Brian's World

Cardinals

2009-02-01T14:07:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-03T06:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-17T05:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-10T05:35:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T05:53:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-27T05:20:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-20T05:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Remember

2008-10-13T05:31:00.000-07:00

Just a week ago, my class blogged about editorial decisions regarding whether it's appropriate or not appropriate to publish certain photographs (pretending to put ourselves in the situations that arise for gatekeepers).

But that type of filtering occurs naturally when stories are chosen every day, too. And to be blunt, something needs to be pointed out. What is being under reported -- and maybe what has always been under reported -- is the "war" in Iraq ("war" is in quotations because the occupation is technically not a war, but it might as well be considered a war based upon all the deaths).

How many personal stories of the 4,181 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice do you really know? How many of their names do you know? How are their families being helped? Has there been a truthful explanation as to why the deceased were put into harm's way in the first place? Is there any accountability?

The point is that, ironically, even when it was popular to report on the war in Iraq (now it is not; it's all about the silly season of politics and the economy), it was still not being reported on correctly and definitely not reported on appropriately. Each life should matter; each life should count. People only live one life.

A newspaper ought to care. More soldiers died a few years ago per day, per month, and per year than the rate going on now (thus far, five U.S. soldiers have died in October of 2008), but has there been a nationalized profile on any of the recent deaths? Do people know about the 25 departed American lives from September of 2008? Are the deaths in vain because we do not know they're occurring since they're not on the front pages?

Seriously, the editorial decisions are embarrassing. It's embarrassing to still have people dying without a true, solid explanation as to why we are in Iraq in the first place (pretty much all the initial reasons turned out to be unfortunately not based on reliable information). Individuals matter. The United States is about quality, not quantity. American heroes have names, faces, families. They all deserve the thought we'd give to pictures, money, and commas -- and obviously much, much more. It's important for us to think about whether to publish pictures and how to best edit this great language of ours, but it's also important to be making decisions that indicate we care about those dying for us.

Even if other events are more popular, such as writing about Wall Street executives losing their gold watches or contemplating the importance of Barack Obama or John McCain being up or down by a point or two in some poll, we still cannot forget what the current reality is for brave Americans. But see, even at the height of the reporting for this war, people did not focus on what mattered. There was little specific reporting on the literal lives and deaths of far too many Americans.

What about the terror someone might have and surely has gone through as he or she was in sheer pain and about to die? What about his or her family? How is the family affected financially? Was there a profile done on the most recent American that was killed in Iraq? Who was the most recent American killed in Iraq? I certainly haven't heard about him or her.

With editorial decisions, reporters are filtering out the lives of individuals who deserve just the opposite. If the news media do not care, then neither will anybody else. When people are fighting and dying, the approach to reporting and investigating and caring must be appropriate and honorable -- which has not been the case for a long, long time, if ever.

Emotional photographs

2008-10-06T00:09:00.001-07:00

For a news editing course, my classmates and I were shown pictures, and we were asked to decide, among other ethical questions (you folks will quickly figure out the other questions posed), whether we'd run the pictures in a publication -- or whether we would find it unethical to do so.

Something to keep in mind is emotion. Emotion is powerful. Emotion is power. Emotion is forceful. Emotion drives society. But what needs to be the underlying factor is reason. An image might be powerful, but is it worth disgust and embarrassment? Is it worth making others who are grieving uncomfortable? David Hume, one of the best philosophers who ever lived, famously wrote, "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." This statement is controversial and many disagree, but the compelling point is that when one has certain emotions, reason is often thrown out the door. Media has such an enormous impact on the lives of others, so reason, judgment, and responsibility must be factors in a person's decision making.

For those eligible to view UIUC Compass, the link with the photos is here.

The first snapshot is one of a a distressed boy with his left hand resting on his dead dog. The dog and the boy are central to the image, and the dog was killed by a car. The main ethical dilemma surrounds the boy himself. Because he is young, it would be inappropriate to run a story and photograph with him in it without the family's permission. It would be an image that would be etched into history -- because of technology nowadays -- and permission must be granted.

To note, the dog being dead itself would not affect my decision to run the photograph. As long as the photo isn't too graphic itself, this one is fine to run. It's not graphic. I would hope that the family would agree to let the photo run if there a story came with it regarding the dangers of dogs on the road. Far too many are killed. To be clear, because it passes the "graphic" test, the family would need to grant permission because there is a little boy involved, but in no way does this photograph embarrass the boy or put him in a negative light. The criterion has to do with permission. With the aforementioned limits set, I would run this picture under any circumstance.

My decision would not be different if the event was local, as long as I was granted permission by the boy's parents or guardians. This decision includes any type of publication because it does not strike me as an image that would make a person too uncomfortable. But I sure bet the photo, with the accompanying story, would make drivers more aware of dogs escaping and running on the road.

The next photograph is one in which a rescue worker tries to console the family of a boy who has just drowned in a lake. It would be very difficult to run this photograph in a print edition, but there are still circumstances that would let me run it. Just like the last mentioned photo, the picture brings out sadness and most certainly empathy. The facial reactions tell all an individual needs to know; the image would definitely bring a different element to the horrible news.

Of course, this photo can only be shown if this condition is met: The family members agree the image of sadness can be shown. I bet more people would consent than a person would predict. It would be extremely difficult to ask the family permission in the first place, but if a person is too shy to sometimes do what is very difficult, then that person should not be a journalist. The image itself is sad, but it is not inappropriate for readers to see because there is nothing offensive, obscene, disrespectful (if consent is given), etc. I would be uncomfortable not running this if permission was granted. People have a right to see pictures because they are part of the way we receive information. To be clear, this photograph cannot be run without permission, but it most certainly can be run with the permission.

The next picture is of Bud Dwyer, former state treasurer of Pennsylvania, killing himself at a press conference. He was convicted of misusing state funds.

I would not use this photograph under any circumstance. The blood, gore, and scary facial shot make me squeamish, and the elements of the photograph are too extreme for a mass audience that trusts it isn't going to see R rated material and beyond. It's one thing to show death or facial reactions, but it's another to show a suicide as it has happened. Different mediums, such as blogs, documentaries that warn about images ahead of time, and other places would be able to show the photo, but it would be respectful to never show this photograph. Description is enough. Though, the "where or how" actually makes a difference because the Internet is a whole different beast. It is already a place known for objectionable material, and one knows the risks associated with it. Newspapers hold themselves to higher standards, and that trust cannot be broken. The shock with the suicide image is too much to bear.

I would simply choose not to show the dead employee (this now is a new photograph), and this decision is more or less based on my intuition. The dead employee was shot with an AK-47 assault rifle. The murderer killed seven, wounded 13, and subsequently ended his own life. As I explained earlier, I would not have a problem showing the dead, but this employee is sprawled out on the ground, on his back with his arms stretched, his stomach showing, his head leaned back, and the appearance of scattered blood. This photograph is graphic and violent and is simply inappropriate for a newspaper, whether it's local or national. Discretion must win out with this photograph.

See, there's a trust readers put into their print editions of news. They do expect that reporters do all they can do get them the most information possible. But they expect to be able to keep their breakfasts in their stomachs. This photograph crosses the line in terms of publication because nothing is truly gained by slapping this photograph in the story, but a lot can be lost. Just losing respect is not most important; upsetting the victim's family is most important in this case. We are talking about life. The person who was murdered is gone forever. His family members are just beginning to grasp reality, and the image is ugly and one that ought not to be in their minds for the rest of their lives. This is a case when an editor, or the one who makes the call, needs to have empathy himself or herself because without trying to imagine how someone close would feel means that the correct decision cannot be made. The viewers are important, too. Readers shouldn't be grossed out by a newspaper, so this picture must not be published.

The next photograph sickens me. A 15-year-old boy was climbing a fence, and he fell. The picture is of the fence through (yes, THROUGH) his neck and out of his mouth, as the corner of the right side of his mouth is stretched. The boy's head is tilted to his left, and his eyes are rolled to his left. A section of the fence needed to be cut off by rescue workers. The boy survived.

If this picture was shown in my department of the newspaper or magazine, I would resign. This picture makes you avert your eyes and wince and breathe in fast in a way that can't benefit your health too much. The thought of a fence going through my face is unbearable, and for the rest of my life I'd like to not see such an image. To be fair, after the initial reaction is taken into consideration, reason must be fully applied. But for this picture, it's okay for reason to be the slave of whatever type of emotion Hume referred to. There is zero value in adding this photograph. How would you feel if you were the 15-year-old boy? How would you feel if you opened up your newspaper to that image? The criteria have to do with the implication of the effects of the photograph -- and what an image can do to a mind. Many would not be able to stomach such an image, unlike the first two I referred to. The truth of the decision lies within the comfort level for those who view it, and the person making the decision must use his own reaction and gauge what others would think. But some pictures cross the line and do not make a decision very difficult, and this picture is one of them.

The last picture was taken in a fire escape, as the photograph is above a riot during a Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle. The woman -- the main feature of the photograph -- is being held up in the air against her will with nothing on but underwear. Both breasts are being groped, and at least two hands are close to or on her private area. Her face was obscured to protect her identity.

This photo cannot be run because of nudity. Also, too much skin is showing. Also, the men are being disrespectful to the extreme and all should be prosecuted, but the embarrassment factor to society needs to be considered. What it comes down to is the fact that the image is too inappropriate to show.

What can be done (if there is close to a 100 percent chance of guaranteeing no one will be able to figure out the identity of the woman in the photograph) is to have the image shown on certain respected blogs that people trust but ones that people know push the envelope. Because this way, the men can be held accountable in a public and humiliating way, but the image isn't on paper itself to an audience that oftentimes expects the images to be G or PG rated. The type of medium used for publication makes a difference, but my conviction is to not show this photograph because it is unfair to the victim (the most important factor) and shows too much skin in a negative, despicable way ... and the image is a disgrace to society.

The photograph I had the toughest time deciding which way to go is the image of the family grieving over the death of the boy, who was a son and a brother. The reason is because there are an inordinate amount of images where grieving is shown. The images of faces saddened and reddened are part of humanity and shows how much and how passionately people care for one another. Those aspects should not be forgotten in a society where not enough caring occurs all too often. But the issue is that the news was recent, and the boy died -- and the family deserves space. Plus, one boy being consoled looks extraordinarily upset, as he looks like he can rip his own face off with his right hand. His mouth is stretched in an "O" of despair. The feeling might be too much to bear, and it might be inappropriate in the first place to ask the family if that photo can be used. But I ultimately decide that the picture passes decency standards. It passes because the image itself isn't graphic or inappropriate in terms of what is acceptable to a general public. So the only thing left is to seek permission from the family, and if permission is granted, then that is that.

It's important to not be a drone or emotionless when making these decisions. But a person who makes the decision regarding publication of these photographs can't be too caught up in his or her emotions, either. The initial intuition must be used as a guide, and then the consequences of publication must be taken into consideration (the subjects of the photos, the readership at large). My criteria have to do with what is appropriate, the context of the situation, and what is right based on critical thinking.

The point is to care. Once a picture is out there, then it is out there and cannot be taken back. Whether the correct or incorrect decision was made, the least a person who makes the ultimate call can do is care.

Correct numbers, please

2008-09-29T05:47:00.000-07:00

Context is key.

Plenty of stories require numbers, facts, and figures. It's extremely easy to take them out of context or to simply use them incorrectly. And, even if information is most likely written correctly, if a reader is left completely confused when more explaining ought to have been done, then the writer and publication deserve blame.

Let's take a look at this Associated Press story. It's extremely easy to write totals. The story was describing that people in the areas of coastal Maine and some of Canada braced for a hurricane. The story said it was the eve of the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Juan -- and that that Category 2 hurricane caused an estimated $100 million worth of damages. It might be pleasant to throw around round numbers, but I'd like to know exactly how this number came to fruition.

Is damage moving out of a home and buying a new one? Is it just areas that needed to be repaired? Also, if read closely, the story says the preparation for Hurricane Kyle is the preparation for a hurricane -- a type of weather condition that has not occurred in Maine for 17 years. So, I was thinking about Hurricane Juan. What gives?

It turns out upon closer reading that technically, Hurricane Juan touched down in Canada.

The story talks about 7 inches of rain in Maine in three days along some costal areas. This type of statement can be read in many ways. Which exact coastal areas had this total of rain? How exactly should 7 inches of rain be interpreted if it's over the course of three days? Was there just consistent downpour the entire three-day period? Other areas (some, not all, was said) just got a little less, a lot less? As a viewer, context needs to be provided so the reader can best understand the scenario. Of course, unfortunately, journalists seem to prove over and over again that they are not expert mathematicians. Important to note is that what ended up hitting turned out to be a tropical storm, which the story did.

At the end of the story, it discussed a storm in the "Northeast" that killed 700 people in 1938. Where exactly in the Northeast? Northeast Maine? I know New York and areas of New England are mentioned, but this whole different story has been about Maine. The point for this story and the couple others that will be used are not about sheer inaccurate numbers but about providing context for the reader. If more precision and research were used, there'd be a lot more knowledge.

Take a look at this simple Wall Street Journal story regarding the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. I was confused for a while because the story said 57 million people tuned in for the debate. But what was the rating itself? And what was the '04 first debate rating (between John Kerry and George W. Bush) that was being discussed in comparison? But this story puts things in context better. Plus, the WSJ story states as fact the most-watched debate was the 1980 one between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. But what about the 1960 debate between JFK and Richard Nixon? Many believe this debate to truly have the most watchers, though as the Hollywood Reporter points out, there was no modern rating system.

But that fact alone doesn't mean one can claim as fact that the '80 debate had the most viewers when that claim, well, might not be a fact. I think an explanation is deserved.

And finally, with this Energy Drink story, the story never explained the official line that separates energy drinks and soft drinks. Energy drinks have more caffeine -- but how much more caffeine. Is there an exact number? How is the data being collected?

If Americans spent $5.4 billion on energy drinks, more specific drinks should be cited in the story. Also, a plethora of negative health effects were thrown out there, but how much caffeine can usually lead to these effects? If someone drinks 10 "Wired X505's" in one day? 15? Or just a couple a day. And I have vaguely heard the term "caffeine intoxication" before. This health issue should be explained because many readers probably do not understand exactly what that term means.

Outsourcing copy editors

2008-09-15T15:35:00.000-07:00

So often when having a discussion about journalism and media, people like to talk about money, revenue, entertainment, jobs, money, and money. In a global economy, when jobs get outsourced to other nations because of cheap labor, the effects are detrimental to Americans -- but not necessarily to the quality of a product if that product doesn't require much skill.

Copy editing requires a lot of skill.

And skillful copy editors from the United States that understand American culture and the English language are losing jobs to people from India.

In John McIntyre's blog story called "Getting what you pay for," he said, "The belief that local copy can be edited adequately, as well as cheaply, on the other side of the world rests on a misunderstanding of what copy editors do."

I will use my classmates' completed blogs to help me figure out what all this means.

One implication I find very unsettling has to do with the fact that copy editing is getting disrespected all around America. People do not understand the hard work put in, and without appropriate copy editing, there is a major decline in the quality of journalism.

In his blog, Scott Frankel wrote, "Copy editing is really the thing that can save journalism. Writing takes a backseat to fact, and if the facts are wrong, then the writer, copy editor and publication lose the most important thing in journalism ... credibility."

People all over have questioned the credibility of journalism, ranging from television, to newspapers, to blogs, to practically anything on the Internet. When a person sees her name spelled wrong, then that fact is disheartening. When a beat writer awkwardly tries to sound like an expert on a sport instead of just relaying the objective facts to the best of his ability, then readers will laugh. When a copy editor is unfamiliar with the culture and context of an investigative story, then the ultimate quality of the story will surely be negatively affected.

McIntyre said in his blog, "Entrusting local copy to editors who know no more of your area than you do of Mumbai is apt to produce hilarious errors. Copy editing is more than just the small change of language. It also is substantive editing."

Substantive is the key word. Not everything needs genius-like thinking. If there were more copy editors catching more errors, would newspaper sales go up? Would the country as a whole truly take notice? Would people care? Maybe there would be a slight effect, and in a perfect world, there'd be a great effect.

But why not go for perfection? If you know for a fact -- based on deadlines and experience -- how important that copy editor is, then why guarantee lower quality? It's inexcusable to create a product that is guaranteed to have more errors and embarrassments than there ought to be. You need someone who is looking out for your best interests while at the same time not emotionally attached to the piece in a way that will negatively impact the editing process. You need someone to speak bluntly but who is able to convey advice that you would not have realized on your own.

Some decisions should be made based on an absolute level of what is right and what is wrong.

Laura Ude, another classmate, saw the bigger picture when she wrote, "I get a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the fact that the people who have chosen to pursue journalism and hopefully defend the demise of the English language have given up and passed the job onto people on the other side of the world."

The key there is "given up." Why give up? Why? Giving up makes no sense. Giving up is admitting to inferiority instead of superiority. Giving up is not about losing versus winning; it's about being able to look yourself in the mirror and being able to ask yourself if you are doing the best that you can. Your profession is a large part of your being, of your ego, of who you are. Giving up is not going to help with America's reputation of, as Laura puts it, being a "fat, lazy, stupid country." We know we are not lazy and stupid, but instead of giving up, it's important to fight stereotypes and show first, and foremost, that we care.

Journalists care about factual errors. They care about the substantive portions of their articles and whether their stories are interpreted correctly by the public. Those cases often hinge on a copy editor.

A differing view comes from Drake Baer, who said, "The examples (McIntyre) uses on local geography are exaggerated at best." Baer noted that a copy editor from India can track down an answer fast while the "Older Copyeditor" from the United States will use old fashioned means and that this whole dilemma is quite exaggerated.

Drake's point is well taken, but the answer to everything doesn't have to be some extension of Google. Plus, what if a person understands the language better, understands the culture better, AND has access to Google (compared to only the latter of the three)? There is something to growing up in a community and being inundated with its music, taste, language, atmosphere, human interaction.

McIntyre is not exaggerating anything. In his blog, he express concern and shows that he cares. He doesn't want to see more plagiarism; he wants to see less. He doesn't want you to get convicted of libel; he wants the problem to be stopped before there's even a dilemma.

Copy editors are most often the people who prevent the negative tidal waves from crashing down upon the writers and media outlets. If you don't care about your work, then why do you do what you do? If those special folks who do the hiring and firing do not care about copy editing, then they might as well forget about caring for journalism.

Because even if the best possible final product is not always produced due to deadline and circumstance, you should at least be able to say you gave it your all.

There is no line

2008-09-14T23:06:00.000-07:00

Would you blog a 3-year-old's funeral? What would motivate you to do something like that in live time? Why would you do it? Would you ask yourself ethical questions? Would you have pause? Would you care? Would you dare? What if you were a reporter for a professional newspaper and Twittered the 3-year-old's funeral anyway?

Then you would be Berny Morson, a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News. And you'd be wrong for doing what you did.

Marten Kudlis, the toddler who was in the wrong Basking Robbins at the wrong time, was killed as a result of an SUV hitting a Mazda truck, then the pickup hitting a utility box, then the utility box horrifically and tragically ending the 3-year-old's life (the CBS-Denver story says the toddler was 2, but all other news outlets found say the child was 3). Two others, both of whom were in the pickup, were killed as well.

Of course, to put things in perspective, since it is easy to get extremely emotional whenever someone leaves us too soon, the brunt of the real anger ought to be aimed at the alleged hit-and-run driver, Francis Hernandez, who is 23. The driver, thought to be Hernandez, fled the scene on foot but was arrested, according to police.

Funerals are usually reported in an appropriate, sensitive way. And publication occurs after the funeral is completed. That standard was not followed and outrage ensued. How desperate do you have to be for a story to blog LIVE via text messaging from a 3-year-old's funeral?

But not all viewed Morson's texting in a negative light.

"The technology is there to offer people the opportunity to keep people bang up to date with developments, whether that be the minutiae of live [sic] or something more serious," Tech.Blorge's Dave Parrack said. "All Morson was doing was utilizing the technology in the way it was ultimately intended."

Yes, Dave: Technology was ultimately intended to carelessly text/blog live at the place where a 3-year-old's family is devastated, where the realization sets in that life will never be the same, where sobs of crying reverberate, where cheeks are red and tears can be tasted. That type of circumstance epitomizes the environment in which technology ought to be used for instantaneous gratification.

See, with being plugged in 24/7, there needs to be more thought, more reason, more discretion. Ask: Am I being ethical? What if positions were reversed; would I be okay with what this reporter is doing?

If it's wrong in most cases to text from class and the movies (I have broken both of those codes of conduct many times over), then texting from a funeral is out-of-this world, insanely inappropriate. And selfish. The act shows a lack of compassion and very little trace of humanity.

Journalists have a very difficult job. They have to go to the event no matter what it is -- where the people can be as nice as ever or as hostile as an aggressive pack of wolves -- and do their duty. It's not easy to ask a coach why she put this player in the game instead of that player when her team lost by one. It's not easy to ask the one who is responsible for the budget where all the money went. It's not easy to put your microphone close to a relative of the deceased and ask what the departed meant to the world.

It's not easy to cover a funeral. Somebody has to do it. And technology and media are evolving. Different kinds of decisions must be made. Sometimes you don't know where the line is until it has been crossed.

But in the case of the death of the toddler at the ice scream store, the line was unquestionably crossed. Twitter can be a great addition to society, as it has around 2.9 million members and keeps individuals informed like never before. Great reporting has been done via Twitter. But enough is enough. Are we not sensitive enough to let the sanctity of someone's life be for just a little bit longer? Is there a way to report something so sad in a more appropriate medium?

Reporters ask themselves ethical questions all the time. With blogs and devices where anybody can be a "reporter" at any moment, there is less room in this world for privacy. But if you are a professional, you should know better. I cringe at the thought of doing what the Rocky Mountain News reporter did.

There needs to be a larger discussion in media of, quite frankly, doing what is right, having empathy, and being ethical. At 10:20 a.m. on Sept. 10, 2008, I would not have texted, "rabbi recites the main hebrew prayer of death" (and I would not have lowercased Rabbi or Hebrew). At 10:22 a.m. that same day I would not have texted, "earth being placed on coffin." I would not be able to live with myself.

In journalism nowadays, the speed of the delivery of information is more important than anything else, apparently. And in this case, I'm sure that the information provided was accurate. But would you want someone blogging your child's funeral? Some questions that need to be asked must do with the human condition. They must do with the heart.

Because if those ideals leave us when it matters the most, then what will be left of journalism?

Wrong major

2008-09-07T23:04:00.000-07:00

An individual who majored in journalism – a profession that idolizes facts and truth – has a chance to become one of the most powerful people in the world and arguably the most powerful woman in the world. Sarah Palin, who graduated with the mentioned degree from the University of Idaho in 1987 (college took her almost five years and also five colleges), is currently the talk of journalists and America as a whole. She might be the next vice president of the United States, and one reason this chance isn’t minimal is because John “the Maverick” McCain, the person at the top of the ticket, might be the only Republican in the United States that can pull off a victory despite the state of America because of his nickname and his reputation.

By the way, McCain is 72 and has had cancer, so there is even a greater chance that Palin can be president.

Palin was largely unknown and then suddenly transformed herself into ubiquity. (Well, there is this from back in the day.) We journalists (at the very least, student journalists who want to make a difference in the world) should be dancing from mountain tops, singing toward rainbows, and darting through glass ceilings. Some probably have those feelings.

I don’t.

I’m troubled by the fact that Palin majored in journalism at all. Whenever I write a story to be published or have a responsibility that can possibly affect others, I try to make sure that what I make part of our cosmic wash has truth and can be verified. I’m scared to death about getting a fact incorrect or saying something correct that can be misinterpreted.

Palin doesn’t hold herself to those standards. If I didn’t hold myself to those standards, then there’d be a couple of college or high school athletes’ moms angry for a day or two that her kid’s golf or basketball statistic was just a little off in the paper. If Palin becomes even more powerful than she is or the leader of the free world, there’s a chance that women would be on their way to having practically no reproductive rights – or that a misguided war can continue to be rationalized as “a task that is from God.”

“Our national leaders are sending (U.S. troops) out on a task that is from God,” Palin said, according to The Associated Press. “That’s what we have to make sure we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

If the war in Iraq is actually a plan from the god she refers to, then we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize. Instead of praying that there exists a plan from God, how about coming up with a solution? Or praying for a solution?

In the world of journalism, using pragmatism is crucial. Belief is one thing and belief is great, but evidence is a whole different matter. In today’s world, reason and justification are of the utmost importance. How else can there be any accountability? If a journalist wrote something as fact that is unsubstantiated, he or she can be short a lot money and out of a job. We journalists as a whole try to do what is right and honest, using very strict methods and guidelines.

Palin has shown again and again that truth does not matter. And that truth hurts because, even though she is a journalist no more, she might be my vice president and then possibly my president. Take what she said as part of her speech at the Republican National Convention. And for those who might not know, before Palin was governor, she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska.

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities,” Palin said in comparing her service to America to Barack Obama’s past service.

Aside from the fact that the statement was rude, mean, belittling, and bad for hardworking community organizers across America … it was wrong. Does a community organizer not have actual responsibilities? There is no responsibility in coordinating people to do the best they can to lift up communities from an abyss and to change the course of life for some?

The Bloomberg piece by Peter Robinson makes it very clear that Palin has a strong relationship with the Lord. But it might be more important to have empathy for young girls who get raped and impregnated in the most unfortunate circumstances. Palin not only stands against abortion on principle (which isn’t a unique view); she stands against choice, in any stage, even in cases of rape and incest. Having that view seems to me incredibly irresponsible. I would not want to be a 13-year-old girl who made a mistake and who lives in poverty with a single parent, as the father of the child I will be forced to have has fled forever.

Getting back to facts, or even in this case, well researched and thought out theories, Palin has another troubling view. She wants creationism to be taught in public schools. Teaching something as bogus, possibly religious, and astoundingly unlikely as creationism to students who go to public high schools shows a lack of mental clarity regarding what impressionable young individuals should “learn.” If one believes in creationism because of religious reasons, then that is great; what is not great is teaching as possibly fact something that is almost an impossibility, especially given another theory (evolution) that has much more evidence.

Sarah Palin might have the degree many of us are seeking, and she indeed has made a name for herself and has become nationally prominent in a way that most of us will not even come close to. Sometimes, surprises happen. At the end of the Bloomberg article, Palin’s biographer noted that when entering politics after caring so much about sports and sports journalism, Palin’s family went, “Oh, really?”

Well, and this is difficult to repeat, Sarah Palin majored in journalism.

Oh, really?

Newspapers in decline

2008-09-03T06:08:00.000-07:00

Vin Crosbie blasted the newspaper industry. He certainly has a pessimistic view of where newspapers are headed. Crosbie brought up a plethora of concerns and explained why some of the traditional excuses for the decline of newspaper circulation are not valid. For the individuals who blame advertising, Crosbie says, “A newspaper with readers will attract advertisers but a newspaper without readers will not. Readers ultimately support and sustain the newspaper business.” The implication is that there are far, far fewer readers of newspapers than there used to be.

Even with population increasing in the United States, circulation has been on the decline. This startling statistic has meant trouble and has scared many in the newspaper industry, including editors, writers and management. Jobs are being lost; people are scrambling to find new ones.

Of course, much of what Crosbie has to say is unfortunately accurate. It’s unfortunate because, even though I have full confidence that there will always be a place for an American journalist, there is a certain respect -- perhaps in the future a certain nostalgia -- to a newspaper hot off the press. Holding the text in your hand. Folding the pages. Getting the ink stained on your fingers. The crisp smell and easy placement. There is a certain comfort level with a newspaper that is not yet there in cyberspace.

One can’t argue with pure statistics. If the McClatchy Company (30 dailies) goes from $74.30 to $3.78 in stock, it seems that trouble is on the rise. If the population goes from 203 million (1970) to 304 million in today’s society – yet the circulation from 62 million to 53 million – then the decline in newspapers are close to catastrophic, and that decline rightfully initiates discussion.

Crosbie bringing his research and opinion to the forefront is a very good thing, but aside for the concrete statistics, I find some of his conclusions and opinions unsupported. He said more than half of the 1,439 daily newspapers in the United States won’t exist in “print, e-paper, or website formats by the end of the next decade.” So, he’s psychic? He knows that his guess will be the case?

He is clairvoyant, sees the future and deems that newspapers like USA Today and The Wall Street Journal will not even be in print by that time frame? Some would argue that Crosbie is correct. But with advertising and the threshold of journalism expertise in newspapers and with newspapers' storied histories (even if one of them was founded in ’82), one might hope newspapers will meet a better end than what Crosbie has proposed. He made too many absolute statements.

When Crosbie brought up microeconomics, he was very insightful regarding WHY. It's unquestionable that decline in circulation has occurred. He helped explain why people choose what they purchase or read, and bringing up supply and demand makes us all realize that when certain commodities are readily available, why would people actively choose to limit themselves or enslave themselves to content when more instantaneous information is out there, even if that information is lower in quality? It is more important to be in the know than to simply know.

What I find disagreeable is the way Crosbie goes about explaining. Sure, there has been cable TV and the World Wide Web; news has gone from “relative Scarcity” to a "certain surplus." But Crosbie ridicules the newspaper industry that has been around for a very, very, very long time, that has helped countless people, that has been there through thick and thin, that has done amazing investigative work to make his world and mine a better place. Though what Crosbie says is sharp, he’s also exhibiting the hindsight bias. So, perhaps what the newspapers are doing will not save them. But who knows? I, for one, am not ready to take away a newspaper’s credibility. People will still always have a need for local information. If a newspaper continues to publish such online and do the best it can with its circulation, then there is still a place in this world for it. I do not have as pessimistic a point of view as does Crosbie.

And, even though numbers have indeed dropped, they’re not at a point to simply fold up the tent and walk away. Sure, the times are changing, but Crosbie really is giving too much blame to those who run newspapers. Like they could have predicted the multimedia boom? They could have controlled common interest and YouTube? What Crosbie has effectively done is point out numbers and why they are what they are. He said completeness is no longer necessary, as a viewer will accept part of a story online, even if it is a one-liner from a blog. But will everybody turn away from newspapers? Is there nothing that can be done? Is the time they are wiped clean off the face of the Earth going to be by the end of the next decade? I’m going to be a hypocrite (just say a conclusion) and simply state that I think the answer, at least by the next decade, is still going to be a resounding NO.