And on that note…

So here I am, doing the last blog of Communications 311 and finishing up “count down” class no. 5.

With only four more Simpson classes to go, I am beginning to look ahead. The short-term future calls for finishing my course work and two writing portfolios in time to graduate in May 2009.

What about after that accomplishment? What have I learned and what will I do with a Journalism and Mass Communication degree from Simpson College?

I have long been a journal-er, documenting two pregnancies, a summer communal-living situation and other life-changing events. Every year on my birthday, I try to find a quiet place so I can look back over the year and ponder the future in my personal journal. But that’s personal writing.

In previous jobs, I wrote speeches for corporate leaders, press releases and newsletter articles and did final reviews of letters going to customers from my direct reports. In my current job, I’m a technical writer/editor. Often I have to put together an e-mail message that will go to anywhere from 25 to around 20,000 people in the matter of minutes. I also am writing more feature stories and managing scheduling for our homepage that those 20,000 people see first thing every morning. But that’s business writing.

I look at journalism as something distinctly different from personal writing and somewhat different from (although also somewhat similar to) business writing.

While I am capable of writing without my own personal voice, I think my writing is better when I can bring a personal aspect to it. From the first “review” I wrote about a basketball game in the fourth grade, through my personal journals, and to the pieces I put together for each of my parent’s funerals, writing was something I just did. When my sister read the life overview I did for our father’s funeral, she said to me, “You should be a writer.”

I think that was the first time I truly considered the possibility of writing professionally. It was also just before I started classes at Simpson to finish my bachelor’s degree and when I declared my major, it just felt “right.”

What I am considering now is how I can use the knowledge and skills I have learned through this degree program. I can certainly use it in my present job – but can I use it to a greater extent, perhaps in freelance writing?

I don’t think I want to face daily deadlines as a reporter for the Des Moines Register, although I’m sure that would be great experience. And sometimes, as in John Carlson’s article in Saturday’s Register titled “Professors at U of I paid well for doing nothing”, I cheer when a journalist “nails” a story – that’s when I ardently wish I could write so effectively and powerfully.

My dream career would be writing freelance articles about my passions: gardening, travel and faith. Because I am a woman of faith, I get a kick out of seeing and experiencing those instances, large and small, that make us wonder if things are just “coincidental” or how God is working in our lives.

For example, the very next day after we discussed them in class, I received an e-mail asking me to write cutlines for some photos for an article in our corporate magazine. A week before, I wouldn’t have fully known what a cutline was, let alone how it should be written!

So, I believe God has blessed me with being able to study journalism at Simpson. I’m not sure what he has in mind for me, personally or professionally, as a writer/journalist.

But I’m keeping my eyes - and my faith – open.

Thanks to each of my classmates for sharing your thoughts and writings with me – you have been fun and inspirational.

Thanks to you, Brian, for once again showing me how much I still have to learn!

The balancing act

In the Aug.10, 2008, Des Moines Sunday Register there was an article by Rekha Basu about the postings on the Register’s Web site.

According to the article, there are 22,000 “members” registered to post comments online. On their Website, there’s a convenient tab to sign up for membership and start blogging your heart out.

But the focus of the article is not on hearts – it’s about some of the wicked tongues of bloggers.

The headline (four columns wide) reads, “Spewing venom” with the cut line “Does online anonymity enhance valuable forum, or encourage posts that are rude, crude, hateful?”

Because the Register allows anonymous posting, they receive a lot of hateful, hurtful blogs. People feel free to trounce other people’s feelings, ethnicity, actions and pretty much anything else they care to “flame”.

After giving a few examples, Basu refers to the Register’s online code which “doesn’t allow obscenity, profanity or libelous statements, sexually explicit or crude comments about someone, threats or suggestions of violence. It forbids derogatory terms about a group and crude remarks about a child.”

The Register is currently receiving more than 2,000 posts each day and the staff can’t keep watch over that volume – they must be alerted to infractions of the rules.

So Basu, trying to understand the motivation of these flamers, queried them on her blog. The enlightening answers were:
* It’s fun to push people’s buttons.
* It’s fun to torment strangers – and this “fun” is called “lulz” because they enjoy making people
lose their cool.
* They like people to disagree with them so they can argue with those who disagree.

The main questions raised in the article are whether the good of posting (allowing an open forum) outweighs the bad (flaming) and what should/could be done to prevent the bad posts.

After presenting several possible approaches, Basu goes with “gradually start requiring people to provide their names.”

I guess that’s a start, but it seems like sort of a Band-Aid approach. Maybe the real issue should be addressed – why so many people believe freedom of speech means they can spew that venom with no accountability.

If our courts require an accused person be allowed to face their accusers, why aren’t flamers forced to face those they’ve so badly burned?

What is Rush Limbaugh?

An article in the Aug. 10, 2008, Sunday Des Moines Register had the headline, “20 years later, Limbaugh is still on top.”

The article, by Chuck Raasch, a political editor for Gannett News Service, seems to indicate Raasch has high respect for Rush Limbaugh, the controversial conservative radio personality.

Now, I must admit I have only listened to Limbaugh’s radio show a couple of times as I realized he’s not my cup of tea. My husband used to listen to him quite often which spurred many “discussions” around our house which usually started with him spewing forth verbiage I knew wasn’t his own. The discussion usually really got going when I inevitably said, “You’ve been listening to Rush again, haven’t you?”

The article stated, “Twenty years into what is still the most listened-to political talk show, Limbaugh still enrages, entertains and – here come the e-mail – enlightens.”

So, the question popped into my mind: what exactly is Rush Limbaugh?

Is he a political expert, a shock-jock or just a guy with a high opinion of himself and a low opinion of women?

Is he a journalist?

At this point, I conducted a limited, unscientific query – I asked my husband, “What is Rush Limbaugh?”

Still wary of Rush Limbaugh discussions, my husband carefully said, “He’s kind of a political commentator.”

I think that might be a more accurate statement than one quoted in the article from Talkers magazine publisher Michael Harrison: “Rush Limbaugh has been the leading political talk show host in America, and talk radio has been one of the leading forces in American politics…Limbaugh is to talk radio what Elvis Presley was to rock ‘n’roll.”

At least no one is calling him a journalist.

In high-resolution detail

The title of the Aug. 8 Des Moines Register (page 10A) article was “Remote-control warriors feel stress of battle, too” and it caught my eye as I was flipping through the paper.

As I started reading the article, I wondered why in the world I hadn’t heard or read anything about the information in any other journalistic forum.

With a dateline of March Air Reserve Base, Calif., it started out setting the scene of Air National Guardsmen who are based in California but feel the same battle stress as the war-front soldiers serving in Iraq.

Why so?

Because, while operating Predator drones via remote control, they watch the people they are killing die and often – at military command – the cameras stay at the kill site, assessing damage "in high-resolution detail."

This makes death much more up-close and personal than flying over and dropping bombs on a kill zone. It has resulted in the military's use of psychologists, psychiatrists and chaplains to help these soldiers face their own very intense versions of battlefield stress.

The article says, “Working in air-conditioned trailers, Predator pilots observe the field of battle through a bank of video screens and kill enemy fighters with a few computerized keystrokes. Then, after their shifts are over, they drive home and sleep in their own beds.”

Citing “that whiplash transition”, one Predator pilot described, “It is quite different, going from potentially shooting a missile, then going to your kid’s soccer game.”

Indeed some of the “pilots” and “sensor operators”, many as young as 18, have trouble leaving the images behind after they have killed people, watched them die and hung around via video cameras to see the death and damage…”in high-resolution detail.”

According to military sources quoted in the article, everyone knows the lethal nature of the “jobs” when they go into them.

But can 18-year olds, even those who grew up playing violent video games, truly understand what they will see and what the emotional and psychological repercussions will be when they realize this is not a game and they must watch another human being die as a direct result of their actions…”in high-resolution detail.”

The old warrior, William Tecumseh Sherman, said, “War is hell.”

Today, war technology is hell…”in high-resolution detail.”

Social Media

I’m wondering if any of the companies you work for are practicing “social media” or open messaging via responses to articles or blogs or any other form of interactive communication?

Here are some specific questions I have:
Is your system completely “open” – anything goes and can be posted?
Is your system monitored and censored in any way?
How is your system monitored? Who monitors it?
How has social media been beneficial to your company?
What positive and negative experiences have resulted for your company from social media?
Does your company leadership practice social media in any form?

I hear more and more companies are utilizing an open form of communication such as social media allows. I also hear the corporate world is unsure how to ensure it has a positive impact on communication and disgruntled employees don’t use it for airing their complaints.

Scribbleofthought asks “When does Freedom of Speech cross the line?” She says, “What I don't understand is why people feel the need to become disrespectful or even hurtful in their posts.”

What if that happens in the corporate world?

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to balance open communication with the need to maintain a respectful, effective corporate communication atmosphere?

News via cell phones

I just read Kelly Smith’s blog: Another Option For Getting Our News. In it, Kelly talks about the unfolding technology of receiving news via our cell phones. Like Kelly, I prefer to physically open a traditional newspaper – although I am getting more used to reading news online, thanks to this class!

However, the State of the News Media 2008: An Annual Report On American Journalism, says, “Audiences are moving toward information on demand, to media platforms and outlets that can tell them what they want to know when they want to know it.”

This conjures up scenes of panic from the 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds when many listeners were convinced New York was under a real attack by extraterrestrial aliens.

How much more quickly could a widespread hoax be perpetrated by “news” sent to millions of cell phones?

The world today is a more sophisticated, discriminating audience that is less susceptible such a possibility - right?

Scary food for thought…is the technology advancing faster than security features that would prevent such an occurrence?

Does religion have a place in the presidential race?

On a Christian radio station, I recently heard presidential candidates Obama and McCain are scheduled for back-to-back interviews about their religious faith later this month.

Unfortunately, I could not find anything about this on Google so I can’t share any details.

But the blurb I heard prompted some thoughts about religion and the presidential race.

It seems like the little I’ve heard about faith in this race has been negative such as:

- Obama’s former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, swearing and slamming America that led to
Obama’s break with the man who had been his pastor for years.

- Rev. Jesse Jackson’s embarrassing “open mike” statements about Obama that required not
one, but two apologies from Jackson. (What’s with these prominent figures forgetting they are
wired with microphones lately?)

- During the primaries Mitt Romney had to address the issue of his membership in the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.

- E-mail grapevine messages declared Obama was secretly a Muslim, including one photo I saw
of Obama, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain on a stage during the national anthem – Obama
didn’t have his hand over his heart. This created the double whammy for Obama: he’s
possibly a Muslim and refuses to show patriotism, according to the e-mail.

With these incidents in mind, one can understand the reluctance on the part of the media to run articles about religion and the presidential race.

But doesn’t something as important as a candidate’s religious beliefs deserve some attention?

According to an article titled Faith in America: The Philanthropic Context by Dr. Susan Raymond (March 2006), 82% of Americans believe in God.

Have we become so accustomed to the concept of the separation of church and state that discussions of faith are regarded as taboo or "politically incorrect"?

Looking at a 16-month timeframe during the primaries, from January 2007 through April 2008, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life tracked coverage of religion. Their findings were “…despite the attention paid to Obama’s former pastor, questions about McCain’s relationship with his party’s conservative religious base, interest in Mitt Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surprisingly strong campaign of former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, only 2% of the campaign stories directly focused on religion.”

The comments on this information included the point that even when religion was covered, the stories were about the strategic campaign use of religion rather than religion itself.

For those of us for who believe faith shapes values, a candidate’s religious beliefs are of interest to a greater degree than the media’s gingerly coverage.

Setting the bar?

On the Journalism.org Web site (FYI: notice Web is capitalized – this is one of those style guidelines I had to tape on my computer to remind myself of as it just doesn't seem necessary!), there is an article about "The Daily Show."

In 2007, according to the article, Americans were asked to name journalists they admired; Jon Stewart placed fourth along with real anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather.

Note to Americans: Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist.

Note to American journalists and media: This satirical comedy show may have set a new bar for news coverage.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism asked, "What is Stewart doing on his program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, that might cause people to consider him a journalist?"

Comparing the contents of the show to traditional media, the PEJ's answers were:
1. The show focuses heavily on politics and ignores other news entirely, similarly to cable news
shows and talk radio.
2. They use news footage in a documentary (but often satirical) manner "blending facts and
fantasy in a way that no news program hopefully ever would."
3. The show assumes and requires viewer's have a previous and significant knowledge of news…
in order for viewers to "get the joke."

Hmmmm, just mull those over for a minute. Do the people who credit the show as serious journalism really get the joke?

The article states, "According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in April 2007, 16% of Americans said they regularly watched The Daily Show or the Comedy Central spin-off, the Colbert Report. Those numbers are comparable to some major news programs. For instance, 17% said they regularly watched Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, and 14% watched PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer regularly."

Now, before we get too upset about the fact that as many people watch The Daily Show as watch NewsHour, their survey "also suggests Daily Show viewers are highly informed, an indication that The Daily Show is not their lone source of news. Regular viewers of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report were most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs."

Well, I guess if blending news and comedy does get people watching the news, it can't be all bad – right? Maybe nightly news programs should get the message and make the news more fun.

Where have all the women gone?

Have you noticed the lack of coverage of women in the political arena lately?

Since Hillary dropped out of the presidential race, there are no women to been seen or heard.

Where did they go?

It’s back to “it’s all about the men”, politics-as-usual.

There’s not even any coverage of the candidates’ wives!

I have seen video of an interview with Jacqueline Kennedy – black and white footage of the beautiful, young, breathless First Lady. I remember many women being enthralled with Jackie and her children. They wanted to see what she was wearing and hear her talk about the White House. That was the feminine side of politics back then.

So, what is the feminine side of politics today?

It’s supposed to be more gender-friendly, with women actively involved and serving as senators and even running for president. But what’s the last thing you remember hearing about a woman involved in politics?

Where are Michelle Obama (I think she doubles as Condoleezza Rice!) and Cindy McCain?

Where the heck is Hillary?

Good heavens – is there a Stepford Wives thing going on?

Glass half-full journalism

Several years ago I read a magazine article about Goldie Hawn. In the interview she discussed her positive outlook on life. Although I couldn’t find any information about the interview or the direct quote, she said something to the effect that she prefers to think positive, with a “glass half-full” attitude.

That has become something of a mantra for me, so I’ve been wondering if there’s such a thing as “glass half-full journalism?”

I think “positivity” was part of the appeal of the late Tim Russert. He obviously loved politics and his job. His reporting demonstrated those feelings. Even when he was talking about something a little unpleasant, he seemed to look at a brighter side. He appeared to be the kind of guy you’d love to have a great conversation with, over a couple of beers.

I saw Mad Money’s Jim Cramer on television a few days ago and thought how different he is from Tim Russert. Tim seemed affable even when he was intensely reporting on election returns or interviewing a guest on Meet The Press. Jim seems like a rocket ready to go off into a crowd.

When I was growing up, we had a copy of Norman Vincent Peale’s book, The Power of Positive Thinking. We also had a couple of books published by The Reader’s Digest (if I remember correctly) that were full of positive, can-do, upbeat stories.

I don’t know of any such books today. Oh, sure, there are shelves filled with self-help books and maybe these were the forerunners of that genre. But where the self-help books are aimed at individuals, Peale and Reader’s Digest seemed somehow more aimed at a greater good.

Maybe that’s what I’m looking for…a journalism or media that promotes the greater good and sees the glass as half-full.

CEO Bloggers

On the NBC Nightly News tonight, I caught part of a piece about how executives of large, established companies are blogging. They interviewed Bill Marriott as an example of a CEO who is really into blogging; although, he hand-writes his blog because he says he can’t type.

His blog, Marriott on the Move, has become quite successful. Brad Nelson, vice president and culinary chef also of Marriott International has his own enticing blog, Marriott in the Kitchen (warning: don’t look at this one if you are hungry!).

According to NBC, many high-powered corporate officers have turned to blogging because “it’s the most interactive forum.”

A Hoi Polloi Report quotes Marriott from an appearance he made at the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) International conference in New York in June as saying he “finds it a way to listen to others, and communicate better with the thousands of employees and customers around 68 countries.” Hoi Polloi says, “His advice to other CEOs:
Make it personal
Stay away from out and out advertising
Talk about what you are passionate about.”

He’s pretty good at it; in fact, I found this older gentleman’s excitement about blogging very refreshing. Instead of bemoaning how the world has changed or the “demise of journalism”, he and other top dogs have embraced blogging as that interactive forum; they enjoy the communication shared with their employees and customers.

In my grandparents’ day, President Franklin Roosevelt used radio and his fireside chats as a forum for sharing his thoughts, encouragement and just sounding like he was sitting in your kitchen, having a conversation.These blogs have the same “folksiness” to them. It’s fun to look through them and realize the communication effort is still present in many people…and technology has made it even better.

The Dying Art of Satire

There's been a lot of discussion in the media about the current cover of The New Yorker magazine. Although The New Yorker says it was meant as satire, many people in mainstream media and journalism apparently don't appreciate that form of commentary.

That is disappointing, given the history satire has played in journalism. From its beginnings in plays and oratory in Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, into colonial America and crowned by the writings of Mark Twain, satire has served the important purpose of holding up ideas or actions in order to make people laugh… but then to think about them in a different light.
According to The New Yorker, that was exactly their purpose.

New Yorker editor David Remnick said in a statement, "Satire is part of what we do. And it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

Perhaps it's because satire combines serious subjects and humor that some people don't like it – satirizing the president might be very funny to someone but that same person could be offended by satirizing racism or feminism or something else dear to their heart.

Maybe it's just that we are more used to seeing satire on Saturday Night Live or movies or video games and we've grown unaccustomed to seeing it in print.

I agree with Kelly McBride of Poynteronline when she states, "Satire is risky business. I'm glad there are plenty of professionals around doing it well and keeping it alive."

I hope we haven't lost our ability to appreciate satire in journalism. It's a powerful communication tool I would hate to see fade away.

Isn't there still a need for satire, even in this age of "political correctness"?

What's new in The Stylebook?

Since we're getting so familiar with the 2007 Associated Press Stylebook, I'm wondering if any of you have taken time to glance through the short section "What's New – In this edition of the AP Stylebook". It's within the first few pages and notes some interesting changes that correlate with the changes in journalism, the world and our daily lives.

New entries include airstrike (note: one word even if your Spell Check disagrees), BlackBerry, carry-on, GPS, hip-hop, homebuyer/homeowner, intefadeh (I had to look that one up) and Swift boat (used as a noun, not a verb referring to dissing someone's character).

Changes and updates include Baha'I (another one I had to look up), European Union, Fatah (one more lookup), RSVP, telephone numbers and U.S. time zone maps.

Interesting deletions were husband (is the word or role an anachronism now?), Internet Search Tips (gosh, it seems like this one would still be beneficial, doesn't it?), Laundromat, pupil/student, Serbia-Montenegro and Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

This quick review of journalistic changes speaks to increasing globalization, especially concerning the Middle East, and modernization. Places far away, geographically and culturally, have the potential to impact America in ways we may not even understand. Likewise, the lifestyles of our parents and grandparents and those of our children seem worlds apart.

Keeping abreast of all of the changes and updating the Stylebook annually must be quite interesting and challenging. I would jump at the chance to sit in on one of their meetings!

A free U.S. press - via India?

An article in Business Week says one more job is going to India: copyediting.

In the on-going effort to make print publications more economical to produce, papers such as the Miami Herald are utilizing an Indian company called Mindworks Global Media to do copyediting and layout.

Company founder, Tony Joseph, cited the changing U.S. media market and said, "For us, the greatest opportunity for creativity and growth is in markets where there's a lot of flux and everything is open for reconfiguration."

Is that the state of American media; everything open to change? Has Internet technology so radically impacted American journalism that we are getting all of our information and news online? Will there be any American newpapers ten years from now? Has American media become so "dumb downed" that all we want to read about is Madonna splitting from her husband?

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, it just doesn't seem like journalism, the bedrock of American democracy, should be outsourced. Is our press truly free anymore with fewer companies owning the media outlets and cost efficiency as the driving factor?

In the book The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should know and the Public Should Expect, authors Bill Lovach and Tom Rosenstiel present the basic tenets of journalism as:
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens,
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It mus provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting fand relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.
9. Its practioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.
10. Citizens, too, have rights and responsibilities.

Can "news" being reported via another country fulfill those critical responsibilities?

Can we risk it?

I guess we already are.