But when Parker moved to Lawrence for graduate school and began working part-time as a reporter for the Lawrence Journal-World, he discovered that Twitter allowed him to grow a network of people in the area. And that allowed him to pose questions to them.

"They weren't specific questions," Parker said, "but I would ask, 'Has anybody had trouble getting on the bus,' or,  'What do you think of the idea of tax money going towards to T?' And I would get responses. It gave me the opportunity to open up a dialogue with them. These are people that live in the community and they're part of my online community. I don't think I've ever met the majority of them face to face."

Parker said there are distinct differences between the social networking Web sites Facebook and Twitter. Facebook primarily is used as a means to keep in contact with friends, to take quizzes and post photographs. While Twitter can be used to talk to friends, it can serve as something much more valuable. 

1. Parker said, "Twitter brings you closer to the community. It gives people incentive to follow you because they get a glimpse of who you are, beyond being a reporter. It tears down the wall of a byline, shows you to be a real person and creates a sense of community, even if it's a virtual one."

2. Parker continued by saying, "If journalism is to remain relevant, news organizations need to realize the power of the community, and not ignore what regular people are saying. Today, a reporter is the best marketing tool a news organization can have. When the public trusts a reporter and gets to know him or her, even virtually, it gives people incentive to read and become engaged."

The debate as to whether Twitter should be used as a means for reporting rages on. Garry Trudeau, the creator of the Doonesbury comic strip, says journalists who post on Twitter are being narcissistic and that some "are so smitten with the idea of a personal broadcasting system that the absence of meaningful content to broadcast doesn't seem to concern them."

His entire interview, posted earlier this week, can be found here.

Trudeau continued to shred the notion that journalists ought to solicit followers for questions or answers via Twitter.

"You're supposed to be professionals," Trudeau said. "Do pilots and surgeons ask for suggestions?

"If you can't think of a few good questions, you and your producer are in the wrong business. It's not about getting fresh, out-of-the-bubble perspectives, as they would argue: most questions sent in are obvious or inane. It's really about flattering the followers, populist pandering."

Trudeau notwithstanding, I think many people find Twitter more useful than useless. Twitter is what you make of it. There are plenty of people who personally broadcast either their favorite ice cream or "exemplary parenting skills," as Trudeau says. But there are plenty of useful gems to be found if you take the time to sift through the garbage.

That's it Twitter. You're not for me. I quit. Well, that's not true. I don't quit. I just don't log onto you anymore, leaving anyone that follows me severely disappointed.

When Professor Williams asked us to sign up for Twitter earlier in the semester I was skeptical. I already had Facebook, which I consider a great way for me to connect with friends and old acquaintances. That part of my life was already full, so I wasn't interested in Twitter filling it. The only shot I thought Twitter had was becoming a way for me to get some of my news. I had heard of many stories about different organizations that provided news over Twitter, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Things started out well enough. I started by following various organizations which published news stories on topics that interested me. (Mostly sports and gambling. I'm a degenerate.) Before I knew it I was getting bombarded with dozens of news stories a day. How many of them did I actually read? A few. But before too long I just found myself going to those news organizations' Web sites and reading the news the new-old-fasioned way.

I think I know why this aggregation of news I tried to perform on Twitter just didn't work for me. I'm the kind of guy that likes to seek out my news. I like to get on, read the news at my convenience, and decide how deep to delve into what I'm reading without being told. For this reason, subscribing to news updates from someone/something on Twitter is a bit annoying to me. I log onto social networking sites to see what my friends are doing and share what I'm doing. This is the same reason I don't like RSS feeds. I find myself wading through a ton of information I just don't care about trying to find the good stuff. This wading process is much more comfortable for me when the information I'm not looking for is housed in cyberspace, and not my email inbox or Twitter home page. 

This isn't to suggest that everyone on Twitter needs to give up distributing news. Using Twitter to distribute news can be done, it's just not being done properly for the most part. Instead of using some sort of bot to post links to stories housed on a newspapers Web site, papers would be much better served by using Twitter as an interactive way to see what readers feel about different stories. This goes back to Twitter being used as a social networking site. The important feature is the interaction of people, not the actual reading of news. I'm sure there are people doing this on Twitter, I just didn't find them or they weren't in my areas of interest.

So long Twitter, I gave it my best shot. Maybe I'll come back when I'm older, and closer to being in your target audience. I'll leave with a few good memories, and I'll still be sure to occasionally check out the tweets of funny users like Shaq, Barry Zito, and Ed Hightower. But other than that, I'm afraid I can live without you.

I am just going to come right out and say it.....twitter seems kinda weird to me.

Reading a recent article by Brian Solis about how social media Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook have changed the face and outlook of journalism made me think about how often I have seen articles on Twitter in the past month. It seems like every day I see another headline about how Twitter is blowing up. But journalists need to quit writing about Twitter's popularity and start taking advantage of it.

In my post "Twitter for journalists: Examples of Twitter in action," I wrote about how journalists and media companies can use this platform to track breaking news, publicize content and network with other journalists/publications--in 140 words or less.

Facebook offers many of these advantages to a lesser extent. In my experience, Facebook is less useful than Twitter for following breaking news and covering a beat. Facebook shines at promoting content in a richer format than Twitter.

Here's an example of how a traditional news organization can promote content, and grow their readership through Facebook.

One of my "friends" on Facebook is NPR. News updates from NPR appear in my status feed, just like when a friend updates his or her status. Media outlets can also use their Facebook pages to upload pictures, video and interact with their audience.
 
So next time you're on Facebook, give NPR a poke.

Can Twitter and Facebook save journalism? I think someone better be a damn good journalist to have a large following on one of these social networking sites. Usually the successful bloggers who start their career online are people like Perez Hilton and Nik Richie. But who would have thought that Perez Hilton would have such great success from his celebrity gossip blog. Or that Nik Richie would earn millions by creating thedirty.com, a site that allows people to post pictures and talk shit about their enemies online. 

If I want to become famous by creating an online persona, do I have to be a shit talker? Do I need to neglect all of my journalism skills and draw a penis on a celebrity's face (aka Perez Hilton) to make a buck? Well apparently, I can be the next Anderson Cooper and when my show gets canceled I can just start a Twitter account and call it day. 

Yes, I think it's important for journalists to have Twitter and Facebook and all that social networking shiz but I don't think it's going to "save journalism." Everyone has such a utopian perspective about this site and frankly I think it's kind of dumb. Yes, having 60,000 followers on Twitter is going to boost your readership but I think your main audience is actually subscribing to your newspaper/magazine or watching/listening to your news show. 

For instance, I follow NPR and CNN on Twitter but I rarely get updates from these people. And when I do, I ignore them because they are coming from a massive RSS feed (aka there is no one behind the message). I enjoy listening to NPR on the radio and I'm praying that I don't have to check Twitter to get my news updates. Can we all get a moment of silence for this small chronic break. But really, Twitter might help us a little but it's not going to save journalism. 

As a journalism student learning about social media throughout numerous classes it has proven itself useful and important.  As a reporter for KUJH-TV I have used Facebook frequently to find sources for stories.  I have been able to generate story ideas from people's Facebook status.  Social networking sites have proven beneficial and helpful for me personally.  Do I think it should completely take over as a form of journalism? Not necessarily.  Coming from a small, rural town in Kansas I know that if I went back and started talking about Twitter numerous friends and family would ask the question, "What is Twitter?"  While it has a lot to offer its users there are still so many people who have never heard of Twitter or who have heard of it but don't understand its concept or usage.  For traditional small, rural towns like the one I grew up in physical newspapers are very important and the main source of information for people.  This is why I very much disagree with Walt Mossberg when he said, "Think about it. Of the hundreds, thousands, of newspapers around the country, there are really only a few that matter. Good journalism and journalists, on the other hand, are worth saving."  For small towns physical newspapers describe the town's culture and operations.  In my hometown, I know an abundance of people who rely heavily on the newspaper to keep them informed and to keep the town's government in check and responsible for its actions. 

 

When it comes to using Twitter and Facebook to promote myself as a journalist, I like the idea but I also question how much it really gives a journalist credibility without seeming egotistical.  I like how these social networks can humanize a journalist for their followers but it doesn't seem as valuable as face-to-face communication.  For me personally I find it much more difficult to trust people online compared to communication through face-to-face interactions and I think there are a lot of people out there that would agree.  However, a bonus of these social networking sites is how they allow people across the globe to follow journalists and their works when face-to-face communication is unachievable.  The question that Brian Solis asks in his article, "Can the Statusphere Save Journalism?" I think it is a reasonable question but personally I think the Statusphere alone will not save journalism.  I don't believe journalism needs that much saving because journalists have always adapted and evolved with the ages and I believe all journalists will continue that trend.

The media aren't so removed from every other facet of your life when you're on Twitter. It becomes more of a part of it. Amid tweets from friends and celebrities, news organizations and journalists update their followers with recent news, or, in NPR's case, a desire to find the recent news.

Twitter and Facebook are what you make them.

Many people just use these programs as ego boosters, but there is so much more you can do.

Here are ways journalists are using these tools.

• build and interact with community of viewers
  
• source story ideas
  
• communicate on a (somewhat) more personal level
  

The list of journalists using these tools includes the Wichita Eagle's Ron Sylvester and NPR's Scott Simon. It will just continue to grow.

But when everyone has a twitter and a facebook is everyone a journalist?

Within minutes of US Airways Flight 1549 crashing into the Hudson River someone had already taken a picture and posted it on twitter. 
 
News sites were able to use this information instantly.

I think the way that journalism will survive is if we learn to use these tools very effectively and are always looking for the next thing. If everyone is a journalist then the way we will survive is to make a really good product.

We need to help each other in order to do this. We are all in this together.

Brian Solis' article "Can the statusphere save journalism?" went awry in the second paragraph when Brian almost blindly accepted Walt's hypothesis that there are only a few papers worth saving.
If this were true, why are there hundreds of thousands of papers to begin with? Or maybe a more puzzling question would be "how are they making it?"

The perspective of both Solis and Walt is very idyllic and unrealistic in my opinion. They claim that skilled journalists can find a variety of routes through which to market themselves to the world.  This essentially ignores simple fact that people necessarily have to have successful careers, they have to have an income, benefits, and job security.

Sure, you can give the whole "market yourself independently" world a shot, and you can even join as many social networks as possible -- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, what have you. But none of these efforts are a guarantee of a career in which your work will be published, read and profitable. Plus, with the sheer volume of individuals hoping to strike it rich on these sites, it seems they are becoming less dependable for any realizable benefits.
 
How do you stand out in the wide, wide universe of Twitter profiles and Facebook pages? And if you do have the content and experience and background available there that would impress and move the world to read your stories, do they even go deep enough into your profile to discover any of it?

 Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid Facebooker and Tweeter. I love them both for different and various reasons. I just don't believe that Facebook or Twitter should be a journalist's resort to find a job or make a name for him or herself. And I don't believe it is EVER a good idea to consider that only a "few newspapers" are worth keeping and the whole lot of them should be done away with.
 
Abraham Lincoln said, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."-Thomas Jefferson

Local newspapers are the basis of democracy! C'mon, Walt. Let's not be so vain as to think that only the conglomerates matter and that millions of people aren't reading local small-town papers.

My problem with traditional news

One of the problems that I see with journalism is that we are not concise enough and sometimes do not reach the readers in the way they feel we should. With the "journalism renaissance" underway, as Solis alludes to, the media can no longer chose what it wants to report - so for you reporters probing people for stories - go get a Facebook and Twitter accounts. More than likely readers will want to read what you write about because it's something that's on their already discussing. Bank on it! 

People, now more than ever, want quality news when they want it, wherever they are. For this reason, journalism needs to find a way to be more mobile, more personal, more focused. Facebook and Twitter appear to be the prescription for getting connected the demands of that community. With outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, people feel they have a constant stream of information from more than just one source and - if it does not provide the full scope of the story. That's where we come in. We, as journalists, need to be able to provide the full scope of what's going on, while keeping the news narrow and local enough so people can relate.

Where do Facebook and Twitter come in? How do they bring it all together?

As we have seen recently, news changes direction in a matter of seconds and Twitter and Facebook bring reader right to the action. It creates a space where people can scan and chose the news they consume in a matter of seconds. Our function of telling readers what to think about is fading. It is our job, now more than ever to keep our stories to the point, accurate and relatable. We need to be the springboard from all other sources of news; this will be key in attracting those who look to Facebook and Twitter for their news. Any news organization adapting to the increasingly technical journalism future should look to many of Mossberg's key catalysts for reinvention:

Personality + Insight + Promotion + Interaction = Visibility and Community

            

It's a question journalists seem to be asking themselves every day now.

Why did I choose this profession?

Traditional newspapers are dying. Advertising is going off the deep end. Online is seemingly the only refuge.

The problem is that journalists moving online are realizing the demand for timely content is extraordinary. In Brian Solis' online article, he mentions several popular news entities and their interaction with followers via Twitter. The statusphere, as Solis refers to it, needs near-constant updating to keep followers interested. This puts an unrealistic, although necessary, strain on the journalists brave enough to commit to the idea.

Many news stories and columns have talked about the burnout journalists experience because of the fast-paced news environment. The trend is depressing, showing that professionals are leaving the game at increasingly younger ages. The job is demanding; News never sleeps. Journalists for the most part are also underpaid, so burnout comes from the amount they give after they've compared it with what they're receiving.

It's as though the public fails to understand what goes into reporting and packaging the news. People want to know, from reliable sources, what's going on. They just don't want to pay for it. The problem with the truth behind that statement is that there's not much journalists can do about it. Thanks to things such as Google, Twitter and the Web in general, information is available readily, and free of charge.

So where is Twitter leading the industry? Into a promising future, for those able and willing to keep up with the frantic pace. The fan base a journalist can build through online social networking will prove to be invaluable in the efforts to maintain journalistic careers.

The best and the brightest are the ones who can, and hopefully will, survive.

Some of my friends who are not on Twitter keep telling me the same thing: "I just don't understand the point of it."

Now, these people are not journalism majors and therefore might not be as inclined to use and love Twitter, but I always defend Twitter in response to their remarks.

I think that Twitter is a great way for people to read social news and to get factual and legitimate information through following news sites. By adding themselves to Twitter, news sites can help themselves to get information out to people in a way that consumers want it: conveniently in one location.

Blogging

Some journalists seem to be scared lately that bloggers will take over their jobs with the content they come up with and then put out on the Web for all to see. But really, I don't see why.

I mean, think about it. What would bloggers have to blog about without the news they get from news sites? Bloggers would become the new town criers. They might occasionally hear of newsworthy events that they'd post, but without any journalism training, their information would not really appear as legitimate.

Johnathan Bailey from Plagiarism Today wrote on bloggingtips.com five things that bloggers can learn from journalism school, which I guess as a person who has never taken journalism classes would be very helpful. But still, bloggers will never have the same finished product as a good journalist.

Journalist and blogger Mark S. Luckie wrote a good blog about "Why J-Schools matter." They definitely do matter and show the difference in the quality of blogs put out on the Web today.

As Brian Solis says in his entry, "Content becomes a social object that inspires communication and action." I also agree with him when he says that good journalism will always be upheld. It will be what inspires bloggers to talk about.

Money

It's interesting that Solis brings up the idea that news sites may one day charge their readers to read the news. I understand that the Internet will change and evolve with time, but part of the beauty of the World Wide Web is its accessibility.

When I  read over the idea that Solis addressed, I couldn't help myself say "bleh" out loud. I think that if this were to happen, less people are going to be inclined to read the news. I can foresee a jump back to print if that is what happens. 

Solis also addresses ads, which is an interesting topic. It is definitely, as he says, disappearing from the print side. 

I think that digital ads are going to take over even more so than they already have because of the capabilities they can have. Consumers, if interested, can click and go directly to the business, ads can have and animation, and size isn't as big as an issue on the Web.

Mashable.com has an interesting blog about online ads. Jennifer Van Grove discusses how lately ads have been noticeable on YouTube videos.

Statusphere is ultimate way to share news

Again, I agree with Solis that RSS feeds on news sites are on their way out. There will be more "Share this" options in which consumers can tweet about stories or share them on Facebook, etc.

Social media sites allow for people to get all information in one personalized spot. It saves time, and it lets consumers pick and choose what they want to read. 

Is this bad for journalism? Yes and no. Of course, it's a little sad that more stories are probably not going to be read as much. But it's also great for journalism because with all of the changes happening now, it's a fresh start. WIth all of the sites that monitor Twitter trends, it will be easier for journalists and news sites to figure out what people are reading, what they respond to and why. 

Right now is a weird transitional phase in journalism, but I only see things getting better as journalist figure out how to incorporate social media sites into their profession.

After learning about Twitter, I was skeptical of its use.  I wondered, why did people need to constantly let others know what they were doing at any given moment?  The whole idea seemed very self-involved.  Reluctantly, I joined Twitter and began choose a list of people to "follow."

After navigating through the site for awhile, the reason for the popularity of Twitter became clear.  Twitter is not merely an online diary of sorts, but a mode of mass communication and idea exchange.

In a recent article, Brian Solis discusses how social media is not only changing the meaning of journalism, but of journalists themselves.  Tweeting from the courtroom or the ball game humanizes journalists.  Instead of delivering information through a formal medium, journalists can disseminate quick facts through channels available to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.

In a class I took a few semesters ago called "Rhetoric, Politics, and Mass Media," my professor defined mass media as, "Individuals or institutions who use technological means to communicate biased information to large numbers of people who have little to no immediate feedback channels."  After thinking it over, I agreed with the definition.  With traditional media, the only feedback a person has is to call a news station or write a letter to the editor of a newspaper.  These methods are hardly immediate.  Social media sites such as Twitter allow people to instantly respond to a news update or story posting. 

This type of journalism is preferable because it serves exactly who it is supposed to serve - the people.  Furthermore, the more people who are involved in the news reporting process and the more people who exchange differing ideas, the more democratic the process becomes.  This should be something to celebrate, for isn't it the purpose of journalism in the first place? 

Yesterday, a top-read article on Time.com caught my eye. A book, "A Brief History of the Future" by Jacques Attali, predicts what the world will look like in 2050. Among the more exciting prognostications -- multinational corporations controlling everything, roving bands of pirates -- is one that seems obvious now. By 2050, dead-tree journalism as we know it will be dead.

I had a discussion with my mother about newspapers when I was home last. I explained to her that media groups hadn't quite mastered the money-making aspect of the online world quite yet, but when they did, there would be no looking back. We mourn print newspapers out of nostalgia and the feeling of holding something tangible in our hands. In reality, though, good writing (and editing, photography, etc.) is good writing regardless of where it's printed. The idea of the Web (even, ahem, Kansan.com) as a digital dumping ground for stories "unworthy" of print consideration irks me.

Journalism will survive even if newspapers don't. It may even be stronger for it. Another thing I explained to my mother was that, despite all the noise online, the excellent journalism will eventually rise to the top and the market will correct itself. People demand good products, and the strongest and best and most-adapted will survive. There's a reason that the world's best newspaper has steadily shifted to become the world's best newspaper online (referring of course to the New York Times).

Brian Solis' article about social media's role in journalism hits on the major strength of sites like Twitter and Facebook -- instant feedback. You can see, in real time, what people care about and what they're talking about. Web site hits, most-e-mailed lists, comments and tweets measure reader interest and participation in ways that print journalism just can't. Not only do journalists see quantitative audience measures, but readers can also make their wishes known without having to sit down and write out a letter to the editor.

Journalists can take this feedback and turn around immediately and respond to it, covering what their audience explicitly asks them to. To ignore what laypeople are talking about -- in some cases, notably on CNN, laypeople ARE the journalists -- is to blow a hole through your own foot.

I learned first hand the power of Facebook to fill in when the mainstream media fails.

I recently saw a good friend, photojournalist Jon Goering, work on what I perceived to be an incredibly important story. His topic was the humanitarian crisis at the US/Mexican border where undocumented migrants die in the harshness of a desert nicknamed Desolation. For a week, he lived in a desert camp profiling a humanitarian group, No More Deaths, which provides medical aid and relief to undocumented workers. I was a volunteer at that camp and I watched him formulate his story.  

Throughout the week, he worked with diligence. He overcame language barriers and false leads. He won the trust of seasoned volunteers and traveling migrants and they let him photograph them. I saw him inspire hope in migrants and volunteers, who were glad that someone cared enough to tell this story.  As the sun came up over the twin peaks marking the sky beyond the desert camp, you could see Jon sitting in his Ford Explorer. The big white car, parked off the side of a lonely road in the Sonora, served as his office. Its haphazard location was the one place he could get wireless in order to mail his pictures back to his editors.

After we returned from the camp, we waited for the story to come out--desperate for other people to understand the cruel absurdity of the border. We waited. And waited.

Finally, we got an e-mail from Jon. The LJ World has decided not to run his story. In his email, Jon thanked us and apologized. And he included a link to his essay.

Looking at the essay, I wanted to cry. The photos were beautiful and the story so powerful. What was wrong with the LJ World editors? Why wasn't this story being told?

In the face of this injustice, I decided to fill in where the mainstream media failed. I  would get the story out as best as I could. I posted the link on my Facebook page. I did it out of desperation and frustration, resigned to doing what I could do under the sub-ideal circumstances.

I was surprised when hundreds of people followed the links that I posted. Jon and I got wonderful responses. People contacted me to thank me for posting it. Students contacted me, interested in volunteering for No More Deaths. A professor contacted me, asking if I could arrange for Jon to come speak to our class.

I am still frustrated by the fact that the media failed this story. But I am grateful to Facebook for allowing this story to be told.

 

For the Easter holiday I went home to celebrate the religious holiday with my family.  We have always gone to church on Easter morning so I went with my parents to First Lutheran Church in Paola.  After the service, I got the opportunity to visit with my kindergarten through fourth grade teacher whom I hadn't seen in quite some time.  It was great to see so many people who knew me as a child or teenager and tell them all of the things I have accomplished and that I am about to graduate from the University of Kansas.  We would reminisce about memories throughout the years and laugh.  It was a refreshing and fun Easter morning.

 

When we got home from church my mom started making an amazing Easter lunch and preparing for her extended family to arrive.  My brother, his wife and their three children arrived early and eager to hunt Easter eggs.  The day before I had spent my afternoon coloring Easter eggs with my nephews and they were so excited for the Easter bunny to arrive.  We had a really nice lunch and by the end of lunch the boys were tugging at my shirt asking when the Easter bunny would bring them Easter eggs.  Since it was raining I told them the Easter bunny would only come to the house if they went upstairs to read a book with Nana Kathy and were on their best behavior.  So after much convincing they boys reluctantly followed my mom upstairs to read books.  As soon as they were settled upstairs my brother and I scattered the eggs around my parent's house.  When we had hid all of the eggs I went upstairs to tell the boys the Easter bunny had snuck inside the house to get out of the rain and left eggs scattered all over downstairs.  The boys were so excited that whenever my two and half year old nephew, Isaac, would find an egg he would yell, "I found another one!"  After the boys had collected all the eggs my oldest nephew, Logan, said, "You know, I just don't know why the Easter bunny doesn't hide the eggs any better?"  It was an adorable question because you can tell how genuine and sincere he was.  I just told him that the Easter bunny took it easy on them so his little brother could find some eggs too.  It was such a fun, relaxing day with lots of laughs and memories.

I grew up in a house without religious practice of preference. My parents viewed religion as a personal decision. While other kids were in Sunday school I was outside, climbing trees, building forts and playing "what's under that rock?" Good times.

My brothers and I were never baptized; I don't think I understood the significance of Easter as a religious holiday until I was nine years old--the first time I read the bible.  Prior to that, it was all about the bunny.

Religion fascinates me. There are concepts I struggle to understand, such as the concept of faith. On more than one occasion I've found myself on the outside looking in. Anyone that tells you America is not a Christian nation was not raised in an agnostic household. Christian traditions and values pervade our society, from observed holidays to blue laws.

I'm not saying that as a nation, we are not tolerant of other religions. I'm simply stating that our nation was founded in a Christian tradition. However, I do believe our society is much more tolerant of other religious faiths than of those without any faith. On more than one occasion I've been proselytized by acquaintances, hell-bent on saving my heathen soul.
 



Then there are the usual questions:

Q: "If you're not Christian, how do you celebrate Christmas?"
A: "The same way many Americans do: with a tree, friends and family."
Some atheists/agnostics choose to call it "winter solstice." I'm fine celebrating Christmas, "Winter Holiday" or whatever permutation you choose to call it, so long as it involves family, friends and eggnog.
 
Q: "What about Easter, do you celebrate Easter?"
A: "As children we had Easter egg hunts, and O.D. on sugar. Easter was about celebrating the miracle of mammals producing chocolate eggs."
Easter celebrations predate the Christian holiday--Ēostre was a Germanic goddess of spring and fertility.

Q: "What is your family's biggest holiday?"
A: "Toss-up between Thanksgiving and Halloween..."

Q: "So, what do you believe happens when you die?"
A: "The carbon cycle."

Monday was a great day for news.  However, it was also quite alarming.  It made me wonder how the University of Kansas could once again drop the ball when it comes to student safety.  K.U. first dropped the ball when at the last moment it warned students about traveling to Mexico for Spring Break while numerous other universities had warned their students weeks before. 

 

This time K.U. took a very serious threat and kept it a secret.  How dare the University not inform its students to be on high alert after K.U. Public Safety received numerous threats over the weekend that at the Student Senate debates students would be shot.  It is the students and faculty's right to know about threats just as much as K.U. police and administrators.  It doesn't mean the University has to cancel classes or ask professors to excuse students, but just inform the K.U. community to be on high alert.  The fact that K.U. did not use its text messaging system is disturbing.  K.U. explained it only uses the system if students need to take action in an imminent threat, giving the example of a shooter on campus.  First of all, how is this system effective if a shooter on campus has already killed people?  I understand K.U. does not want to send students and professors into a frenzy but it could be useless to have such a system if a shooter is on campus and already taking action.  Second, how does K.U. not consider this an imminent threat after it canceled a MAJOR event, placed metal detectors in the Kansas Union and then canceled the Student Senate debates all together?  If it wasn't an imminent threat why did K.U. go so far?  I think a solution to this is simple.  When K.U. has security and safety concerns it should alert students and faculty using the system explaining that campus is still open and classes will still be in session but to be on high alert and conscious of your surroundings because of safety or security concerns.

During all the crazy Student Senate election happenings, a student has to have a haven, a hideaway, on campus. For me, Stauffer Flint Hall, home to the KU School of Journalism, is that place.
Although it's the hub of campus news and information, most of the people here are concerned with and committed to providing unbiased information to the student body. We aren't politicians. We're journalists.
That doesn't mean we don't have our own opinions. In fact, journalists often have some of the most rooted, firm and passionate opinions of anyone because they are "in the know" and stay abreast of the news. But it's not our job to tell you what we think or why you should think this or that way.
It's our job to inform, to be trusted sources of information and to keep our mouths shut. This is often a difficult task, and let's just be honest -- between journalists, we do discuss our opinions. But it's vital that we remain balanced in our reporting of the news.

This is why Stauffer Flint is my shelter from the wicked hatred (exaggeration) and Greeks v. Greeks, Greeks v. GDI, Greeks v. Everybody controversies (not an exaggeration).

Poking around on the Web, I've found that some of the better interactive sites are actually not news sites.

The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., The analysis was based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December. December also ranked as the eighth warmest month globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature.
Overall, 2008 continued the cooling trend we have seen since 1998. 2008 was the wettest year on record for New Hampshire and Missouri, second wettest for Massachusetts, and third wettest for Connecticut, Illinois, and Iowa. 2008 was the fourth wettest year for Indiana, fifth wettest for Maine, Michigan, and Vermont, seventh wettest for New York, and eighth wettest for Kansas and Rhode Island.

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
Last year was the driest year since 1988 in the Twin Cities with 22.38 inches of precipitation. That amount was seven inches below the 1971-2000 average of 29.41 inches. 2008 turned out to be cooler than normal, with an average temperature of 44.47 degrees, which is about half a degree below the 1971-2000 normal. It was the coldest year since 1997.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee snowfall averages 47.0 inches, but in the 2007-2008 season, it recorded 99.1 inches of snowfall. Last season was the second snowiest season in the city's history. The first occurred during the 1885-1886 winter season and totaled 109.8 inches. Last year's average temperature was 47 degrees, a bit above the average annual temperature of 46.1 degrees.

St. Louis
The year 2008 will long be remembered as the wettest year on record for St. Louis. The city recorded 57.96 inches of precipitation, which was nearly three inches more than the previous record year of 1982. The St. Louis winter season produced about 24 inches of snow, which exceeds its annual average of 20 inches. The average temperature for 2008 was 54.7 degrees, about a degree cooler than the annual average of 55.5 degrees.

Kansas city
The average temperature last year was 52.7 degrees, a degree-and-a-half below the normal of 54.2 degrees. 2008 ranked as the eighth coldest year on record. The total precipitation for the year was 44.66 inches, or 6.68 inches above normal, making it the 20th wettest year on record. The total snowfall for the winter season was 24.1 inches, with the average calendar year snowfall of 21.4 inches.

Lincoln
Nebraska saw above normal precipitation in the north central part of the state and below normal precipitation along the southern border of the state. Average temperature in Lincoln in 2008 was 50.4 degrees, which was about a degree below normal. Total precipitation for last year was 34.9 inches, which was about seven inches above normal. The winter season brought 20.4 inches of snow, which fell about 5.5 inches short of the annual average for Lincoln, 26.1.

Throughout college you make friends and some come and go but the ones who stick around are the best friends you will make in life.  The friends who come and go are the ones that only have friends for their own convenience and are self-centered.  The friends that stay around are the true friends who care about you and value the friendship you share with them.  These friends are the ones who appreciate who you are and honor the friendship instead of just being friends just to have someone to go out to the bars with on the weekend.  I think that Tracy Lawrence's song, "Find Out Who Your Friend Are" sums up my thoughts of friendship pretty well.  As I was reading through the lyrics to the song I found that I could connect my own experiences to his song.  I have met people throughout my senior year of college who I know will become lifelong friends and I have had friends from freshman year that I learned are not true friends.  It took me stepping outside of my comfort zone and volunteering in the newsroom to make new friends but after we got to know one another we just continued to strengthen our friendships.  In Tracy Lawrence's song the chorus struck home for me:

 

"You find out who your friends are

Somebody's gonna drop everything
Run out and crank up their car
Hit the gas, get there fast
Never stop to think 'what's in it for me?' or 'it's way too far'
They just show on up with their big old heart
You find out who your friends are"

-Tracy Lawrence

 

We all go through the good and the tough times but it's the friends who are left standing next to you through the tough times that are the friends who will always be there for you.  Growing up, you have numerous experiences when you learn who those true friends are and it's a constant learning experience of who you can trust and count on and who you can't trust or depend on. 

As my time at the University comes to an end, I've come to thinking a lot about the classes I have taken here. Classes that are so great that you remember them years later and still think about the lively conversations that they contained are occasionally hard to come by. In my past four years at the University, here are some of the best classes I've taken and why I loved them so much.