Dear Blog...

I am sitting on my couch, watching When Harry Met Sally and studying for finals. Some things never change. I have had this same method for studying since my freshman year. But now I am a senior and these are my last finals ever. So it feels bitter sweet.

I would be lying if I didn’t say this term kicked my ass. If I hadn’t absolutely needed a breadth course, I probably would have dropped Power Journalism after the first day – and the first math test. But I stuck to my guns, sometimes more successful than others, and I am glad I did. While I haven’t always had time to update my blog regularly, the flame has been lit and I plan to continue to let it burn. Now that school is over, it will be my goal to update my blog every day – ok, maybe not on the weekends but as often as I can.

I have learned to love blogging for several reasons. For one, it is a style of writing I used to love and have long since forgotten about. Picking it up again has been like discovering a long lost friend. For two, it has helped me keep up to date on the news and what is going on in the world of journalism. Actually seeking out topics to blog about is a fun pastime and helps me feel connected to the world in a way I haven’t felt before. There were definitely weeks that went by that I played around with my blog more than I checked my facebook.

The best part for me is embracing the new age of journalism, and liking it a lot more than I thought I would. Now, looking back on my last four years of school, if anyone were to ask me what classes I recommend, the list would consist of Media Ethics, Communication Law, and Power Journalism. Each offers its own invaluable lessons. Scott Maier manages to humanize the world of journalism, even though he is teaching about technological advances in the field. He teaches journalism in a way no one else does and reassured me, as a writer, that journalism isn’t dying; it is being reborn. I will manage to get a job, it just might be different than what I thought it would be. For that, I thank him and I also will continue to blog and generate new skills. Like Stephen Doig said, you don’t have to be an expert in every thing, but having a general understanding of various skills makes you a more valuable journalist.

The Most exciting time in Journalism

I had more than one family member tell me four years ago that newspapers were dying – why enter a field that is on its way out? My one uncle on my dad’s side was particularly worried about me. How was I going to make a living?

Well, I wish he could hear (or read) Laura Frank’s graduation speech for the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Frank has nearly 20 years of experience in newspapers, radio and public television. She has won awards in print and broadcast, and helped release innocent people from prison. A journalism student herself, and executive director of I-News, Frank has kept herself busy in a field that is supposedly dying. But most importantly of all, she claims it is the most exciting time in journalism.

“Never have we had the ability to both gather information as quickly, precisely and reliably – or disseminate it as rapidly or widely – as we do today,” she said. “Some of you – perhaps especially some of you parents – might be saying: Well yes, Laura, but the business models for journalism and advertising are collapsing. True. But at the same time, they are rebuilding. Many different models are evolving. We are witnessing creative destruction and we are witnessing the re-structuring, too.”

That being said, she doesn’t have any illusions that pursuing such a career is hard and sometimes thankless. “If you don’t have a fire in the belly to devote yourself to this field, you might want to quickly change your course of study,” she said. “Because as of this week, you’re competing for a job with me – and hundreds of other veteran journalists.”

After taking my first class as a declared journalism major, I had a conversation with a fellow classmate where we confessed maybe we weren’t competitive enough for this field. How can we compete with people like Frank, who have been in the business almost as long as I have been alive? After awhile, I found my answer: to learn from everyone around me. And at the University of Oregon, I have learned from some of the very best. They have given me confidence and authority in my writing. They have also given me powerful tools and skills to be successful in my journey. I can’t wait to go back to that same uncle and tell him how exciting my line of work is; it is always changing and evolving.

“This is the era of journalism and communication that you are entering today,” Frank said. “It is very powerful and very exciting. Yes, it’s also very volatile. And at times it will feel very uncertain… You will help reshape what this field becomes. Very few generations get that kind of opportunity. And it will be worth the struggles you’ll face in the coming years to have the honor of participating in it. I hope you seize it.”

But in all its uncertainty, this is where I feel at home and as Frank said, I am honored to be a part of this noble field.

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth

In George Orwell's 1984, his main character Winston works at the Ministry of Truth. It is where all the so-called newspapers, books, and other articles of writing are kept, and changed. It is Winston's job to go back and "correct" errors in old articles. These can include who Oceania is at war with. And Winston appears to be the only one who realizes that Big Brother can change history by changing the papers and history books.

We certainly aren't in a world that operates under such a system, which is not what the title of this post was to suggest. Rather, we are in a world where readers get to choose their own truth. They decide what they want to believe and what they don't. Sure, people have been doing this since the beginning of time, but with the advent of the internet and new technology, choosing your truth is even more prominent than before.

I sat in on a panel of graduate students from the University of Oregon earlier today, discussing this idea of choosing your own truth. One panelist brought up Newt Gingrich's interview on Meet The Press, where he called the Republican Medicare plan right-wing social engineering. Afterwards, Newt tried to reverse his statements, saying the media blew them out of proportion and he was set up. Here we have an example of someone saying one thing, then saying something else and picking which of the two is actually true. He is picking his own truth. And the audience is just supposed to go along with it.

However, audiences today are changing. We are a younger generation with different interests, likes, and hobbies. Facebook was created in our lifetime. So was twitter. Where and how we get our news is different than our parents. My freshman year in college, the topic of Scientology was brought up. A friend of mine said if you want to know about Scientology, just watch the South Park episode. So I did. And over the years I have discovered that if you want to know about almost anything, there is a South Park episode about it. And it's accurate.

"Satire has a long history of shining a light on truth," panelist Jacob Ditmer said. As an example, take a look at John Lithgow reading Newt's press release on the Stephen Colbert show. Shows like Colbert's, or the Daily Show, make news a performance. It's entertaining and satirical, but it's accurate. As an audience, these shows appear to be good truths to pick.

Another issue the panel touched on that I want to mention here was the idea of technological determinism. Does technology determine social behaviors in the people using it? Is it the video games, cell phones, and unlimited access to the internet that causes things like school shootings, bullying, and sexting? Or is it just easier for policy makers to legislate solutions for these societal problems by blaming the technology?

"People can make bad decisions," panelist Mara Williams said. "The idea that the online sphere should be feared doesn't allow for positive connections that can happen too." It seems we only look at the bad, and then choose the technology (the video game, the cell phone) that caused it, instead of the people. Does that sound like the truth, or "truthiness?"

Truthiness?

Disclaimer: It's going to be hard for me to focus this post, so be prepared for some rambling on my part. It's been a day full of provocative things to think about.

This morning I attended a panel discussion about "finding fact in the age of truthiness." The discussion was led by Tom Bivins, The John L. Hulting Chair in Media Ethics at the University of Oregon. The main goal of the panel was to discuss the place of opinion in news journalism and how that place has changed and will continue to change over time.

First, I would like to mention that the word "truthiness" was apparently invented by Stephen Colbert. Google defines it as, "In satire, truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

This is the difficulty that journalism faces today, and it's a two parter. One, readers are choosing their own truths -- they decide what they want to believe despite evidence or facts, and part of this is enabled by technology. When you can customize your online news to only show you the news stories you care about, or only subscribe to news that leans in your direction of thinking, you aren't getting the whole news. Two, journalists might have a tendency to report on things because it "feels" true without backing it up with facts and evidence. This type of reporting might appear rather opinion based, or point of view based, when in actuality, it's just bad reporting.

"People now can order their own news through the web," panelist Mike Hunsacker said. "The business of journalism has to work much harder to build and audience and sustain an audience. If there is no audience, there is no service."

Panelist Mike Fancher said that good faith with readers is the essence of journalism. It's hard to establish that faith when you can't even establish an audience. "In a world of such constant bombardment of information, journalists are struggling to figure out what grounds they stand on, so they are turning to this opinion journalism," he said. "It's not a good ground for journalism to stand on."

Another interesting point, made by panelist Lee Wilkins, was that journalism as a profession has lost its moral high ground. Journalists have forgotten how to fact check and dispute bad information or wrong facts -- instead they are relying on their idea of truthiness. "I can look at Jon Stewart and see better in depth reporting than on the front page of the New York Times," she said. Why? Because Jon Stewart isn't afraid to tell his audience when they have been lied to by the media. "To say something is a lie is not opinion," Wilkins said. "Lies can be proven."

So is opinion without a place in journalism? No, not entirely according to the panel. "If we are willing to say from the start that we have an agenda in our reporting, then it's journalist and it's honest," Fancher said.

And this is where blogs come in. As panelist Mike Hunsacker said, this is why blogs are so rich. "They give us the ability to dig deep into the material," Hunsacker said. "You aren't just verifying and attributing sources. You can take your readers directly to the source, show them the documents and the interviews and let them see for themselves."

While I stated earlier that new technology could be driving readers away from good journalism, Fancher noted that so many good things can come of technology and journalism, mainly because of the blog. "In the digital world, there is the opportunity to layer and layer information," he said. In the interactive internet world, the opportunities are wonderful but we have to seize them."

Not only can they layer your stories, bloggers also have the ability to post news every minute of every day. Not many newspapers can do that. However, journalist bloggers must have the same level of truth and accuracy as traditional journalists. Otherwise, their opinions are no different than anyone else's -- and we all know what they say about opinions.

"Newspapers are an important part of our lives, not to read, of course, but, when you're moving you can't wrap your dishes in a blog."
Stephen T. Colbert, host, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," 2009

The First Amendment Center posted this quote on facebook this morning and I had to share it. It's true -- newspapers are versatile. They double as coffee coasters, blankets, bubble wrap, and let's not forget that kidnappers couldn't write ransom notes without newspapers.

Rise of the Machines?

At the beginning of my blog I confessed my struggles with technology and the new direction journalism is taking. I got into this profession because of a passionate love affair with newspapers and the printed word. I would sit for ages at my desk plunking away at my antique typewriter. It was my grandmother's, who died when I was very young. She was a materialistic woman and most of her things were locked in a safe after she died. But on my 14th birthday, my grandpa brought me her typewriter. Several years later I took it to college with me and it still sits on my floor beside my desk. I only got a laptop because I had to. And thus began my aversion to technology.

In class today we were fortunate to have Ed Madison as a guest speaker, educating us on the revolutionary ipad. For about 30 minutes I was pretty enthralled with the idea of this new interactive media. Whereas before, computers isolated people -- it was such a solo activity. Now suddenly with tablets and smartphones, people are reconnecting. What was before a virtual community is now tangible. Writers and journalists can now interact with their readers and give them a "surround sound" experience. This isn't the death of the printed word, as Madison so eloquently put it, it is the marriage. And let's just say, I kind of want one.

And then I hear the make-believe tears of my neglected typewriter and suddenly I remember... Does anyone else recall The Terminator? Words like Skynet, Cyberdine Systems, Human Cyborgs? Yes, it's all a little cheesey -- but the message is the same: what happens when machines take over? Sure, you could make the argument that the new tablet is a step in the other direction -- it's reconnecting people. It's bringing us back together. But it's also encouraging us to rely on it. And relying on technology instead of people raises red flags for someone like me -- someone who has seen The Terminator one too many times.

Copyrights -- what's it all about?

Soon after adorning my blog with images found offline, I was informed by Associate Professor Scott Mair that everything that takes a form is copyrighted. In other words, one needs permission to use pictures, words, artwork, or photographs. But, surely if you can download something from off Google, it's ok to use? Apparently not.

However there are exceptions to the rule -- the fair use doctrine. The rules to this rule seem kind of confusing though too -- as confusing as copyrighted material. Copyright.gov puts it like this, "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation."

Fair use includes things like for educational purposes, or as long as you only use a portion of the piece. You can read the rules here. Apparently attributing your sources isn't good enough. From the looks of things, fair use might not be good enough either.

The National Union of Journalists recently reviewed Ian Hargreaves' Report on Copyright. According to journalist and blogger Jon Slattery, it got mixed reviews but freelance organizer John Toner said,“We are pleased that the report rejects the so-called ‘fair use’ doctrine which is based on questionable notions of fairness. The doctrine, which comes from United States law, permits the use of a creator’s work without permission and requires potentially huge legal costs for a successful challenge."

The review puts Google on the spot -- more importantly how Google claims that scanning millions of books is fair use.

But is this report really going to improve freelance journalism, like the NUJ claims? Journalists will have more protection of their own works, but less access to other material that can enhance their own material. While this might not directly affect journalists in the US, it's always worth knowing other countries' rules on copyright laws.