This election goes to the broadcasters

Besides the last presidential election, this was one of the elections I was most interested in; not necessarily personally, but in the way the media covered it. For being midterm, this election seemed to get more press than those in the recent past, and I think part of that is the acute splintering of our nation between party lines. There were probably conservatives (like me) and definitely moderates who didn’t mind seeing congress tip to the left. Also, it was interesting this year to see Missouri covered in the national news leading up to the election.

We touched on this is class, but I think it’s crucial to address in observations on election coverage, and that’s advertising. Local candidates’ ads this year were particularly invasive—we saw them everywhere; in newspapers, regional magazines, on the radio, on television and the Internet. Perhaps most notable were Talent and McCaskill’s back and forth smear campaign. With all this banter, I thought the media had an even more important role in educating the public, as well as a great opportunity to question all the pettiness represented in several campaigns. But, by and large, I didn’t find any particularly in-depth coverage state or nationwide. The Associated Press mainly covered bare bones debate-like stories, including the Monday Focus series on the Missouri wire.

I was looking for something more, and I think the Missourian did a good job of exploring alternative stories. The public life beat did the typical issues stories and profiles, but each candidate had at least a few other, quirky stories, or something more in-depth. I was also really impressed with our voters guide. Well, content-wise. Design-wise it was unimpressive, but that’s not really the point of a voters guide.

In terms of broadcast news, I really CNN and MSNBC’s coverage. With broadcast, I think there’s always an element of flashiness, so you get that over-the-top feel a bit, but if there’s ever a time to go over-the-top with coverage, it should be with elections. MSNBC did an awesome job of tying in their Web site to their broadcasts. Channel 9 in Kansas City also had some interesting election-night coverage, streaming coverage from their television channel. And, on a broader level, with online coverage, I really liked the NY Times interactive map that Patrick showed us in class. The Chicago Tribune online also had strong election-night coverage, using several briefs, headlines and interactive elements on their main page, instead of giving up most of their homepage real estate to a few stories.

The continued coverage throughout election night on CNN and even down to KOMU was pretty impressive. Personally, it bothers me that people are so inundated with poll results, because I think they unnecessarily influence the elections, but I guess it’s a good thing overall that we have the ability to offer the public this information on a minute-by-minute basis. The Missourian also did a fantastic job on their election-night reporting. This is the third election I’ve worked at the Missourian, and it was definitely the most intense. We had colorful coverage and were able to extend our deadlines long enough to include the Talent-McCaskill race results. A newsroom on an election night can either be a chaotic disaster or well-oiled teamwork. This election, I’d like to think we were the latter.

I don’t think I’ve ever conceded this, but overall, I think broadcast news did a better job this election in their coverage, especially leading up to Nov. 7. On the other hand, when it came to print outlets, local seemed to provide better information than nationwide sources.

AMERICA VOTES

I’ve never been big on politics, but Tuesday night was different. Due to the events of the last six years, I’ve found a new interest in how the America is being governed and was particularly curious to see how the rest of the country felt on Election Day 2006.

With the sun shining on a beautiful 72-degree day in Columbia, I had a gut feeling it was going to be a special day—possibly, even historic. I’d be lieing if I said I was as into the election coverage as I would be the Super Bowl, but once polling places in different locations closed and results began to come in, my eyes were glued to the television.

Prior to dinner, I had done a careful check of the coverage on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Right away, I eliminated Fox from my radar. I could barely make it through five minutes of their coverage. The set and background were plain and non-inviting to my eyes and none of their anchors, reporters or analysts made me want to stick around.

So, I quickly turned to CNN and they were discussing trends from around the country. They reported that voter turnout was extremely high and that 66 percent of voters in the exit polls said they thought the country needed a change. Connecting the dots, it was logical to assume what this meant for the evening’s results. While the other stations could have reported the same statistics, I didn’t catch it due to bad timing.

I also greatly enjoy listening to Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, both of whom were anchoring the election coverage in the newsroom. MSNBC posed an interesting duo with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, but for numerous reasons I decided to let Blitzer and Cooper lead me throughout the night.

The first intriguing part of CNN’s coverage was the layout of the set, which was placed right in the middle of the newsroom. While Blitzer mainly stayed positioned around the large board showing various percentages in the background, Anderson Cooper was literally walking throughout the newsroom chatting with different people. At times, he would stop at a certain desk and speak with various analysts including James Carville, Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley and Chief National Correspondent John King. At other times, he was talking to reporters at their desks. I enjoyed this setup because it gave me a better understanding of how much work is put in by people behind the scenes to make such an important show work.

My favorite part of their broadcast was the chart/graphic used by Jeff Greenfield throughout the evening. As opposed to many graphics that are too confusing, this one was perfect. It was extremely clear and easy for the viewers to follow. The chart would do a full revolution whenever he wanted to access the House of Representatives or the Senate. Each seat the Republicans had appeared in red and each seat that belonged to the Democrats was in blue. When a race was called, he would make the seat the rightful color. As the night grew old, he remained focus on the heated Senate races in Missouri, Virginia, Montana and Tennessee. All were currently red because the incumbent was Republican. Whenever he wanted to discuss the current situation and updated voting results he simply tapped the seat with the state’s abbreviation and a box would pop up showing both candidates.

I also felt as though CNN was really careful with its coverage. I distinctly remember an incumbent senator giving his concession speech, but CNN hadn’t confirmed the results yet and refused to call the race until they were certain. I thought CNN’s coverage was superb because it was a very relaxed and comforting presentation.

Election Coverage

First let me say I was SHOCKED this morning to learn that Claire McCaskill won and that Amendment 2 passed.
Anyway, maybe this is biased of me, but I think KOMU had excellent local coverage of the election. This was convergence journalism at its best. The coverage began weeks ago with the KOMU, Missourian & KBIA Smart Decision election guide. Every issue and individual that was voted on in this election had information on the election guide. On top of that each week KBIA and KOMU had web and podcasts discussing the important issues in the election. So I think they succeeded at their pre-election coverage.
On top of all of that, KOMU pulled through during the election. They had a reporter in each county in the viewing area (I was in Randolph) at the County Clerk's office calling in numbers as soon as they came in. Not only that, but there were vlogs and slideshows that were continually going up all night to give the viewer an interactive look at the election. Then at around 9:20, there was a webcast predicting the winners of the election. I'm not saying it all went over without technical difficulties, but it was a success.
Overall, I think all media outlets failed in informing the public prior to the election. I do not think Missouri voters were prepared to vote on issues such as Amendment 2. Voters went to the poll with information from political ads and minimal personal research. Journalists have to be the ones to bridge the gap and put the information out there. Though KOMU had the information online, there were not enough stories that said "here is every side of this issue." However, no other news outlet was very successful either.

Leopold's job as journalist well done, despite ethical questions

What is ethics?

Throughout the course of ones education in the Missouri school of journalism, numerous courses have devoted time towards attempting to establish what is considered to be ethical and unethical. Truth be told, many students still aren’t sure, and as the journalism world continues to change and evolve the lines that once divided the ethical decisions from the unethical are blurring.

Jason Leopold’s News Junkie had great examples of ethical debate throughout its pages, and yet there can still be heated arguments over many of the events that shaped the journalism career of Leopold.

For instance, one might come to the conclusion that it was completely unethical of Leopold to lie on his resume about graduating from NYU with a degree in journalism. Sure lying is never a practice of good ethics, yet in today’s journalism world what was really the harm in this falsification? Another major topic of conversation in a number of the classes being offered to journalism majors concerns the growth of citizen journalism. If people all around the country are pretending to be journalists without a journalism degree, what difference does it make if Leopold lied about his education?

If Leopold wanted to pursue a career in journalism without the degree, it would have been nearly impossible to get hired by the Times or Dow Jones. Say he still wants to write and dig up breaking news, and decides to start publishing a blog; then, major newspapers and wire services would have a major problem with the fact that they aren’t landing the stories and some blogger was. Was it unethical to lie on his resume? Sure. But not nearly to the extent one might think.

Leopold’s methods of gathering information by playing two sources against one another, turning on sources or using anonymous sources in his stories leaves plenty to be desired and is clearly unethical. However, considering the crises he was covering with the California energy situation and Enron, it was extremely ethical to gather important information and fill the public in regarding the ways in which they were being deceived and screwed out of money and electricity.

Great journalists are the gatekeepers to the people and organizations within the industry pride themselves on being the first to release a breaking news story. They can’t have it both ways though. It would be nearly impossible to break any real important news by being completely ethical about it. Very few sources are willing to just spill their guts and go on record about an important or controversial topic. On one hand, Leopold’s decision to use anonymous sources is a terrible practice for any journalist. Heck, the Columbia Missourian wouldn’t allow any of his stories to run. On the other hand, Leopold and his editors should be applauded for deciding that the information be released regardless of how the information was acquired.

The only thing certain about ethics is that it is a matter of opinion, not fact. One unethical decision could be viewed as ethical by some and vice versa. That same unethical decision could lead to an ethical one down the road involving the exact same topic or story. Questions surrounding ethics will continue to be asked in journalism classes around the country and pondered by young, aspiring journalists everywhere throughout their entire life.

Unbridled Passion

With three weeks left during my semester reporting for the Missourian, the last thing I wanted (or had the energy) to deal with was a big scoop. But news doesn’t have a schedule, and the Missourian got a scoop that we couldn’t ignore, about Bruce Brotzman, then principal of Rock Bridge High School. My friend and roommate was the lead reporter and I was helping out since I had interviewed Brotzman earlier in the year for a brief about his leaving Rock Bridge for another job. The principal and involved community member had been banned from Ellis Library for sexual misconduct. The incident conveniently coincided with Brotzman’s departure from the school, and the Missourian was looking for links between the two events. Eventually, a series of stories revealed that the two events were connected and that the school district appeared to be covering it up. Consequently, Brotzman lost the job he was leaving for as a school administrator in Ohio. But there’s one story about Brotzman that was never told, although it was arguably the most compelling, because it was based on an anonymous source. The source (and the source’s father) told us that Brotzman had forced his son into certain sexual acts, while the son was working at Rock Bridge as a janitor. Given that he was a public figure, entrusted to care for and guide young adults, it was really difficult not to hit the keyboard and produce a shocking story that would shake-up the neatly woven tapestry of the school district, who had tried to cover-up Brotzman’s misconduct. Ultimately though, we all knew this was a decision for Tom Warhover since it dealt with an anonymous source. We didn’t run the story, with the rationale that the potential fallout outweighed any gain (the man had already been fired from his new job, what more did we want?) and that was the end of it.

Jason Leopold’s opposing perspective on using anonymous sources is what shocked me most about him as a journalist, and I suspect it has something to do with his obviously unbridled passion for the industry. I found it hard to understand, while reading his book, how he could be so unquestioning when it came to not naming sources and usually not involving his editor. I also found it shocking when he responded in class that his editors (for the most part) didn’t have a problem with this. At MU, we’re always preached to about proceeding with caution when it comes to anonymous sources, but we’re dealing with a much smaller news outlet and, most likely, editors that are more involved, every step of the way.

Leopold, on the other hand, was working for wire services or larger newspapers that required tighter deadlines and less one-on-one time with an editor. He expressed both in his book and in class that he got a buzz from publishing a story or putting it on the wire, and in a way, journalists are programmed to feel that way. Or, at least, modern media organizations are structured in a way that supports such a mindset. While in the moment, quick-as-you-can journalism might seem like a good idea, especially for newspapers who may be battling it out with other online sources, it’s also an opportunity to introduce error and for poor news judgment. In a column for the American Journalism Review, President Thomas Kunkel, also a dean at University of Maryland’s journalism school, discussed the potential danger in producing news at an increasingly faster pace.

“One could argue that the faster we produce journalism, the more time we should be thinking about journalism, but of course the reality is just the reverse. Our breakneck, 24-7 media environment simply allows no time to contemplate what we do, or why it matters, or how to do it better. There's only time to keep shoveling--which has grave repercussions, which we should be thinking about, but there's no time…” (Kunkel, American Journalism Review, January/February 2003, What is Journalism Education?).

This reiterates, regardless of how soon your deadline is approaching, the idea that everyone involved in a story should be held accountable along the way. That’s not just Leopold and his editor, but copy editors, the copy chief, designers, etc. Of course, this isn’t to shift the duty of the reporter, but everyone should share a bit of the burden.
Bill Kirtz, a professor at Northeastern University, offered advice on developing better reporting techniques from Deborah Nelson, a Los Angeles Times editor, in an ethics story for Poynter.org. “…[the] ‘no surprises at the end’ technique helps ‘bullet-proof’ stories from irate subjects and lawyers. Another is meticulous fact-checking. [Nelson] makes reporters verify every fact against their source notes, documents, including ‘names that you think you know. Double-checking saves your credibility,’” (Kirtz, Poynter.org, May 22, 2006, Unleash the Watchdogs).

Another key issue Leopold discussed was passion, which comes across in his work, but can be shaky ground to stand on. In fact, it seems like passion is what often got him into trouble. Should journalists have a love for what they do, and realize that their basic objective is informing the public? Yes. But there’s a certain element of checks and balances that need to be present. Leopold said he thrived on “the immediate gratification of getting a story out, or reporting a rumor.” That’s not responsible journalism. That’s an ego, yearning to be inflated. Just the phrase “reporting a rumor,” says a lot about his ethics as a journalist. He claims his goal has always been to report the truth, but the truth is nebulous if it can’t be backed up with sources. He seemed to think – maybe he thinks differently now—that readers would believe him simply because he was a journalist. That may be true to an extent, but it doesn’t necessarily yield an enduring track record.

Jill Geisler, a Leadership and Management Group Leader at the Poynter Institute, addressed the problems passion can bring about in a story based on a survey of the leadership of Poynter’s high-ups. She found that having passion often translated into being a poor communicator, having a “bad temper” or being “impatient,” (Geisler, Poynter.org, July 9, 2001, A Problem with Passion).

The consensus after Leopold spoke with us in class seemed to be that he was a nice guy. Sure, he’s a nice guy, but he also contributed to the camp that makes our jobs much more challenging. We are entering the world of journalism during a period of rapid change, with citizen journalism, new media, celebrification of the news and shaky credibility. And while it’s great that a journalist could be so candid in a book about how his personal life affected his professional career, I still find his story unnerving because it means I have to work even harder to reverse the damage he, and similar people, have done.

Uncertain future has America's watchdogs concerned

Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G Kaiser discuss the present state of journalism and its future throughout The News About the News, but sum it up best by saying:

Journalism can make a palpable difference in the community, sometimes in the entire country or even the world. The best such journalism is often produced by reporters and editors who have the luxury of pursuing topics they think are important without having to worry excessively about how much it may cost to report a story, or whom the story may offend. Those journalists work for news organizations that still have a mission of public service, which has long been the role of America’s best newspapers. But that mission, and the future of journalism that really makes a difference, is in peril (p. 62).

Journalism, specifically newspapers, is enduring trying times right now. The Internet, with its quick updates and easy access are causing problems for daily newspapers as statistics show that readership continues to go down. The new trend of large corporations purchasing daily newspapers hasn’t helped the cause either. Newspapers are slowly beginning to focus more on entertainment than on reporting the actual news, and good investigative reporting continues to become a thing of the past.
Yet, make no mistake about it, the newspaper sales of September 12, 2001 proved there is still a pressing need for good journalism in this country. People still want to be informed. The ultimate responsibility of a good journalist is to be gatekeepers. Journalists have to keep the people informed and present unbiased views of events and actions so citizens can make the best decisions to lead their everyday life. Whether people are getting their information via the Internet, radio, TV or newspapers; as long as they are informed then journalists should be happy.
The key for newspapers now, as Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News states, is for good newspapers to “give them something that they can’t get anywhere else, that’s vital, that makes readers think ‘I’ve got to have it’” (p. 102).
So, the real question becomes how, exactly, do newspapers accomplish this goal without compromising their integrity or alienating adults, currently the largest age demographic of readers?
While the role of the journalist must stay the same, their writing styles must change. Straightforward stories, written much like wire copy from The Associated Press, isn’t going to draw many readers. The writing must become more entertaining. No, this doesn’t mean it has to turn into infotainment only, but the writing needs to be able to hold the readers’ attention passed the lead.
One of the biggest obstacles that must be overcome is the new element of citizen journalism. Between blogs, youtube.com and even the basic forum sections of numerous web sites, everyone is doing a form of journalism whether they realize it or not. They are writing or recording their stories, often considered news worthy.
Instead of being so concerned when a common citizen files a story that he did on investigated on his or her own, journalists must accept this as new form of tip. As technology has grown in leaps and bounds, the old form of a tip by phone call from an anonymous source is over. New era tips come from video recordings or blogs that are already on the web for the public to see. Now, the journalists job changes. They should find these compelling stories each day and run with them. Look deeper into them and use their superior writing skills to provide a more in-depth and intriguing aspect for their readers.
While combining new and old media resources and technologies to create to create something bigger, better and more profitable than the component parts hasn’t taken off yet, this idea of synergy seems like an ideal solution (p. 200). While it hasn’t worked particularly well because the newspaper reporters are having trouble fitting in, the public can get all the information they want when a site has headlines, video and audio clips. In order to incorporate newspaper reporters, these sites need to expand to include good investigative reporting stories or editorial pieces that are entertaining to its audience. Begin with a link to the basic AP story, especially for breaking news. As soon as a news story breaks, reporters need to quickly begin working and writing and their work can be posted in a short period of time right alongside the wire copy.
While the Internet is making things hard on newspapers, “at least in its infancy, the internet has disappointed those who predicted it would become a significant new source for original journalism,” (p. 218).
It is hard to say exactly what needs to happen and what the future holds for the journalism industry. As new technology continues to develop their will undoubtedly be drastic changes in the not-too-distant future. The role of a journalist remains the same; they are responsible for providing information to the public. However, at any given time a journalist must embrace other roles such as informer, educator, provocateur and entertainer as well.
“Newspapers must get better, not worse, to retain the loyalty of readers, and thus the dollars of advertisers. If they fail to get better, newspapers will continue to shrink—in size, in quality, in importance. This would be tragic, because no other news medium can fill the role that good newspapers play in informing the country,” (p. 110).
Now, journalists and specifically newspapers need the country to inform them. What is it that you want? What will make you happy? What will make you read?

Are We There Yet?

For years, society has been moving towards globalization. With the development of wireless communication it is easier now than ever before to relay information to a person anywhere in the world. Not only is information globalized, but the media that is used to communicate the information (newspapers, television, email, etc.) has developed to be more global as well. Any well-respected news outlet not only has an international component, but can be translated—at least in the online version—in several different languages. However in recent years, there seems to be a trend of “information overload.” Because news outlets are looking to communicate so much information, readers and viewers are not clear on how to filter the information. They are interested in something in particular, but can not access it because it is hidden by so much other information. So now the move is toward segmented globalization, especially with news. Because of this journalists have to find a way to give their audiences what they want.
With the segmented globalization, people are turning to news sources that have a narrow focus. In turn, they get only the news they want. It is similar to looking for the right cold medicine. In any typical American pharmacy there are tons of choices for cold medicine. On top of that, each medicine treats a different set of symptoms. But if a person only has a few of the symptoms he/she has to take the medicine for everything just to treat his/her one ailment. The analogy applies to the news industry as well; people have to watch or read all of the news just to get the piece they want. That is why people are turning to outlets like MTV for entertainment news and Sports Illustrated for sports analysis, rather than the nightly newscast or daily newspaper.
Sources like these allow for more in-depth reporting. Now, instead of getting the overview of a story, journalists have time and space to expand their story because they do not have to share time and space with other types of stories. This is what the audience is looking for. Though society is still globalized, audiences are looking for information pertaining to their particular interests. So the newsstand may be covered with magazines and newspapers that cover every different topic, but not every topic is in every single publication. The same trend is happening in television news as well. For example Headline News, a franchise of CNN, has a primetime lineup each night. Now as a package, the primetime lineup covers all of the current events, but each show has it’s own focus. There is an entertainment show, a news analysis show, and a viewer call-in show. Now viewers only have to watch the show that fits their preferences. In other words, journalists have the responsibility to give the audience the news, but package it in a way that is familiar and relative to each person.
Though this move has advantages for both the journalist and the audience, there are several drawbacks as well. One of the major concerns is that the audience is not getting the information that it needs. According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism, “The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing,” (17). This is not only their belief, but that of many journalists. The idea behind this definition is that journalists are gatekeepers. As gatekeepers, there is full access to information, but the decision has to be made about what information is pertinent enough to pass on to the general public. So, the audience may not know what they need to know and it is the journalist’s responsibility to give it to them. This shift in journalism takes the opposite approach. Instead of beginning with the information, journalists now begin with the audience and format the information to their personal interests.
Although journalism has already moved in this direction there are several steps that journalists still must take in order to make this new trend effective. The first step is conducting more audience research. Just like a company that wants to sell a new product, a focus group should be developed. They should be asked about the way in which they consume the news. Not only is it important to find the medium the majority of the people use, but what type of information they are looking for in the news. While this trend is in its “fundamental” stages, it is the responsibility of every journalist to engage in this type of activity. If each journalist could specialize in one segment of news, any news outlet could adequately provide the audience with their information without hiding it behind other information. The next step is to embrace the move to the online world. The internet permeates much of the common person’s life, however people know little about its capabilities. If journalists could show people its capabilities through this type of segmentation, it would also appeal to the audience in great numbers. Though it may not be the empirical role, today’s journalist has a responsibility to provide the public with the information they want to incorporate into their lives.

Innovative Journalism versus Infotainment

This week’s readings and discussions focused on the changing arena of news; who determines the news, what the news is and where the news is. In our text, The News About the News, authors Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser stressed the importance that journalism (although changing) is still very much alive and important. Several examples were presented on journalism that’s made a difference, including the IRS and its sudden turn-about in giving Scientology tax-exempt status as a church (Downie, 30). A brief history of American journalism also revealed some of the changes our country has experienced in how they receive, perceive and prefer their news, and how today, more than ever, Americans are turning to the Internet for news (Downie, 199, 200). Finally, the text touched on where the news is headed and how we, as journalists, can prepare for such changes. Likewise, in class, we discussed the fact that communication is becoming increasingly mediated and that the news has an intense presence on the Internet (lecture 8/29/06). Our role as journalists then, in a time when everyone can be a journalist, is to find a way to reach the audience. Also, as we said in class, our focus must shift from geographic communities to communities of interest (lecture 8/29, 31/06).

As with the dawn of radio and later television, journalism is headed toward the newest medium. Actually, it’s already landed there and pervades just about any online surfing anyone does. It’s hard to check your e-mail, Facebook or shop online and not get a pop-up for a news site, receive an e-mail news update or see a banner for a news or blogging site somewhere along the way. Although print and broadcast mediums of journalism are still very much alive, most newspapers and news stations also have some kind of online supplement or presence. And in this age of increasing reliance on the Internet, why wouldn’t citizens use the Internet as their source of news? It’s fast, efficient and built around them. Not to mention that they can participate. Bloggers can write about what they deem to be news, youtube.com offers a unique forum for anyone to broadcast their own news (like whistleblower Michael De Kort), search engines allow for narrow story searches and advanced web browsers have special tabs and navigational tools that individualize news. Choice truly rules the day. And with this choice, media must be flexible enough to combine new mediums with the old. "This is a time if experimentation for all news media as they try to adapt revolutionary new technology," (Downie, 199).

Living in the little bubble of the Missouri Journalism School, some of us still think everyone in Columbia reads, views or listens to our stories, but, if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that’s not true. A study at the Poynter Institute from the 1990s, called Eyes on the News, showed that readership of newspapers, defined as reading the first line of text, was at a mere 25 percent—a far cry from what most journalists strive for (Poynter.org). And what we may think of as the most important stories, those about politics, civic issues or education are not what the masses deem important. People, especially generation Xers and younger, have been shown to gravitate toward entertainment-geared news.

Given that the nature of news is shifting to at least incorporate, if not one day dominate, the medium of the Internet and that there are certainly divergent views of what news is between journalists and the audience, journalists have a hefty challenge in front of them. Unlike the days of Watergate, it’s not to be the best watchdog possible (although that’s still important), but instead it’s to be an innovator. We’ve proven we can write well, that we can inform the masses and call out big business and the government when they’ve done wrong; but can we be creative? Can we, as professionals, combine our news judgment with strategies to reach an audience that might not care about the top news story? I think we can, but it certainly is a new role for journalists to be taking on, and according to Downie and Kaiser, it may not have happened yet.

"With a few exceptions, attempts at synergy have produced relatively little additional original or improved journalism or new revenue. They mostly have 'repurposed' (another news term) journalism already being produced by one news medium for use by another," (Downie, 200).

In short, we're not there yet, and perhaps that's because we (as a profession) are still figuring out where we're going. Of course we must still inform and explain, but we must also be thoughtful toward our audience and give a little more of what studies show they want; and we can't just do that by dumping duplicate content online. Filling the front page of the Missourian with celebrity gossip is not my suggestion, but rather, analyze what it is about entertainment news that readers/listeners/viewers enjoy and use that to design pages, package broadcasts and write stories. Perhaps re-organization or the addition of more entertainment information is also needed. In any case, there’s certainly not a need to drop everything we’ve ever learned about what is news and clone the National Enquirer, but figuring out specifically what in that tabloid draws people in and then using it in a newspaper may not be a bad idea. Print media will have to be especially innovative, but journalists should also bare in mind that they can offer something unique. As Downie and Kaiser said in regards to a New York Times article that ran in the late 1990s, "Both the characters and the story line were intriguing, new and unexpected -- the essence of a good story," (Downie 66). How many of our stories are actually "new and unexpected"? So many come across as mundane, or simply lacking an element of intruige.

The same can be said for television and radio needing to change format and content. Fox, although I realize their news judgment is quite off kilter, has done a good job with changing their news format with a segment called “Around the World in 80 Seconds.” Basically, viewers get a glimpse of what’s going on in the world in less than two minutes, and although I personally find the accompanying music annoying, it is an effort to make the news more accessible for a busier and perhaps younger audience.

This new venture in news asks a lot of journalists, but if part of our goal is to give readers what they need and want, then changes must be made and our profession must be thoughtful in approaching news and the way it’s presented to maintain readership, viewers and listeners. We must differentiate ourselves from the online marketplace for news and give audience members something they can’t get online, while still maintaining a strong Web presence for synergy. It’s going to be a balancing act, especially between innovative journalism and infotainment.

Autobiography

“Good morning, Pleasant Lea Junior High…” It was at that point that I knew I wanted to be a broadcast journalist. I was in the eighth grade and had just moved to Lee’s Summit. They told me that I had to have a speech class before I could take the television production class, but little did they know, I taken speech at my previous school. So, once they got my transcripts I was good to go. Being able to write, report, edit and produce the weekly news for the school was an amazing experience. I didn’t know what type of career that was called, but I wanted to do the news. My parents introduced me to broadcast journalism.
My mother, Pat, graduated from the University of Kansas with a degree in electrical engineer. She currently works at St. Luke’s East Hospital in Lee’s Summit, MO. My father, Stan Beatty, also graduated from the University of Kansas with a degree in Computer Science. He currently works for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, MO. My brother currently attends Cornell University where he is studying engineering. So, I’m the only person in my family without the desire to pursue a technical degree. Because of that I thought it would be difficult for my parents to introduce me to my passion, but they tried their hardest and succeeded.
I decided that I wanted to attend Hampton University to study journalism. When I was still in high school, Hampton had just opened a state of the art journalism school with a grant from Scripps Howard News Service. The school was perfect: new journalism school, a historically Black university and it was in a beautiful city on the ocean. What else could I ask for? Then, my parents broke the news: the University of Missouri (which is only 2 hours from home) has the best journalism school in the country. So I had to make a decision. Though it isn’t what I wanted I can say that my experience at MU has paid off.
Besides journalism, my faith is very important to me. I am very involved in church both at home in Kansas City and at school in Columbia. At home I attend Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church. I was president of the youth group and sang soprano in the youth choir. Here, in Columbia, I attend Friendship Missionary Baptist Church. I am involved with the youth ministry as a mentor as well as Bible study leader.
Another experience that changed my life was the opportunity to study abroad during the summer of 2005. I went to Sydney, Australia to take Cross-Cultural Journalism. I experienced a cultural totally different, but yet similar to American culture. The people were friendly and interested in learning more about in America. There were so many different plants, trees, and animals that are native to Australia that I had never seen that make the landscape so beautiful. I hiked up mountains and volcanoes (New Zealand) several times, which is something I had never done before. I experienced so many things that I had never experienced before.
My major at the MU is broadcast journalism. Once I graduate from the University of Missouri School of Journalism I plan to attend business school at Duke University. I want to focus on entrepreneurship so that I can own my own media company. I’m not sure if news is exactly what I want to pursue, but I do want to still be involved with forms of new media including television, radio, and online. Personally I want to have a family and be successful in that arena of my life. I’m not sure how many children I would like to have, but I know that I want to have children. After that I’m not sure where else I want to go in my life. I want to make sure that I travel with my children so that they can see and experience new and different cultures.

Lynn's Line

There are no stats to back me up on this, so what I am about to say is strictly a hypothesis based on my feelings from the classes I have taken and the people that I have met during the last couple of years in the Missouri school of Journalism.

I am a rare journalism student at Mizzou because I am not studying journalism at Missouri due to having a strong desire to one day be a great journalist. On the contrary, I am studying journalism at Missouri because of my deep love and passion for sports.

Growing up, the one common bond that could always bring my extended family together was sports. It was the single entity that made my father and I best friends. Whether we were watching the Chicago Bulls, Blackhawks, Bears or White Sox we were happy regardless of the result.

My dad, who remains the most influential person in my life, enrolled me in the hockey, basketball, soccer and baseball leagues in the community park district. My strongest sport was hockey where I served as the goaltender, and won the top net minder award on three separate occasions during my 10-year career. I was really good at standing between the pipes and just letting the black rubber disc hit any part of my body it could find.

Baseball was my true passion, however; as I played on many traveling teams and through my high school career as an above average pitcher and third baseman. Unfortunately, it was clear from an early age that I was never going to go on to be the next Sandy Koufax, Brooks Robinson or Dominik Hasek. The physical ability that separates elite athletes from the rest must have passed me by. But the analytical aspect caught on and hasn’t left.

At the age of 8, when I got my first box of Donruss baseball cards from the local card shop, I was like Dustin Hoffman’s character Raymond in “Rain Man.” No, I wasn’t autistic and maybe this comparison lacks sensitivity. Nevertheless, I had a unique ability to study and remember each player’s statistics and obscure facts about their careers. As time went on, I could name the starting lineups for every team in every sport and winning sports trivia contests wasn’t even a question.

As I continued to get older and smarter about sports topics I began to become critical of players and their actions on or off the field. I would study their habits—what is fundamentally solid about their swings? Does a certain player like to pass or shoot in a specific situation? Who should be paired on the same line for a run to the Stanley Cup?

The first class I stepped into in high school was an introductory journalism class taught by a very well respected woman named Susan Tantillo. While I never enjoyed writing and didn’t consider myself very good at it, she saw something in me that no one had before. She pushed me to a level I never thought possible and eventually I became the sports editor of the school newspaper that she ran until my junior year.

This is the time when the light bulb went off in my head. If I loved sports so much, and wanted to remain involved in some way that wasn’t on the playing field, journalism was the key. Ms. Tantillo helped me realize that to make a living in journalism it was important to start early and make connections. I acquired my first internship at Pro Football Weekly Magazine, where I worked for two years. During that time I attended six Chicago Bears games with a media credential and was like a kid in a candy shop. Every time I went into the locker rooms after the game I was star struck and I knew this was the life for me.

Since being accepted into the top journalism school in the country, I have decided to make myself better rounded. While I chose the news editorial sequence, I have held internships at two major broadcasting networks: WGN-TV and Comcast SportsNet-Chicago. I also did some work for Sports Illustrated On Campus to help gain a small sense of the advertising world. Lacking a photogenic eye, I wisely stayed away from trying anything in photography.

My experiences to this point in journalism have been truly incredible. I’ve talked to many stars of the basketball, baseball and football world and walked on the playing surface of historic stadiums around the country. I can only hope that my future in the profession is as sweet as the past.

Of course, if I meet my goals it should be. In an ideal situation, I’d like to write a column for a major newspaper somewhere in the country. Thanks to Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser on “Pardon the Interruption,” sports columnists now double as TV personalities, and I hope to follow in their footsteps as well. While that might be a dream that doesn’t come true for quite some time, I believe that the numerous connections I have made thus far and the internships I have held will put my on the right path to success and make the Missouri Journalism school proud to call me an alum.

How I fell into Journalism

Mold really grosses me out. Mold on food, mold in a dingy house or anywhere else generally makes me recoil in disgust and become slightly ill. In fact, I have almost developed a full-blown phobia of mold, but it was mold that seduced me into becoming a journalist.

In my second year of high school, boundaries dictated that I transfer to the new school being built. I went from a Saint to a North Star. Life in North Star country (yes, that’s really what several school officials called it) was boring. So I immersed myself in as many extra-curricular activities as possible, one of which included the newspaper, which we named, The Stargazer. Yes, the astronomy theme continues. My parents and teachers had always said I was a strong writer, and although I never felt passionate about writing school assignments, I was excited to get in on the ground level of a club and have an important-sounding title.

That year I reported and bounced around as the editor for Features, Opinion and eventually News. True, part of the draw was getting out of class on several occasions to get the paper out by deadline, but covering the happenings of a new school community is fascinating in and of itself. Everything that was wrong with that place, we reported on. This was much to the chagrin of the administrators, but I like to think our taxpaying parents were pleased. And one day, near the end of our staff trip to a conference in San Francisco, our advisor gave us our best scoop yet: St. Charles East High School (my old high school across town) was infested with mold. This mold was not your average mold, it was Stachyobotris, a thick, black fungus that is known to cause cancer and other various ailments to those who are exposed to it.

Of course, the school district was trying to gloss over this issue as much as possible, but upon inspection by the health department, the school was closed indefinitely and East-siders were routed over to North High School for the remaining school year. Besides only having to go to school from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day, this also gave The Stargazer staff the biggest story it had seen yet.

Covering such a controversial issue as a teenager, not to mention as a student in the school district and someone who had been exposed to this mold for a year, was a challenge to say the least. But it was hands-down the most rewarding reporting I have done to date. The Stargazer uncovered much more dirt on the district than the local paper, and the moldy school made headlines on World News Tonight and CNN. A Chicago Tribune reporter even interviewed our staff and commended us in her column. I am convinced that several school administrators really disliked me after covering the mold story, and probably regretted ever having given the go-ahead for a school newspaper, but meanwhile I had completely fallen for journalism.

From high school on, I thought I wanted to be a reporter. But I’ve since realized that my strong type-A personality and creative side better suit the editing and design aspects of journalism. Actually, from the age of five and until high school, when I decided it was an impractical career choice, I wanted to pursue fashion design. So the fact that eight years later I’m going back to that (clothes, a newspaper—it’s all relative) is fun.

~Tara