Essays: March 2007 Archives

Apparently, the offensive "middle finger" began in the Hundreds Years War between the French and English.

According to the story, the English were so effective at killing the French with the bow and arrow, that the French could not even get in place to fight back. The middle finger is one of the fingers used to shoot a bow and arrow. As a result, the French would cut off the middle finger of English bowmen. In return, when an English bowman had the chance, he would raise only their middle finger - if they still had it - at the French to taunt them.

Pretty cool, huh? Well, actually, my boyfriend made that story up and told it to me. I told about five or six people until he finally told me I had unintentionally been lying to people. He wanted to see how many times I would repeat the story and thought it was funny. Unfortunately, I did not exactly agree.

So, I decided to figure out what exactly was the origin of the middle finger. I clicked my way to Wikipedia's "the finger". There are several ideas to how the middle finger became offensive. The Hundred Years War was not one of them, but it was the possible origin of the "V sign".

All the interesting facts you can find on the Wikipedia site are pretty amazing, I thought to myself.

Then it hit me.

People like my boyfriend can submit to Wikipedia.

I am totally excited for next weeks episode of MTV's The Hills. Lauren finally confronts Jen about hooking up with her ex. and we learn this isn't the first time Jen chases Lauren's guy. She kissed Jason, Lauren's ex-boyfriend, before they started dating! Lauren celebrates her 21st birthday and it looks like she and Heidi reconcile. But will Heidi still ditch Lauren and move in with her sketchy boyfriend? Find out Monday…

I write on my friends' blogs or Facebooks about MTV's The Hills rather than go to mtv.com. The stations' efforts to increase its web popularity struggles after recent internet applications steal youthful audiences' attention. Ten years ago, Napster was introduced and can be considered, in the words of Don McClean, the day the music died- at least on MTV. The popularity of YouTube and music blogging also adds to MTV hardships, especially as the channel moves away from music and towards reality television and selling to advertisers.

MTV aggressively advertises mtv.com to its television viewers, prompting them to visit after each show concludes. The site offers exclusive interviews, "after shows," interactive games, discussion boards, news updates, music video and show previews and sneak peaks.

MTV explores new ways of capturing kids attention online but still aren't piquing as much interest as it'd like. One new offer is a virtual world based on characters and places from MTV shows where you can create your own stories. Creepy though, since it is based on people from reality shows...

MTV needs to not half-ass its efforts in catching up to and surpassing its competitors or it'll be left in the dirt. It needs to take the rebellious vigor it started with in the '80s and bring it to the Web. For the last 16 years, MTV has had kids saying, "I want my MTV." Now they need to get them to say, "I want my mtv.com."

Many people may not know this about me, but I am a DJ. That's right, I can be heard saying "Here's an oldie but goodie, how about some Hootie and the Blowfish on your Saturday night!" (yes, Hootie and the Blowfish are now considered "oldies")

With the rise of Satellite radio, ipods, and Internet radio programs, things are slowly becoming less and less local in the radio world. But what good old am/fm radio has that iPods, and Satellite radio doesn't have is the FREE factor. We don't pay a penny to sit in our car and listen to our favorite news radio station or top 40 music stations.

With big corporations growing, like Entercom, Infinity Broadcasting, and Cumulus, there is pressure to adhere to market research and play only top 40 "approved" and preprogrammed music. This takes away the hyper locality(dare I use this buzz word) of am/fm radio stations. The station I work for can tell you the temperature down to the street name, right around the corner from where you live. Can satellite do that? Do large corporation run stations do that? No and no.

Just recently, Patrick Lafferty blogged about the fact that online radio is now making 14 cents a song per listener. In reaction to this horrible decision Lafferty states: "I thought this country was supposed to be about the free flow of information and the industrious pursuit of success and happiness?" Amen to THAT. This is my point exactly. For all of those naysayers who claim radio will be gone in the next 10 or 20 years, how can this be?

In a recent study done by Arbitron last September, it was found that radio reaches more than 230 million people each week in the United States. It has all the perks and advantages that Internet radio, and other information media like satellite radio do not.

So, I say, long live the mom and pop small non-corporate radio stations. We aren't going away!

I was in one play during my junior year in high school. I had a minor, 10-line role.

Had I known the future of my career, I would have jumped on the theater-geek bandwagon. Unfortunately for me, I could not, and still can not, tell the future.

Four years later, I am journalism student at The University of Kansas, and all I keep asking myself is, "Where are the theater classes for future journalist?"

I may not be able to see the future, but I can read trends when they happen.

Convergence? I hear a lot of talk about it in the school, but where I can learn to anchor and "report" the news as well as act out the scenarios? Think about how valuable that would make me as a journalist?

Now, I know what a few, and I stress few, people might say about this.

"Why not photograph / video tape the story as it happens, if it really is?"

Journalists are people too. We have other things to do besides work. Acting out news scenarios will give us more time for more stories too. Besides, we do not need to "show" the actual news happening. We know the stories are happening. We are hearing about them after all.

Plus, drama gets people's attention. WDAZ had the right idea, but think about how a little acting scenario of "emo" kids cutting themselves would have stepped up the drama. The station could have made a real difference in helping these "emo" individuals.

A few people might ask why did WDAZ not add some statistics of how many "emos" actually have depression problem or cut themselves? Why not talk to an "emo"?

Apparently there are such things as stupid questions.

Everyone knows "emo" kids hate life and want to die. Has anyone ever heard of an "emo" that wants to live a happy life?

There are a few people that just can not see the future of journalism. Take Jon Stewart for instance. Funny man, but come on, Jon. The "responsibilities" of media are being redefined. Times change.

Teach me, teach journalism students, the future to their career… acting.

I hear it pays better too.

We should all learn to be a little whorish.

At KU's outstanding journalism school, I've learned essentials of the craft: researching public information, organizing and editing a story, and convincing reluctant sources to talk. Then I took an advertising class, and I found the missing ingredient.

Ya gotta learn how to sell something, and how to make a deal. Donald Trump is right.

Keeping the government accountable, speaking up for those can't speak for themselves—those are important journalistic ideals. I can write the story, but can I sell it to the busy masses? Maybe we're a little off by making the News & Information track merely about copyediting or reporting. Maybe we should teaching Whorin' 101: How to Sell Yourself and Your Work.

The job market for us j-school grads is killingly tight. Only the best survive, right? Sort of. It's more a combo of the few talented who can also market their skills productively. I can be Bob Woodward with my reporting abilities, but I should be Donald Trump in my sales ability if I want to land a great job after graduation.

Or if I want to sell a story to an editor in the daily budget meeting. And what about drawing in an audience to read the story once it runs in the paper? I'm not talking about more Anna Nicole coverage, but a marketing concept applied to both the craft of journalism and the search for jobs. (But not be a media whore.)

I'd like to learn that here at KU. Why not Donald Trump as guest lecturer? (Watch this flash animation. Trump might be promoting himself with this, ya think?)

I remember standing in a corner margarita bar on Bourbon Street late in the afternoon March 19, 2003. I was celebrating my 26th birthday. I nursed a rum and coke and watched the start of the war in Iraq on the bar's TV. Looking around, there were only two people watching the news: me and the bartender. Everyone else steadfastly looked away from the TV.

It was a small scale observation, just a moment in time. It didn't necessarily represent the entire country or any greater truth. Just the truth of one bar, on a street corner of New Orleans. I've always thought it was a great anecdote though. Maybe a piece of the larger story of what was happening all over the country too.

Last semester, I spent three months investigating how KU handles Beak 'Em Bucks accounts. Throughout the story, and when it was finished, my instinct said that this was a bigger story. That at other universities, the same thing was happening. I wanted to expand the scope, really nail down the national numbers, but there is only so much human bandwidth one man has (thanks to Ellyn Angelotti for introducing this term to me).

Both my anecdote and my Beak 'Em Bucks research would have fit perfectly in larger stories; but how would I go about doing such a thing?

Enter, stage left, approaching-overused-buzzword: Crowdsourcing!

I've been of two minds about the idea, both endorsing and bashing it. But a project launched Wednesday has me interested. Wired News and newassignment.net are collaborating to build a single, uber-article on crowdsourcing, using…drumroll…crowdsourcing. They call it Assignment Zero.

This is, so far, the one of the best uses of journalistic crowdsourcing that I have seen. Professionals, experts and regular folk all working on one story.

I hope it works. If it does, they may expand to other topics. I know I have the pieces to some bigger stories (or the willingness to find pieces), just not the time or resources to flesh them out.

What stories do you have a piece of, or would you work on, to help create a crowdsourced uber-article?

"SPRING BREAK!!!"

You've gotta either yell it, or follow it up with a heartfelt "Wooooooo-Hooooooo!"

This has become a bit of an inside joke among a couple dozen friends of mine for the past several years. It began as a slightly irritated observation:

"You know those party clips that MTV shows with people dancing on the beach and crap?"

"Yeah."

"Why does everyone yell "Spring Break" on those? I mean, seriously!--who really says that?! …And they do it *every* time, too."

We determined that "Spring Break!" is actually a state of mind.

It should be used as a greeting—you have people over, and someone may swing the door open, and, struggling to carry in a fresh 12-pack, may shriek "Spring Break!" to announce their arrival instead of actually knocking or offering a more traditional salutation.

It's a battle cry for scholastic brethren. It has a certain motivating appeal that is Lombardi-esque, and usually results in a roomful of raised glasses and broad smiles.

"Spring Break!" actually works best when it's unexpected: the dead of winter, for example. It's a cathartic iteration that spices up any occasion, if only momentarily.

The kids on the MTV clips may have been catering to the cameras, but they struck a common nerve. "Spring Break!" is living in the moment, surrounded by good friends and not caring what tomorrow may bring.

And, because March Madness is tipping off right now, "that's all I've got to say about that."

SPRING BREAK!

(Warning: this is my biggest rant of the semester. By far.)

I worked with two University of Missouri journalism graduates last summer. They had gone to one of the best journalism schools in the world and they knew it.

"So how much should a new j-school grad expect to make?" I asked them.

"Probably between $21,000 and $24,000," they said.

I couldn't believe it. I bleed myself for years at KU, only to start out making as much as the night stocker at Target? A salary that paltry is almost disrespectful—c'mon guys, you can appreciate your content producers a bit more than that.

That started my free-fall away from merely to reporting and editing as my job of choice as a journalism major. To be honest, I think I'm starting to entirely re-think my approach to journalism.

Corporate profit obsession will finish killing American journalism within the next 10 years. Editors at regional newspapers have told me that their corporate parents expect profit margins as high as 20 percent. The Kansas City Star (where I interned last year) is a cash cow for McClatchy, the firm that owns it.

Don't get me wrong—I'd sure as hell invest all my money in anything that boasted a 20 percent return. But any beginning finance student will tell you that cash flows aren't a function of the here-and-now. Cut chunks of veteran staff, and you'll save some money in the short run—but the product you sell will be irreversibly damaged for the future.

Journalism doesn't need more content managers or editors or managing editors. They need producers of content—reporters, writers and correspondents. They damn well don't need any more shareholders or investors.

But I'm not stupid, and I know merely protesting won't help much (though I applaud the folks from Minneapolis and St. Paul in the picture above). I'm planning to fight on the enemy's terms—I hope to finalize my application to the University of Missouri-Kansas City's MBA program this summer. If newspapers (and journalism) are to be saved, journalists must be equipped with the weapons of finance and business.

(If nothing else, I'll get paid more.)

To professors, I say let students write wiki. Some might say, what madness is this to teach students a medium oft derided by citizens and professional journalists. I say, let them write wiki.

Uncle Rick recently sent out an e-mail about Gannett newspapers. In the e-mail, Gannett's CEO was quoted as saying, "Rich and deep databases with local, local information gathered efficiently are central to the whole process."

The newspapers have always been the medium of record for much of the legal goings on in a community. But this idea of being THE local database is different and only possible by embracing the Internet. It moves beyond archives and into a living, changing entity. And wiki is the ultimate community database tool.

Let the professionals write wiki too!

For the 201 class, students could add an entry to Wikipedia about the University of Kansas that isn't already there. Since errors get so much attention with Wikipedia, students could try finding an error in an entry, particularly one about KU, Kansas or the media.

In the longer run, journalism students could build and maintain an independent wiki about KU. Wikis already exist about some universities. The KU Information Technology and Telecommunications Center maintains a wiki about research projects.

Writing and revising entries on a KU wiki would give students, particularly freshman and sophomores, a chance to learn web code, learn about the history of the community they have joined, practice research techniques and meet sources they could user later when they are reporting the news. It would make them better reporters when they reached the advanced media level. It could also give lessons in citizen content if all members of the KU community were allowed to add entries.

It could help unite the campus media also. Entries could link to stories produced by the Kansan and KUJH. It could be a reporters tool to. Once it was well fleshed out, reporters could search through people using it to find sources. If it was built well, under every entry on a person who attends or works at KU, it could list how many times they had been mentioned or quoted in campus media. This would likely require adding a tagging feature to original content at the Kansan and KUJH, but that's a good idea too.

I say, let them write wiki.

The most important thing in higher education is not learning what to think, but how to think.

I'm in a tricky position here, as I might be the only one in the class who did not major in journalism as an undergrad, so I couldn't honestly say what's "missing" from the experience.

At the same time, there is a general direction in which technology is dragging media, and certain tendencies within the craft that will be amplified.

The ability to sniff out shenanigans is a timeless quality. This becomes even more crucial in the digital age with mainstream media outlets like Reuters getting caught up in one major faux pass after another: the "double smoke" incident, the "woman with three bombed houses," and the "little girl that actually fell off a swing" are just a few recent gaffes from the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

One of the most valuable services a blog provides is to act as a watchdog on mainstream media. Already, blogs like Confederate Yankee have received praise for investigative journalism at a time when the established media is searching for a way to regain credibility after dropping the ball on "that whole Iraq thing."

A highly entertaining and informative book is Hippo Eats Dwarf: A Field Guide to Hoaxes and Other B.S. by Alex Boese (who also operates an outstanding website). He gives a wide array of hoaxes that "made it big," and how they were eventually unraveled. If there is one book that captures the essence of detecting a fraud in a way that would appeal to an undergrad, this is it.

Mark Twain said that "history doesn't repeat itself; it rhymes." No two hoaxes are exactly alike (except for the Nigerian prince scam), but there are a number of red flags that should activate the attention of an engaged viewer. Learning the history of media is certainly important, but memorizing major missteps of the media in the past becomes "interesting but irrelevant" if that same student can't apply those lessons when it counts the most.

My friend John works for Farm to Market Bread Co. in Kansas City. On February 16, he delivered bread to 75th Street brewery and saw Kennedy's, a KC favorite neighborhood bar and grill, on fire. He pulled over to call the police but heard sirens in the distance. I asked John what he did next and he said he watched it burn…

Journalism 201 teaches students to take journalistic opportunities.

Like the J694 citizen journalist assignment, ask 201 students to carry a video camera or camera phone and find breaking or yet-to-be reported news in their community. Don't request they act as "citizen journalists" but as intelligent and aware news reporters. If they can't find anything, tell them to create something. Chances are most students find unusable footage but a few may stumble across headline news.

Show the students' videos in class and discuss if the stories have news or entertainment value. Also, compare the video to current/popular information programming, namely from or on the Web, like YouTube, Amanda Congdon, lucky camera phone video that made it onto primetime news, ect.

The class teaches students to take journalistic opportunities because it gets them looking for and at news. Asking students to be mindful of the fact they are carrying a camera phone and looking for a story, teaches them to be aware, think on the spot, ask the right questions and use their resources.

It also teaches students new and trendy ways of gathering and presenting information to the public. Study blogs and vlogs like the 694ers and examine newspapers, magazines and news/entertainment television and its multimedia options. Students see and learn new, effective ways to present news to Web savvy viewers.

As a 12-year-old, David Copperfield endlessly fascinated me. He embodied magic and illusion. After I took my step-daughter to see him last year, I kind of wondered if the only trick he's still capable of is keeping his career afloat. Maybe I'm just older and more cynical, but I've gotten used to better illusions.

As a society, we love illusion, whether it's the simple magic tricks of birthday magicians to the elaborate machinations of Copperfield. Though we don't often think of it this way, each breakthrough in communication technology created new forms of illusion for us to indulge in: radio dramas, big screen movies, Fox News, etc. The Internet delivered the promised land of illusion. Dozens of fake worlds thrive. Snopes built a brand name debunking e-mail illusion. That beautiful, 22-year-old aspiring model you met in a chat room a couple of nights ago: illusion.

Illusion, however, cannot be used as a barometer to judge the health or ills of our people. Several commentators have used the recent "Pit Breakup" event to pontificate about the mistreatment of women in modern society. Using illusion to make decisions about our society is not only foolish, but dangerous.

The breakup was no more a symbol of female humiliation than sawing a woman in half is a symbol of female mutilation. It's just the new magic: social magic and illusion. We're too smart and jaded to really be wowed by the old standards. Copperfield may not make my mouth drop in awe anymore, but I salute Ryan Burke for his prestidigitation.

Quote of the week (about science, but applicable here):

"The times I've been wrong is when I assume there's a brittleness in a complex system that turns out to be way more resilient than I thought." –Stewart Brand, as recently quoted in a New York Times article.

When my dad was younger, he spent a lot of time at his grandfather's cabin located on Gardner Lake, in Gardner, KS. One of his fondest memories there was when one of his uncles was repairing the roof, and fell off. Now this may sound morbid to anyone else, but to my dad it was "the time I laughed the hardest."

The truth is, this generation is guilty of being amused and entertained in the same way my dad was long ago. We like to see people out of their comfort zones, humiliated, or just plain hurt. Why? It makes us feel less stupid.

The "pit breakup" is just another example of our need to see others in pain. Why else would over a thousand people gather to watch it live, and over 300,000 log on to youtube.com to watch it(sometimes again and again)? Take, for instance, the bridezilla video. In this video, we see a bride who "wigs out" when she gets her hair done for her wedding, and it is cut way too short. She proceeds to take a pair of scissors and demolish what is left of her hair, all the while crying and screaming in hysterics. This video has gotten over 2.5 million hits on the web.

It is later revealed that both the "Pit breakup" and the "Bridezilla" videos are fake, and were in fact staged events. In the Bridezilla video, it turns out the bride was a 21-year-old Toronto aspiring actress named Jodi Behan. Some also argue that Ryan Burke, star of the "Pit Breakup" was staging the event to get noticed by The Daily Show on Comedy Central.

So, the question to consider is WHY? Why do people feel the need to stage such horrible events and post them on the internet for thousands to see? Personally, I think this has become all about celebrity. Behan is a perfect example. The Bridezilla video certainly got her noticed as an actress and the video was even featured on NBC's Today Show. Lonelygirl15, famous for her youtube.com posts in which she portrayed herself as a 15-year-old girl who needed to be loved, recieved an award from VH1 for her acting abilities at the "Big in 2006" awards.

Until we stop watching and reveling in other's stupidity, these "web stars" will continue to reach ridiculous celebrity status for no apparent reason other than the fact that we let them.

At the University of North Carolina, Ryan Burke staged an elaborate flash-mob break-up with his supposed "girlfriend" Mindy Moorman. Several video cameras and a thousand bored UNC students attended the event, which Burke had hyped via Facebook events.

It was all a hoax (they weren't even dating at all). A silly promotional ploy Burke had designed to "show the power of Internet communities."

Burke had a group of singers show up to allegedly serenade Moorman in celebration of her birthday and Valentine's Day. He posted a Facebook event inviting anyone to see the fake bait-and-switch, and the event devolved into Jerry Springer-esque, R-rated tirades. He really, actually thought he was doing a significant social experiment.

He wasn't. No one came because of the unique promotional capability of the Internets (which is a series of tubes). They all came to see Bitch #1 vs. Bitch #2. And what, no bitch-slapping involved? Ryan Burke, you disappoint me.

Did we learn anything new today, folks? I don't think so. Everyone can still have their 15 seconds of fame by hyping crap that plays to the lowest common denominator. Forgive me for saying this, but I disagree with Moorhead's assessment of Burke's abilities: he's like, "a genius person," she said. A UNC counselor wrote the student newspaper to complain about "emotional abuse" modeled by Moorhead and Burke's silly skit—c'mon, let's not take this too seriously.

Uh . . . if I post a video of me pooping (in broad daylight) on the front lawn of the all-female GSP Hall here at KU, then I will surely be famous for a little while. To any KU student who meets me thereafter, I'll be known as "that one guy who took a dump at the girl's dorm." Oh yay for me! I conducted a significant social experiment!

Honestly, I learned more about human nature when KU's famous campus masturbator was in town. (Where'd he go, anyway?)

Well, whaddaya know? Turns out the "Pit Breakup" was a hoax after all. University of North Carolina student Ryan Burke now claims the entire event was staged to demonstrate the power of the internet. He notified people of a "YouTube event" via Facebook, and hundreds gathered on campus. The event provides an interesting case study of mob mentality and groupthink, but it also is remarkable for its online popularity: the video received nearly 750,000 hits as of February 28. So why on earth do people attempt this sort of thing and why would anyone else care?

I think it may have started with American Idol: this idea that anyone can be the next (artificially manufactured) star. Contestants are compensated with airtime if they are worthy, or so wretched as to invoke hysterics. Everyone theoretically starts from equal footing. More importantly, the show is reflexive and interactive, encouraging viewers to participate by text messaging who they think should win. The essential notion is that every person matters and every person can have their fifteen minutes.

YouTube isn't really that different: it's a barometer of the zeitgeist. It's a gorgeous sort of schizophrenia that reveals the full (or limited) range of the human condition. From the guy that set the world record for t-shirts on his body to Lonely Girl to the Leprechaun "sighting," to the UCLA taser incident, to…well, last month—some kid at North Carolina publicly scorning his "girlfriend" on Valentine's Day in front of a thousand people—YouTube seems to be well on its way to replacing sitcoms as the fodder of choice for "water cooler conversation."

But where's the big payoff? Corporate execs are spinning their wheels trying to get financial traction in the YouTube craze. Companies like Pizza Hut occupy the homepage of YouTube with "contests" for people to enter "funny videos" showing that they are the "biggest fan of Pizza Hut pizza" – but it is worth mentioning, judging from low ratings and cynical comments, that many people have not taken kindly to this heavy-handed effort at promotion.

People like their YouTube moments to be quick, entertaining, and genuine. So far the online community has been relatively quick to denounce hoaxes and corporate charades masquerading as comedy or drama. Hopefully the critical qualities of the masses will keep pace with the ever-improving sophistication of the frauds.

I grew up in small town Ottawa, Kan. There is only one high school. Good ol' Ottawa High.

People are not kidding when they say everyone knows everyone else's business in a small town.

People were also not kidding when they said the internet would bring us closer together than ever before. Real or not, the "pit breakup" is just another example of how the World Wide Web brings me back home.

You think that video will haunt those two for the rest of their lives? Probably not. Can anyone ever respect either of the two ever again? Yes. Are their professional lives ruined? Get real.

If your argument against me is that it's out there on the Web forever, then you obviously do not come from a small town. Someone else will make a bigger, dumber mistake and steal the spotlight. I've seen it a hundred times before.

The best was my sophomore year in high school. A girl in the grade below me thought it would be a smart idea to send a photo of herself topless to a male senior, by e-mail. Almost every guy in school received a forwarded copy of the photo. The photo might have even ended up on a Web page. If you think parents and school administration did not hear about it, then I do not know where you grew up. It gets better though.

One exceptionally ornery student created a hotmail account to send the photo to her father.

In my book, that tops being dumped in the "pit breakup".

But, her life is not ruined. She went on with life - as much as it sucked at the time. The rest of my high school and the town went on with life too. I bet I would have to remind most my classmates about the event. Hell, I did not even think of it until the "pit breakup" discussion.

You think the "pit breakup" is the only time someone has used technology to humiliate someone on a large scale? No.

One man used live television to breakup with his partner. Is it real? I am not sure, but it is the same concept.

In other words, welcome to Ottawa. Absolutely Ottawa.