Cardinals

I hope the Arizona Cardinals defeat the Pittsburgh Steelers. This instance is the first time in a long time that I'm NOT on the side of Barack Obama.

It would be nice to see Edge get a ring that he just missed when he left the Indianapolis Colts, and there are very few stories that are as compelling as Kurt Warner's.

Additionally, I see a similar situation via Ken Whisenhunt and his former relations to the Pittsburgh Steelers -- and Jon Gruden's former relations to the Oakland Raiders when his Tampa team triumphed. The difference is that the Steelers have the advantage because of their experience, their No. 1 defense in the NFL, and their (for all intents and purposes) home field advantage.

But the Steelers do not have Warner. Or Larry Fitzgerald. Go Cardinals!

Journalism and what it means

Journalism will never change.

There will be different layouts. Newspapers might ultimately perish from Earth. Aspects of television might become less and less and less significant.

People might get scared. Individuals will have second thoughts. Quality might decrease as individuals flock to different jobs.

But the written word has been, is, and will be an unmistakable, valuable tool throughout life. Writing will remain part of everyone's journey to improve society and to improve journalism. The economy and the changing technology have put a scare into us all, myself included. But journalism needs talented people. The one thing that will not be changed is the telling of stories. Now, to be fair, I don't mean that the length or the focus will not be changed -- I mean the reporting of a story when events transpire.

There will be humanity, marvelous sports feats, and unthinkable and unjust deaths. Who will tell their stories?

We will, and those entering journalism will not stop. Nothing should scare us and nothing should scare you. We are the present and future of telling stories through our eyes, our ears, our intellect. And after some of the rigorous classes we have gone through, why not us?

In today's market, with decreasing newspaper circulation and an increase in jobless rates, journalism doesn't seem all that attractive. But the first thing to go, oftentimes, in the downfall of societies, is the press and the freedom to have a free and open dialogue on any number of issues, including holding the government's feet to the fire so it stays accountable to the people. Journalism itself is valuable and is here to stay. The latter part of that statement should not be a worry.

How many lives can be saved? How many lives can be altered? What information will people not know in the future if someone who was going to go into journalism decides not to? Humans are lucky, lucky, lucky creatures. Taking advantage of pure reason as autonomous beings is something that we ought to do.

When there is the ability to improve life, we should definitely take advantage. Reporting factual stories and expressing measured opinions are necessary to keep the United States thriving. Information is a commodity, and it's also the key to many facets of society.

Journalism itself, then, is safe. We just have to make sure that that fact remains a fact.

Palin NOW gives interviews

I was reading some of my classmates' blogs this morning for fun, and I was deciding what my blog should be about, too. It was between the process editors have to go through regarding stories that might or might not be "appropriate" and something that has to do with copy editing.

After reading Scott Frankel's entertaining blog this morning, I will write about neither. I'll have to take the other side of his conclusion this morning.

He wrote about the media coverage of Sarah Palin and how we have been, for the past week, inundated with all things Sarah Palin. She has given a plethora of interviews, including multiple ones to CNN; she also let Matt Lauer interview her as she was cutting up some food in her kitchen in Alaska and as one of her daughters wore high heels (really! she was in the background and could be seen rummaging around).

Scott wrote, "I think it’s best for her to stop feeling the need to constantly defend herself in the public spotlight. Just go on with life." But readers, try to put yourself in Palin's shoes. Pretty much, imagine get skewered, slammed, and slimed all across America. Imagine getting strongly made fun of and being the punchline of every influential comedian and talk show host across America. Imagine being one of the key reasons that a genuine war hero can be ensured he will not be the next President of the United States. Imagine getting thrust on the national scene unexpectedly and botching a couple of interviews.

You'd feel the need to defend yourself, too. And Palin has every right to "clear her name" and try to let the American people know who she is and understand her side of things. Scott wrote, "It’s almost as if she’s insecure, and feels the need to constantly tell America that she can be a successful leader." Well, I don't know about the insecure part, but she clearly feels the need to let America know she can be a successful leader and that she isn't a joke. She wants to remind America that she isn't who the media made her out to be -- she did have a meteoric rise to the governor's mansion and knocked off the sitting Republican governor in the primary race. Impressive stuff.

Scott, the prank phone call thing occurred before the election, I believe, and that Africa as a country debacle is only according to some "unidentified" John McCain source -- but we can't see transcripts of those conversations and know what really went down. Clearly, the McCain people want to thrust the blame on her; they clearly don't have the capability of being generous and respectful -- like McCain himself. These things, for Sarah Palin, are important to clear up. If she wants a chance to have a greater future and be involved in politics on the national level and maybe run for president herself, she feels she has to clear up the drubbing she has taken.

Simply staying quiet was not an option, considering the McCain campaign kept her well-hidden. The McCain campaign mishandled her. Showing fear that a vice presidential candidate cannot hold an interview does not showcase confidence to a country.

Well, now she's everywhere and has rightfully explained her side of things regarding clothes and that African country thing (kind of strange for her to say she was taken out of context, though! That's not a straight up denial ...). To answer Scott's question, all of this attention is good, not bad, because she at least gets to tell her side of the story.

Of course, none of this changes some of my concerns I had -- and most of the country realizes she is too extreme and unquestionably not knowledgeable enough regarding domestic and foreign affairs -- at least, not even close to Joe Biden's, McCain's, or Barack Obama's knowledge. So, she has tried to undo the damage that has been done, but that damage will last. She seems to be popular within her own party, which is always a good thing. Like many have said, Democrats would love to see her win the primary for the presidential nomination in 2012; it would be a "gift" to us Democrats.

But first she had to clear a few things up. And unlike Scott, Bill Maher, and others, I do not blame her.

Obama Country

On the evening of Nov. 4, 2008, America was proud. We elected Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, and the effect of this decision immediately reverberated around the world. Obama's name was the toast of the country Nov. 5, and he certainly received Front Page Treatment.

I'd like to take us through a few of these front pages and discuss them. The Press-Register, of Mobile, Ala., went a pretty safe route. I believe the paper has it right when under "Obama!" it has "CHANGE HAS COME" in red -- and all other headline text in black. This red is symbolic of change itself, as red is different than black; it also stands out. Presentation-wise, there is a nice info column on the left hand side of the page, and lots of newspapers did not do this. The "Press-Register" is right in trying to provide as much information as possible. Unfortunately, the front page, however, is very bland. The picture of Obama is not even a good one, and it's much too small for the enormity of the accomplishment and the change that has truly come to American culture and politics.

Plus, the very top of the page is about sports, which is completely inappropriate. The whole front page should be about the U.S. elections.

This next one is a matter of taste, but I completely love what the San Francisco Chronicle did for its front page. The entire page is a crystal-clear image of Barack Obama against the backdrop of a dark sky. The image is truly powerful and goes along with "CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA," as Obama symbolizes that change. The contrast of the white OBAMA letters to the rest of the image is creative. Smartly, there is a lot of negative space in the photograph, which makes the focus even more on the "change" (Obama) that has been vaulted to the most powerful position on the world.

To add, though, it's extremely obvious that Obama and the image have been airbrushed. If you look at it closely, you'd question if the image were literally Obama as he was. It's too shiny, too fake, and too perfect. The overreaction to trying to present Obama in a perfect light might cost the image's credibility -- but overall, the idea was grand.

Families are important in America and most other places, after all. The Washington Post did not forget about this fact, so it's appropriate that its dominant visual image for the front page was a marvelous photograph of Barack Obama, his wife and his two daughters -- amid American flags and a dark background. Barack Obama's tie and Michelle Obama's dress match up (regarding color) with the flags perfectly. Additionally, instead of using the word "change" like seemingly every front page headline, the top simply reads, "Obama Makes History." And the deck under it reads, "U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President" and on a second line "Democrats Expand Control Of Congress." All three of these lines are accurate -- and the order of them is perfect.

This front page does not go for glitz or too much style over substance. More impressive regarding this front page is the photograph below the dominant visual image. There is an image of the reaction of African Americans as CNN declares Obama the victor. This shot is touching and emotional, and it not only represented the joy of the individuals in the photograph -- but it represented a historical triumph that deserved the jubilation that ensued. The only criticism is one that will make my entry sound hypocritical. The front page seems formulaic and might not grab as much attention as others, but the decisions that were made were calculated and done right in a front page that will live on in history.

And finally, it's time to talk about the two main Chicago newspapers that can proudly call Obama their hometown fellow. The Chicago Sun-Times tried something bold, by having the photograph in black and white. The picture was just of Obama's face -- in a not particularly attractive shot. Now, if there's some kind of genius connection of how our history of "black and white" in our country (in an ugly way) is portrayed in the image, then it's genius. My guess is that was not the thinking, so it's pretty much a glorified mugshot that's kind of annoying. All it says is Mr. President, too. Well, this statement is not accurate, as Obama won't officially be the President until inauguration. I guess it wouldn't look as cool to write "Mr. President-Elect."

The Chicago Tribune's literal presentation was perfect -- and good thing, too, since the newspaper has the largest circulation in Illinois out of all the newspapers in the state. There is a colorful rectangular image that takes up 90 percent of the page, and under it there is a deck that explains Obama talking at Grant Park, emphasizing "Change has come to America." The image above is awesome, as it's a bit of an action shot with Obama moving his arm. It seems like one of those photographs that is literally a snapshot in time. Nostalgic, if you will. The image, with Obama's happiness but also his stare toward the future, brings back memories and more memories of the long journey -- and reminds me of the time "Good Riddance" was played in that final "Seinfeld" episode, with all of the images of the past. The image is emotional and makes you reminisce about the past, and at the bottom of the photo, on large letters taking up a whole line is OBAMA and on the next is "Our Next President." At the bottom section, I like the image of a mini American flag.

We should all be proud to be Americans, and for the most part, the newspapers should be proud, too.

Copy editing and the changing world

Journalism has been quickly evolving. The Internet has certainly taken off within the last decade. And with this medium of the Internet making and breaking careers, as well as being the place where many people get their daily information, there comes a lot of responsibility and also a whole new way of thinking. Amy Gahran raises an interesting point regarding the readiness of college students in the journalism world.

Will we be ready and prepared based on knowledge we are given and the way we are taught? Do we need to be taught with a greater emphasis on the changing world? Are things much more different now than they used to be, and do the professors teaching us get us ready for any difference that there might be?

Part of this whole process is copy editing. For most mediums, there are strict rules and regulations -- and rightfully so. A strict style is actually a major key to a publication's success. People always know where a newspaper stands in terms of style, and the consistency and focus on accuracy have been dependable for a long time. But in terms of the higher up curriculum, is enough focused on copy editing? Certainly, at the University of Illinois, there seems to be an emphasis on it. When writing for reporting classes, "style" is certainly graded, and the class I'm currently in right now is indeed an editing one. Editing is very underrated because without it, a good story might as well be no story; if everyone laughs at the one spelling mistake or the inconsistencies within a story, no one will focus on the tremendous amount of work that was done.

But I believe in most colleges around the country, including this one, copy editing is not something that's built into the system. Sure, we learn about the "AP stylebook," but we are not becoming experts on it, as we seem to be beginners. Even the top bright student in any given class sometimes can't catch 9 out of 10 or even 8 out of 10 copy editing errors, and the reason isn't because he or she is not intelligent. If copy editing were bred into early classes and if there was more of a focus on it, then other publications would be mightily impressed, and journalism as a whole would benefit.

Additionally, I want to get back to what I was talking about before regarding the way that mediums are changing. With the Internet, I have noticed that in many places, copy editing isn't really being used. Is there a difference because something is read off the Internet as opposed to the text being on a printed page? The answer is yes, but in terms of principle, value, and credibility, I want to say no. The Internet ought to be treated in a very serious way. There should be media classes regarding the Internet collaborated with copy editing and all of the other important tenants of journalism.

In a nutshell: There need to be more classes. Students should be given as much information from experts as possible. After college, and maybe one year of graduate school, the education in terms of the focus on a pupil stops. Moving away from the realm of copy editing, do we know enough about economics and business to write about other numbers? Do we know enough about history to refer to other events? What about science?

Here at Illinois, we are required to take a certain amount of hours of other classes. I think this system is fine as is. If we collaborate with other departments, as suggested by Gahran, then do we lose out on journalism itself? There are not an unlimited amount of hours; we can't take 30 hours per semester. I think the system that is set up regarding other departments is fine. Journalists are rarely "experts" in a beat they are covering, but the journalists are certainly good at interviewing and processing information. The journalism itself should be emphasized more by journalism schools, and students should take their other classes seriously so there is a foundation of knowledge to expand on. An ignorant journalist is a bad journalist.

I don't think the collaboration business is a good idea, but I am always up for keeping an open mind, and if something genius can be worked out that benefits all of us, then that information would be important to know and should be strongly considered.

Pause

The world is a scary place. This scenario applies to journalists, too. Of course, there are different levels of fear.

Some people are currently afraid they'll lose their homes. Individuals are worried they'll lose their jobs. Most don't worry with a sense of deep seriousness about getting brutally murdered.

But that's exactly what happened to Anne Pressly, who was a popular anchorwoman for Arkansas television. She was 26. "Pressly was beaten around the head, face and neck," the USA Today story said.

Women, especially the individuals who choose to go into broadcast journalism, are faced with sad, rational choices from early on. Most people who seek information about the world, aka journalists, have sharp minds and have thought about things deeply, appropriately, and smartly.

When a person is in the public sphere, she's obviously more out there than ever before and more out there than most. I remember Lynn Holley, Illinois' academic programs coordinator, giving a speech to my Journalism 200 class for the '06 spring semester. She was discussing all the important aspects of journalism and especially internships, but I specifically recall her bringing up broadcast journalism and the word "stalker" and the fact that women can pretty much expect at least one type of individual or act; it was stated as fact -- like stating the grass is green or that George Carlin was funny.

And she's right.

To be clear, the suspicions leveled in the aforementioned USA Today story and other stories scattered throughout the country regarding Pressly's murder suggest she was the victim of a random attack. Who knows if television and being well known had anything to do with the horror, pain, and suffering she went through?

Public figures go through the prospects of getting stalked at a very high rate. Some of what lures crazy individuals are attractiveness and desire, and many female broadcast journalists at least in small part factor in their looks when selecting the medium of television. Television people are better looking than the rest of us. And, not that this needs to be mentioned, Pressly had blond hair and blue eyes. So, women must be able to stomach the prospect of going on even after major scares. They must stomach filing that next report under humiliating and unthinkable threats.

And though the world should change for the better, it's not. And the concern for women is not to detract from males who get stalked. Getting stalked, threatened, etc., seems to me to happen to high profile, good-looking women at a very high rate. There should definitely be some pause for each and every person, especially women, who want to go into broadcast journalism. The journalist will put herself out there for everyone to see, look up, study, contemplate, etc.

And there are insane individuals. Presumably most, like the general population, watch television. It's a guarantee that is not pleasant to think about -- but seemingly a fact nonetheless.

So, be careful. It's not overdoing it to have some type of security guard. It's not overdoing it to make sure that you're safe, to have protection, to have security systems for your home, to have people looking out for you, to have people around you. But, is that life one you are willing to live? Pressly's murder, I'm sure, made lots of people think about what is truly important.

On one hand, fear, in general, ought not to deeply affect a person's true aspirations and her mission to do good in the world and to deliver news to a mass audience of people. And she'd surely understand that the odds of something seriously bad happening are slim in general. But there are brutal realities, and if you look good and put yourself on television on a consistent basis, you will get stalked at some point.

It's best to figure out if that fact can be accepted -- and then if appropriate steps will be taken to try to not interfere with your life but to still protect you. The world's not fair.

But your life is too important.

It's good to understand

Are journalists and general readers of newspapers really that different? Does the average person hate the gatekeeper?

Where is the appreciation for journalists, and why don't journalists care more for the common reader?

The ombudswoman for the Washington Post sets out to try to figure out the tensions between viewers of the media and media members themselves. The ombudswoman, Deborah Howell, makes extremely important and insightful points, as society still has a long way to go in terms of its maturation process. It's a shame that those who determine the news and who do the best they can in terms of delivering respectable content are generally disliked by the public.

All the hate affects the approach to different problems; that altered approach has an impact on news editing decisions, editorial decisions, and the effort put into a story.

Howell wrote, "Each reader comes with special needs and interests." And the implication is both good and bad. The good is that it's certainly positive to be able to think outside the box independently; a healthy mind -- especially in relation to media content -- leads to healthy discussion and a flourishing democracy full of ideas and innovation. But the unfortunate implication of the observation has to do with cynicism. People -- readers -- are cynical; a lot of them, and seemingly with a greater and greater frequency. With so much anger, sometimes journalists are unfairly not given a chance.

The flared passions give journalists and editors a very small window to properly tell a story the way he or she would want to. And not being able to edit or write naturally due to fears about the reaction of the readership takes away from some of what makes journalism great and useful in the first place: that the people involved with the media content are coming up with the best ideas at the time, as those ideas will have a possible noble effect on society.

But when a person looks harshly through the lenses of just his or her realm, then a story cannot be seen for what it is. And that fact is a major problem. In this day an age, we need solutions, not more problems. Skepticism is ok; outright cynicism is not.

Importantly, however, editors and writers need to have a thicker skin. With rabid response available in today's media, readers will make their feelings known -- and known loudly. If a journalist is able to take instant criticism, -- even if it's very harsh -- then that maturity usually goes a long way. Emotions about self-loathing shouldn't get mixed up with fact versus anything that doesn't meet the standard of fact. The disconnect between media members and society truly hurts journalism, but a fix is possible.

It's important to consider common humanity. Especially in today's scary times, we need to be in this together. Yet also, having some kind of disconnect is ok because journalists have to be ready at a moment's notice to potentially say something damaging to a person he or she cares about or who he or she has covered in a beat for years and years because journalism is not about selfishness and making friends -- but about accountability, truth, trust, and doing what is right. Ironically, if people believed the aforementioned were truly the case, journalism would be psychologically in healthier shape than it is today.

After talking about bias and self-righteousness regarding readers and journalists, Howell then wrote, "But then along comes a financial crisis, and where besides major newspapers and their Web sites can readers get authoritative coverage of what is engulfing us?" When push comes to shove, the public needs journalism because who will lookout for truth? Who will hold people accountable and hold their feet to the fire? Newspaper writers, journalists in general, etc.

It's important to note that the haste and hateful feelings between media and non media need to calm down because one cannot think clearly and in a fully rational manner if there is such unnecessary anger pent up inside. Journalists work very, very, very hard -- and most work honorably. And most individuals who are not journalists work very tirelessly and diligently and deserve some empathy. With the Internet being used more and more, it's much easier to express anger and to write viral comments to one another as opposed to picking up a telephone or speaking to someone face to face. So, maybe the issue between viewers and journalists has been mighty similar all along.

But regardless, it's important for communication to be readily possible between journalists and the ones who follow the stories because communication and understanding are ways to solve problems and ways to create a sense of trust. Readers will feel like the writer truly does have empathy for a situation, and journalists will understand where others are coming from.

Understanding makes all the difference in the world; understanding is a good start to anything.