Cohen -v- Finkelstein

Last night, I was privileged to be able to see firsthand a classic, political debate. I was in the studio for the taping of Mark Finkelstein's next show with special guest, Jeff Cohen. It was one of the best debates I've ever seen, including ones I've participated in myself. It was the libertarian against the conservative. The left against the right. It was an hour of discussion that included blogs and political philosophy and the role of government, and at some points became very heated. Mr. Finkelstein was by far the most animated of the two, while Mr. Cohen was rather subdued throughout the whole thing. I was texting my dad through the majority of the debate, telling him the arguments from both sides. My dad enjoys politics and he wanted to know what each side was bringing to the argument. And even though I didn't agree with everything being said, sometimes from both sides, it was really cool to be able to be there!

Broadband infrastructure

It's hard to believe that a country like the United States, with all of its resources and all of its wealth, could be lagging behind in Internet broadband infrastructure. In reading the selected articles for class, they say that not only would better broadband be more "luxurious" for Internet users, but it would also "bring a wealth of knowledge to more citizens in more areas." The United States would improve in many different areas, many of them controversial in the political world today. So, why is it that arguably the most developed nation in the world in ranked 15 in a 30-country poll in overall broadband penetration?

Well, there are two sides to every story. And the second side of this story is the cost of improved broadband. I agree with Sam Gustin's statement, "'Every American should have affordable access to high-speed Internet, no matter where they live.'" However, with Obama's intended plan being to spend $7.2 billion on broadband, and the economy being in the state that it's in, I think that splurging on broadband should take a back seat to other, more crucial matters. I think there are many other problems that need to be addressed first, such as the economy and/or the War. Things need to be kept in perspective, and right now broadband speed should be toward the very bottom of the list.

Is a journalism degree worth $46,000 a year?

For me, this question is a toss-up. I have learned a lot in my time Ithaca College, but it still is difficult for me to justify paying $46,000 for it.

"The issue is not writing. It's what you write about. One of my favorite columnists is Jonathan Weil, who writes for Bloomberg. He broke the Enron story, and he broke it because he's one of the very few journalists in America who really knows how to read a balance sheet. That mean Jonathan Weil will always have a job, and will always be read, and will always have something interesting to say. He's unique. Most accountants don't write articles, and most journalists don't know anything about accounting. Aspiring journalists should stop going to journalism programs and go to some other kind of grad school. If I was studying today, I would go get master's in statistics, and maybe do a bunch of accounting courses and then write from that perspective. I think that's the way to survive. The role of the generalist is diminshing. Journalism has to get smarter."

I agree and disagree with this quote. I agree that a journalist has to write about what he/she knows. If you know a lot about what you're writing, then it will come across in what the piece. It will also make life a lot easier for you. However, I do think that the writing part is important as well. If you know a lot about a topic, but you don't have the skill to write it down and convey it effectively to an audience, then you are useless.

I, personally, have learned a lot at my time here. I have also gotten many connections through the work that I have done at Ithaca College. But I do feel that some of the classes here are quite redundant, and in that capacity something needs to be done. But where many students have chosen to take on a double major, I went after something a little different. I came into Ithaca with an immense passion and vast knowledge of the game of tennis, and I enjoy writing about it. That's what I want to do. But I can't go to grad school for tennis. It is just something that I picked up at a young age and have been following religiously for about 10 years. I can write about it effectively because I know so much about it, which is what Gladwell is trying to convey.

I am also a double minor in Spanish and Italian because I love foreign languages. I have also taken French for four semesters. I pick them up fairly quickly and understand the demand for people to be able to speak more than one language. I think I am bold enough to make the statement that many American journalists don't have a second language, and I think this severely limits them. I suppose that if the journalism route doesn't pan out for me, I can do something with the languages, be an interpreter or whatever. But I hope to be able to incorporate the languages with the sports journalism to be an effective aspect in life.

Mayhill Fowler -vs- Obama

I give Mayhill Fowler a lot of credit for publishing her story on Obama's comments. Not only does she write of the very-liberal Huffington Post, but she also was an Obama contributor and supporter herself. Other journalists, mainstream or citizen, might not have run the story because of their own personal bias and what the story would have done to the Obama campaign. But Fowler put aside her own politics and, in my opinion, did the right thing. She should be commended for that.

One thing that really struck me as I read this article was the opinions on citizen journalism. Citizen journalism has become the big thing. Many people praise it for being this great thing, a way for the "real" news get reported fairly and unbaisedly. And that is exactly what Fowler did: she reported the real news fairly and unbiasedly. But whenever something is reported that goes against the views of people, they attack it. I think Fowler's case demonstrates this perfectly.

What if she hadn't been a citizen journalist for the Huffington Post? What if she had been someone who had happened to catch the same statement from Obama and posted it online? Then what? Would she have gotten all of those hate emails? Or would she be heralded as a great online journalist?

Where have I been?

After listening to Professor Isakov's presentation on all of the new technology for journalists, I felt like I had been living under a rock for the past few months. I hadn't ever heard of any the things he was talking about, except for one. I don't normally keep good track of all of the new technologies being used, but I'd like to think that I know enough about them. But everything the professor was showing us was brand new to me.

I think my favorite thing was the Esquire cover that featured Augmented Reality. That was unbelievable to me! Something so simple as putting a code on the front cover and then allowing the user to access this through a webcam is amazing. I'm not a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. but I loved the special features Esquire offered to its subscribers.

I'll have to keep better track of what is going on in the technology world because I'm clearly missing out!

New Perspective on Twitter

I've never been a big fan of Twitter. I don't have a Twitter account and I don't plan on getting one in the near future. There has never been any reason for me to have one, I don't feel like anything I do is worthy enough to get tweeted for people to read. Who cares what I do or what I say or what I think? To have my own personal account seems pointless. I do, however, check Twitter everyday to see what certain celebrities/athletes are doing because I am a fan of theirs and it is interesting to me. But even then, reading simplistic Tweets about what they're doing or where they are or whatever, isn't absoloutely necessary. I think it is just another form of entertainment.

But listening to Kate Sheppard talk about how Twitter has helped her not only to communicate with other journalists, but also to get her a couple of jobs, has put a different spin on it. I never really thought of Twitter as something helpful or resourceful. I know that news stories have broke on Twitter because the people who are actually at the "events" are tweeting what is going on as it's actually happening, but I never really considered Twitter as anything more than that. And then she said that she hadn't been on the Twitter bandwagon before getting an account. That reminded me of me. She advised the class to get an account because it can really be used as a tool in the journalism world. That gave me a whole new perspective on Twitter; I might have to get an account myself.

True Fan

For the past few days, ever since I read the 1,000 True Fans article, I've been asking myself if I can consider myself a True Fan of anything. And the answer is: I'm a True Fan of too many things. From sports to television to movies, I am a Fan of a lot of different things. In sports, tennis is my number one. I've watched it my whole life and played it for almost 12 years. I follow the professional circuit religiously and always know what is going on. Football is next in line. I'm an avid Indianapolis Colts fan, and I have been for 15 years. But since I live in New York, Colts games aren't shown that much, so I will watch any game that is on television because I love the sport that much. I own countless sports stuff, from clothing to posters to stuffed animals for both tennis and football.

I watch countless television shows. But the one show that I can't miss is 24. I've watched 24 for years and it my favorite show on television. I can't wait for Monday nights to roll around so that I can watch 24. I would definitely say I'm a True Fan of that show. I will miss it when the series ends after this season.

Finally, I am a True Fan of old movies. My favortie movie of all time is Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart and Igrid Bergman. I love old movies because, to me, they are so much better than movies made today. There is a certain quality about them that I love, and the actors are so much better than the ones we have today. I watch them all the time and find new ones every day.

I would honestly say that I am a True Fan of all these things. My brothers say that I'm obsessed with it, but I just think I'm overly passionate about it all.

Don't Be Evil=Hypocritical

Michael Y. Park's article on Matt Lee being taken off Google's website actually scared me a little bit. America prides itself on being the "land of the free," where anyone can say anything without fear of repercussions against them. When Google decided that Lee's website and content didn't "offer a high quality experience for [their] users" and that they could "no longer include it in Google News," I was absolutely amazed. I realize that "disappearing" someone from a website isn't the absolute worst thing that can happen, especially when you read about some of the punishments that bloggers receive in other countries around the world. But many people would argue that "disappearing" someone is, for America's standard, the equivalent of being jailed. Your freedom of speech is being taken away, which is against our Constitution.

For me, Google is in the wrong in two ways: First, getting rid of Lee's website from its own Google News is beyond wrong in so many different ways. Second, the fact that they folded when pressured by the United Nations, which I think is becoming more and more of a farce every day, to get rid of Lee because of all the corruption he exposes in the UN disgusts me. If you can't stand up for what is right against another individual or group or company or whatever, then I pity you. Life and the world will be very difficult for you.

Maybe Google should listen to its very own slogan, Don't Be Evil, because I want to tell them, "Don't Be Hypocrites."

Down With 'Big Broter'

In response to the first two questions asked in the article, "Big Brother Is Blocking," I would say: Absolutely not, and absolutely not. We all have a mother; we don't need another one. People do not get phone plans with the intention of them being filtered and altered by the phone company. They want to be able to text whoever they want, and they should be able to because they are paying for it. People also do not have the Internet to have slow service forced upon them by the service provider because they consider file-sharing services "bandwidth hogs." Who cares what they think? If someone wants to watch a movie online, I think they should be able to pick whatever file-sharing service they want without the threat of it being slowed down on purpose.

When I first read this article, the first thing I thought of was the controversy surrounding some of the Super Bowl commercials. CBS chose to cut a GoDaddy.com commercial and a commercial for Man Crunch, a dating Web site for gay men. They did, however, choose to keep and run a "Focus on the Family" advertisement that promotes choosing life over having an abortion. One could argue that pulling ads CBS should have pulled all ads that were promoting highly controversial issues, that it wasn't right for them to pull the one on the gay-dating site and leave the pro-life one in. On the other side, some would say that it's up to a network's standards to determine what is suitable to be run on the air and what isn't. In this argument, CBS had every right to keep one and pull the other one.

There are distinct differences between these two controversies, but I thought of the Super Bowl controversy because many would say that CBS is trying to be a "mother" to its viewers, just like Verizon or Comcast. It will be very interesting to see if the FCC does anything to handle these cases and if it has any affect on networks like CBS.

1,000 True Fans

Kevin Kelly's article about having 1,000 True Fans is incredibly insightful. His idea is a thought-provoking one that is a healthy middle in between the two extremes: "hitting it big" or living in poverty. Obviously, the dream of every artist is to "hit it big," get their product(s) out their to the masses and share what they have to offer with the world. However, everyone knows this only happens to a select few people. Kelly's proposition of living off your 1,000 True Fans is a feasible alternative that will allow for the talent of the artist to not go unnoticed.

Marketing specifically to one's 1000 True Fans will eventually, in my opinion, gain that particular artist more and more fans over time. Word spreads quickly about something good, whether it be music or art or whatever, especially today with all of the available resources. With 1000 or so people telling everyone they know, and even people they don't know, about this great thing that they found, the "True Fans" base will continue to grow. And who knows, it the fan base is big enough, that artist just might get the "big break" they were always hoping for. But I think until this happens, it is very smart to concentrate the efforts on gaining 1,000 True Fans because, even if you do get a "big break," they will be the one's who continue to support you.

Professional blogger?

After listening to Mark Finkelstein's story in Tuesday's class, I realized a common theme among some of the leading blogs. Mr. Finkelstein came to be a well-known blogger on accident. He was writing his own blog, not for any professional site, but just because it was something he enjoyed doing. After creating his own Internet footprint, which I think is one of the most (if not the most) important thing for a blogger to do, his "big break" kind of fell into his lap. From what I have found, this has happened to many well-known bloggers of today. They try very hard to become part of the everyday independent media outlets that gets visited by hundreds of people, but for many, it is sheer luck that has brought them their success. I think that is a very interesting aspect to independent media. In the "old days," when someone wanted to become a famous journalist, say, for the New York Times or Washington Post, they worked their way up to the top. Today, with independent media, you and your outlet can become a sensation overnight.

I've known what I've wanted to do since I was a sophomore in high school. However, when Mr. Finkelstein talked to us about being a professional blogger, and how it came to be for him, I started to picture myself doing the same thing. But that vision was quickly gone I really don't have any interest in becoming a professional blogger. I've never had an interest in blogs, to read them or otherwise, so I can't imagine doing it for a living. But if something like professional blogging fell into my lap and offered me a good opportunity, I would be stupid to not pursue it. At this point, however, the career plan is the same as it's always been.

Political Philosphy

I don't know if I've ever had a more difficult intellectual challenge than trying to come up with my personal political philosophy. When Mark Finkelstein first "challenged" the class to explain in a few sentences what our political philosophies were, I thought the word "challenge" was a gross overstatement. Why is it a "challenge" to define your political philosophy? It's not that hard...

However, as I thought about what I would say to someone who asked me about my personal philosophy, I really wasn't sure. I guess I never really, genuinely thought about it before.

I have my fundamental beliefs on the everyday controversial issues. I was raised in a very conservative house and therefore have conservative ideals. I am used to having people disagree with my points of view, and I am used to debating/arguing those points. When I came to Ithaca, I knew that I was coming to a very, very liberal school and that I would be one of the VERY few republicans at the school. I did make it a point to listen to other people's views and opinions were on issues, and I still really try to understand where they are coming from. I don't want to be ignorant. But as I have kept as open a mind as possible, my core beliefs have not changed. I have learned a lot about other people, and about certain aspects of myself, but not the political aspect of it. In my high school government class, we had to fill out a survey to see where we stood on the political spectrum. I was one of the most conservative in the class and in my entire graduating class. I think I ranked very close to Rush Limbaugh, which was very fitting since my dad is an avid listener and I listen to the show when I'm home.

So as I took a step back and thought about what I truly believe, my political philosophy suddenly became very apparent: little government, low taxes, entrepreneurial emphasis. That's it in very few words, very simple. I know that there will be people who will disagree with this philosophy, and that's fine. That's the beauty of America.

George Seldes

The journalism world will be forever indebted to the one-and-only George Seldes. His whole career was filled with death threats and attempts on his life. He was banished from he Soviet Union by the Bolsheviks and was very nearly killed trying to get out of Italy by Mussolini. Seldes' unyielding stories offended the dictators and public figures in which they were about, including Lenin, Stalin, Francisco Franco, and William Randolph Hearst. But no matter what attempts were made to try to shut him up, Seldes didn't back down. His hard-facts news stories impacted not only the nation, but the whole world. He wasn't afraid to report any topic or any person, no matter the consequences. But I think the only consequence for George Seldes was that the mainstream press was ignoring the stories in the first place.

A true revolutionary, Seldes set the standards high for American journalism. Although it journalism has faltered in this country over the past years, you can't help but to be inspired by George Seldes and all that he accomplished in his life as a journalist. I think we need another Seldes to come along to put the media back on the trail that was blazed for us so many years ago.

Ida B. Wells

Journalism should be forever grateful to Ida B. Wells. One of the pioneers for investigative journalism, she is an American hero for the ages. To be an African American woman and go after whites and the unjust lynchings of fellow African Americans took an amazing amount of courage and tenacity. Like Garrison, she never backed down from a fight, but rose above to be more motivated and more ferocious than before. Nothing deterred her from her cause, nothing forced her from her anti-lynching editorials. Wells was brave enough to go after an issue that was considered "fact" and wasn't getting press coverage from the mainstream media.

I have great respect for Ida B. Wells and her never-ending fight and persistence. To be able to successfully investigate and uncover such misdeeds as the lynchings of innocent African Americans at that time is nothing short of admirable. She should be given 95 percent of the credit for starting the anti-lynching movement and turning the nation's attention to a cause that would have otherwise been overlooked. I think it can be argued that Wells indirectly saved hundreds, if not thousands, of African American lives with her efforts. She, again like Garrison, is a national hero and should be emulated by more journalists current and future.

William Lloyd Garrison

I was absolutely blown away by what I read about William Lloyd Garrison. In high school history classes I learned about him and his paper in somewhat vague terms, but this chapter really explained him and how he fought for what he thought was right. It is hard for me to imagine such a person as Garrison. He was a true beast. He survived attempts on his life and national damnation only to come back stronger and more outspoken than before.

I like to think of myself as a strong, motivated person. But I don't think that I could have withstood everything that Garrison did. I think I can safely say that if there was a angry mob that tried to kill me, I would probably stop whatever I was doing to save my life. At least for a while. I have so much admiration and respect for William Lloyd Garrison for not giving in and continuing his drive for his cause. I also like the fact that he just didn't give a damn about much, just about the abolition movement.

William Lloyd Garrison is a national hero, and his newspaper, The Liberator, should be a model for all independent media outlets that are out to do something similar to what it did.

Calhoun -vs- Krayeske

I've never had much use for blogs. I've never liked them, never paid attention to them, never had any real interest in them. The only "blogs" I've followed were those written by professional tennis players when they are at different tournaments in different cities around the world. But I wouldn't call them blogs per say, more like online journals for fans such as myself.

Blogging as a new media has never really impressed me much. I am a very traditional person and like the media the way it is. I like newspapers, television broadcasts, and radio broadcasts. I like the Internet because of its vast available resources and such. However, I am a very skeptical person and blogging just screams "unreliable" to me (although I am very skeptical, too, of the traditional media). The Internet, as great as it is, is just as bad. I never liked the fact that everyday people can write something on the Internet in the form of a blog and have it be considered news. I don't completely trust it. I am more likely to trust what is written by more conventional news sources and professional journalists and make my own judgements on it than I am to trust a random blogger writing a "news story" to get recognition for themselves.

However, the incident involving University of Connecticut head basketball coach, Jim Calhoun, and independent blogger, Ken Krayekse, in which Calhoun verbally attacked Krayekse for asking him about his salary, shed a glaring light on the continuous downfall of mainstream media. The once reliable, trustworthy mainstream media got embarassed by Krayeske. The question should have been asked by one of the mainstream reporters, which Krayeske so boldly pointed out. This question, with the help of Calhoun's infamous response, sparked an interest in the particular situation that otherwise wouldn't have ever been there.

I have respect for Krayeske for asking that question when he did and then standing up for himself when he was verbally attacked by Calhoun. But I think any journalist has to be prepared for a reaction like Calhoun's, even though it was unprecedented. I think sports journalists, and journalists in general, need to go back to the fundamentals of journalism in order to save the dying art. Blogging continues to take the world by storm, leaving conventional journalism in the dust. But if it's the bloggers and independent reporters who are going to ask the "controversial" questions and be willing to dig without fear of reprisal, what do they think is going to happen?