Another OV anecdote. Don't think I'll be running this one, though. Just something I had fun with.
Car trouble - more than booze, hunger or sheer stupidity - tends to put people in situations that they wouldn't otherwise dream of being in. Begging greasy men with fourth-grade education levels for a scrap of pity. Banging senselessly on metal casings with a wrench. Checking into shady motels, all alone, under the leering eyes of truckers and serial killers. Somehow, we take these risks into account each time we slide behind the wheel, and few think twice about it. And when disaster strikes, it's sometimes difficult to decide whether to recognize the hilarity of the situation or run like hell.
My trip started off well enough, with no indication of the unpleasantness I would soon find myself facing. I left Eugene fairly upbeat, actually, and anticipated the trip to my mom's house - a mere 17 hours away in Montana - to be an uneventful one. I'd undertaken such journeys before, and handled my share of disaster and bad decisions. Two days after receiving my driver's license, I'd driven my little sister, our dog and cat from Arizona to Montana, narrowly missing a golf-cart sized heifer who'd wandered onto the highway in the dark and taking a rock through my sunroof in the Rocky Mountains' monsoon season. A few months later, I visited a friend in California via car and on the way found a surprisingly nice hitchhiker - not to say I should have so willingly accepted his form of payment, at least not while driving.
This trip would be different, I assured myself on my way up the I5. First off, the only trip I was taking was physical, not mental, and I'd learned my lessons regarding pets, farm animals, and driving late at night. Nothing bad would happen to me now because I was in total control.
I'd forgotten about car trouble. The Jeep I'd owned for most of high school and into college had never given me problems, and I'm not a believer in taking a car to a mechanic just to see if he or she can divine some sort of information on whether it will break down next week.
So when the little orange "check engine" light came on in my dashboard, with its accompanying "ding" from the car's computer, I was a little taken aback. I'd been cruising effortlessly through the Columbia River gorge, gone past the enormous dams and was almost ready to cross the river into Washington. One thing about this area is that where there is a dam, there's activity, life, and almost no sign of poverty. When my light came on, it was in one of those spaces between dams, where there are somehow still towns but they appear deceased; forgotten and gathering dust beside the freeway with its blur of cars.
Nonetheless, I was determined to prove that I was a more responsible road-tripper than I've been in the past, and made every effort to take this subdued little warning from my vehicle seriously. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that the light came on just before an exit, and that there was at least a place to stay beyond that exit. And I do - it's just that it was four in the afternoon on a Sunday, there was no mechanic around who would be open before the morning, and I wasn't sure quite what to do with myself in those long hours. Undeterred, I pulled into the town's one motel and parked.
It was a hot afternoon in June, the dry wind shifting about in unusual ways and speeding up the flaking of the paint off the long, single-level building. The sun beat down mockingly from overhead - "What, quitting already?" I ignored it, slammed the broken Jeep's door, and walked toward the lobby.
On my way, I noticed a man standing by a white pickup in the shade, smoking a cigarette and attempting to make eye contact. His vaquero hat was pulled low down over his face, but his smile was friendly enough, so I muttered "Hi" as I walked past. He nodded.
The receptionist, who resembled a pile of cottage cheese, only more human-shaped, gave me a room and confirmed the mechanic situation. Nobody would be out until tomorrow. I left the air-conditioned stillness and walked back into the dusty courtyard, where the man still lurked outside the door.
"Car trouble?" he asked with his soft Spanish accent. How did he know?
"Yeah," I said. "Just gonna quit early."
"We could go get a drink in town." Wow, that was fast. I looked around, not even able to see a town from this freeway pitstop.
"That's ok," I said. "I need to find some food and get some rest." I forced my legs not to break into sprint as I retreated to my room.
When I thought he would be gone, I came out again. I really was hungry, and there was a gas station just down the road.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
COLLEGE...
So proclaims John Belushi's t-shirt in Animal House (filmed in part, coincidentally, on the University of Oregon campus), summing up with its capital letters an experience that only those who have been through it can relate to.
I thinkthat image of Belushi, with his dazed yet purposeful expression, must feel so timeless because it really does convey the transforming effect of the experience. The letters on his sweatshirt are as large as the feeling of power one gains with each new gem of knowledge, each new connection with people who, for once, share your interests. It's a time of near-constant exhilaration - and not just because of the Animal-House caliber parties.
Like any good buzz, however, the COLLEGE high winds down to a low that varies in intensity from person to person. And for some, that low almost removes any good they might have seen in the experience.
Recently, I ran into a friend from my high school days who has spent the last year or so waiting tables at a Montana cafe. He did the college thing, and it wasn't for him, he said. I nodded my head in what I hoped would be a knowing manner, but not so knowing as to draw attention to the fact that despite my understanding of college as somewhat of a crock, I haven't yet gone as far as to drop out. But he's a thinking person (which is why college failed him, I'm sure), and the nod did not appease him. After all, he'd probably expected a disapproving frown or at least a shrug of the shoulders from the seemingly successful college junior before him. I sighed and elaborated, glancing down at his Green Day t-shirt as I spoke. "You mean, you feel like all you're getting is training that will allow you to become a well-oiled part of the machine?" He lit up; I continued. "And you'd rather spend your time educating yourself instead of receiving their brainwashing, then having to spend time sorting out fact from fiction, and then figuring out whether its even worth fighting the system in the first place?" I'd hit it. "Yeah, pretty much," he said. That, and his definition of success didn't involve either money or power, he added. I agreed, nodding again, but not making any sort of statement to the effect that I wished I were doing anything differently in my life.
It's not that I walk around in a Belushi-esque daze. I'm perfectly aware of what's happening, and that "they" (be it the corporate powers that rule our lives or the more vague threat of conventionality) might reach me in the end through this so-called education. And if I hadn't invested so much time already in doing what people expect of me (going to high school, getting good grades, setting my heart on a certain career), I might be also following the path of my waiter friend. The thing is this: I can wait tables when I graduate with my less than high-demand Journalism degree anyway. In the meantime, I think I am able to balance questioning everything I hear with taking what they feed me to get the slip of paper. And maybe that's what I should have told him, if it didn't sound so darn self-rightous.
Instead, I turned around and walked out the door, leaving him in his cafe. School starts again in two weeks, and there is precious little vacation time to lose. I've got a lot of un-brainwashing to catch up on.
More ranting on this subject to come, perhaps at a later date.
I think
Like any good buzz, however, the COLLEGE high winds down to a low that varies in intensity from person to person. And for some, that low almost removes any good they might have seen in the experience.
Recently, I ran into a friend from my high school days who has spent the last year or so waiting tables at a Montana cafe. He did the college thing, and it wasn't for him, he said. I nodded my head in what I hoped would be a knowing manner, but not so knowing as to draw attention to the fact that despite my understanding of college as somewhat of a crock, I haven't yet gone as far as to drop out. But he's a thinking person (which is why college failed him, I'm sure), and the nod did not appease him. After all, he'd probably expected a disapproving frown or at least a shrug of the shoulders from the seemingly successful college junior before him. I sighed and elaborated, glancing down at his Green Day t-shirt as I spoke. "You mean, you feel like all you're getting is training that will allow you to become a well-oiled part of the machine?" He lit up; I continued. "And you'd rather spend your time educating yourself instead of receiving their brainwashing, then having to spend time sorting out fact from fiction, and then figuring out whether its even worth fighting the system in the first place?" I'd hit it. "Yeah, pretty much," he said. That, and his definition of success didn't involve either money or power, he added. I agreed, nodding again, but not making any sort of statement to the effect that I wished I were doing anything differently in my life.
It's not that I walk around in a Belushi-esque daze. I'm perfectly aware of what's happening, and that "they" (be it the corporate powers that rule our lives or the more vague threat of conventionality) might reach me in the end through this so-called education. And if I hadn't invested so much time already in doing what people expect of me (going to high school, getting good grades, setting my heart on a certain career), I might be also following the path of my waiter friend. The thing is this: I can wait tables when I graduate with my less than high-demand Journalism degree anyway. In the meantime, I think I am able to balance questioning everything I hear with taking what they feed me to get the slip of paper. And maybe that's what I should have told him, if it didn't sound so darn self-rightous.
Instead, I turned around and walked out the door, leaving him in his cafe. School starts again in two weeks, and there is precious little vacation time to lose. I've got a lot of un-brainwashing to catch up on.
More ranting on this subject to come, perhaps at a later date.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
This is a public service announcement...
So it's fairly late, I'm completing one last bit of homework and listening to my favorite radio station, KWVA, the UO's campus radio station. Then I received a welcome relief from the mindless task at hand: a public service announcement.
My goal is to blog about every major media format, and I've neglected radio. There' s much more to say on this subject that I won't mention now, but I do have a brief observation. It's about the PSAs on KWVA (88.1, for those of you who haven't yet discovered this little miracle).
The PSAs are great. As one of the only forms of advertisement this station broadcasts, I tolerate them (normally ads get little more than a punch of the mute button from me) and actually find myself listening when they come on. First of all, I'm never really sure if it is one, it's normally just music faded in, then faded out just a bit before a kindly voice starts speaking. I wish I could remember some of the personalities they've had do announcements, but the one I was just listening to was Frank Zappa. What could Frank Zappa possibly have to say in a PSA? Well, this is not a direct quote, but, "Hey, folks. This is Frank Zappa, asking you to unload. Don't do smack or downers."
That's it! There's not even the typical PSA signoff by a speed-talking deep voice from the National Center for Drug Control (or whatever they call it). Another one I seem to hear all the time is some older rock-star guy going "Of all the ways to get off these days, dope is simply not your best option." It makes me smile every time.
I guess these ads have an intentionally nostalgic feel for the radio golden days, but I can't help being impressed at the way that they seem to be simultaneously cool and completely out of touch with youth culture. These guys sound like they're taking it so seriously. But yet they know that they're never going to get through, and they're just being paid to record a PSA, so they don't even make an effort and use words like "smack" and "dope."
After Zappa, the second-best PSA I've ever heard came on. The sweet potato PSA. For every bit as concise and to-the-point Zappa and the other drug-PSA announcers are, the Louisiana Sweet Potato Grower's Association's guy is just as long-winded and round-about. He starts off talking about nutrition in general, which he says is important. Then it's on to beta carotene: also important, and found in "bright orange vegetables." Like carrots, bell peppers, and oh, sweet potatoes too. Have you tried sweet potatoes yet? They're pretty tasty, according to the announcer. Oh, and they have a lot of beta-carotene. Low in fat and nutritious - what's not to love? And so he leaves us with this question to ponder. Actually, I'm wondering why in the world Louisiana's Sweet Potato Grower Association EVER decided to run an ad on this station.
The best thing about KWVA's PSAs is seeing what the DJs think about them. For the most part, they poke fun or make some sort of irreverent comment. Which takes away any shred of dignity the PSAs ever had.
Thank god for student fee funding, if this station ever had any "real" ads, they would get torn apart in an instant by fledgling DJs desperate to prove their hip-ness.
This post doesn't really have a point aside from the above observations.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled study time...
My goal is to blog about every major media format, and I've neglected radio. There' s much more to say on this subject that I won't mention now, but I do have a brief observation. It's about the PSAs on KWVA (88.1, for those of you who haven't yet discovered this little miracle).
The PSAs are great. As one of the only forms of advertisement this station broadcasts, I tolerate them (normally ads get little more than a punch of the mute button from me) and actually find myself listening when they come on. First of all, I'm never really sure if it is one, it's normally just music faded in, then faded out just a bit before a kindly voice starts speaking. I wish I could remember some of the personalities they've had do announcements, but the one I was just listening to was Frank Zappa. What could Frank Zappa possibly have to say in a PSA? Well, this is not a direct quote, but, "Hey, folks. This is Frank Zappa, asking you to unload. Don't do smack or downers."
That's it! There's not even the typical PSA signoff by a speed-talking deep voice from the National Center for Drug Control (or whatever they call it). Another one I seem to hear all the time is some older rock-star guy going "Of all the ways to get off these days, dope is simply not your best option." It makes me smile every time.
I guess these ads have an intentionally nostalgic feel for the radio golden days, but I can't help being impressed at the way that they seem to be simultaneously cool and completely out of touch with youth culture. These guys sound like they're taking it so seriously. But yet they know that they're never going to get through, and they're just being paid to record a PSA, so they don't even make an effort and use words like "smack" and "dope."
After Zappa, the second-best PSA I've ever heard came on. The sweet potato PSA. For every bit as concise and to-the-point Zappa and the other drug-PSA announcers are, the Louisiana Sweet Potato Grower's Association's guy is just as long-winded and round-about. He starts off talking about nutrition in general, which he says is important. Then it's on to beta carotene: also important, and found in "bright orange vegetables." Like carrots, bell peppers, and oh, sweet potatoes too. Have you tried sweet potatoes yet? They're pretty tasty, according to the announcer. Oh, and they have a lot of beta-carotene. Low in fat and nutritious - what's not to love? And so he leaves us with this question to ponder. Actually, I'm wondering why in the world Louisiana's Sweet Potato Grower Association EVER decided to run an ad on this station.
The best thing about KWVA's PSAs is seeing what the DJs think about them. For the most part, they poke fun or make some sort of irreverent comment. Which takes away any shred of dignity the PSAs ever had.
Thank god for student fee funding, if this station ever had any "real" ads, they would get torn apart in an instant by fledgling DJs desperate to prove their hip-ness.
This post doesn't really have a point aside from the above observations.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled study time...
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Good Night, and Good Luck
Just in case I forget to print this out and bring it to class:
Edward Murrow was an influential journalist in radio and television and the host of the CBS program See it Now. He was respected by his listeners and viewers because of his efforts to always represent both sides of a story fairly and equally. Many now say he set the standard for ethical reporting in broadcasting.
The events that take place in “Good night, and Good Luck” center mostly on See it Now’s role in stopping Senator Joseph McCarthy’s persecution of supposed communists. During this time, there was much generalized fear of communism and little rational thought about the possibility of spies within the country. This time in history is significant to us now because is reflects the fear and confusion surrounding terrorism and supposed terrorists. Just as Murrow was fearless in challenging respected government officials over their labeling of innocent people and senseless hearings, this film seems to be suggesting that journalists and citizens now have a duty to be as critical as possible.
Another good point that this movie caused me to reflect on was the idea that not all stories have two equally valid sides. Murrow has one line in the film that essentially says that sometimes there is only one story to tell, not two. This was a pretty drastic statement for him considering his long-standing policy of always reporting every angle, even if he disagreed with one. In the case of McCarthy’s acts against the innocent Air Force and government employees, he felt that there was only one way to interpret the Senator’s actions: unfair and wrong.
This film made me consider that not all stories stick to the format of Perspective 1 vs Perspective 2, and because they can’t be reported that way, there really is no such thing as objective journalism that can be performed by formula. Not that I will now only report the side that I feel is correct, but I will stop trying to give a clearly irrational viewpoints ground to stand on in efforts to appear unbiased.
scary Facebook
Ok, if we're calling websites like Facebook, YouTube and Myspace "new media", this media blog should be able to cover them, right?
Obviously, I can't do the traditional "what are kids up to these days" rant, but I do have a complaint. The only one of these "new" services (although I would argue that personal websites have been around a lot longer than some of the critics) I actually use frequently is Facebook, and it recently took a big step away from service to advertising delivery method. And it's invading our privacy to do so.
Since I first opened my Facebook account two years ago, I've noticed some gradual changes in its format. It went from being open only to college-enrolled people (verified by a university email address) to adding high school students, then the general public. Now, I'm not one to promote social-networking elitism, so that was ok. Then it added Google-style pay-per-click ads. Hey, they're a business, so that's acceptable too.
Then these little "applications" started appearing. Play a zombie-attack game with your friends. Give your friends "gifts". Keep track of local shows. I had the option of not adding any, so I was still fine with simply denying all the requests to "start biting chumps" and find out who has a crush on me (ok, so I added that one, then removed it again in embarrassment when I realized I'd been tricked).
The straw that broke the camel's back came when I got online the other day to find a Thanksgiving pie recipe. I often use the website Epicurious.com for this purpose, and I have an account with them where I save potential recipes in a "box" in some wild fantasy that I'll one day have time to cook them. So I saved a recipe in the box. Then, as I do before and after almost every computer session, I checked Facebook. I stared at an entry at the top of the home page. Then I looked over my shoulder to find out where the Facebook spy goon was standing and reporting my activities to Corporate. Or did they just use a hidden camera?
The message that had catapulted me into a 1984 mindset said that Facebook would publish on my "news feed" (the home page for all Facebook users in my network of friends that reports on the Facebook activities of me and other friends) that I had just added "Pecan Pie IV" to my Epicurious recipe box. No joke. It wasn't even asking my permission. It was informing me. I had not been logged into both websites at the same time. I had not put in any request to link the two accounts in any way. But somehow, Facebook had used my name or email address, found the account on an unrelated, previously unaffiliated site, and kept track of my activity there to make Facebook's knowledge of my online - and offline - life more complete. Yike.
I got up from the computer and hid in the other room. Then I went back to Facebook to see if it knew that I'd opened a window. Ok, I'm exaggerating. But it was just that confusing. How did it know??
It just goes to show how complacent I've become about this thing that I didn't do anything more about the matter after that, other than to find the privacy setting that "shared" (I think "prostituted" would be a me appropriate word, but whatever) my Epicurious info with Facebook. I was a little bothered that I couldn't find out what other websites it was sharing with the feed (imagining lines like "Tuula has just checked her Gmail for the 18th time today"; "Tuula just spent 5 minutes on NYTimes.com but 14 minutes on craigslist" appearing before my acquaintances), but I figured I'd find out soon enough. Then I decided I'd wasted enough of my life to the thing and went on to do something more productive. (Myspace. Just kidding.)
I did learn a little more about this when my news feed informed me, this morning, that a friend had posted a "note" (similar to a blog entry) about Facebook's privacy settings. (Take that for irony, Facebook!) Apparently, others have noticed the goon standing behind their desks, and they don't like it either. There have been a few news stories on the new "feature", this one being the most complete.
It's hopeful that people have paid attention to this invasion, but I don't know whether the unhappy murmurings among users and a few "outsiders" will actually remove it. After all, there were news stories when Facebook opened itself up to the general populace, and when it launched what is now ominously referred to as "the feed." People were upset about those things too, but now they accept them and have even come to like them. (Personally, I rejected the feed at first. Then, I found myself having conversations with my friends like "Did you hear Monica broke up with Jake?" "Yeah, saw it on the feed this morning." "She's really pissed at him. She wrote on Sara's wall that she defriended him.")
There is a very thin line between an innocent gossip-aid and a spy. I think it gets crossed when my activity is shared with outside companies without my prior permission. Yeah, the Epicurious thing wouldn't have been a big deal. If they'd asked me. But they didn't, and I only found out because I was paying attention. I have a feeling only about half of my friends will notice this, and not many who do will actually do anything about it.
Orwell's nightmare future began with a sudden revolution, a definite shift in power toward a technology-enabled dictatorship. But the "party" in 1984 could have done it another way. They could have introduced the telescreens as a convenience to users, then slowly increased their dependence on the technology while adding to its invasiveness. In our case, this dependence is ironically linked to our need to stay informed, in touch, in the loop. I wouldn't dream of closing my Facebook account for fear of losing track of my friends. Unfortunately, the information we're receiving is falsely relevant; and is now becoming geared toward our habits as consumers more than our actions as "friends". And who is Big Brother in 2084? Not government. Marketers, and the corporations behind them.
Obviously, I can't do the traditional "what are kids up to these days" rant, but I do have a complaint. The only one of these "new" services (although I would argue that personal websites have been around a lot longer than some of the critics) I actually use frequently is Facebook, and it recently took a big step away from service to advertising delivery method. And it's invading our privacy to do so.
Since I first opened my Facebook account two years ago, I've noticed some gradual changes in its format. It went from being open only to college-enrolled people (verified by a university email address) to adding high school students, then the general public. Now, I'm not one to promote social-networking elitism, so that was ok. Then it added Google-style pay-per-click ads. Hey, they're a business, so that's acceptable too.
Then these little "applications" started appearing. Play a zombie-attack game with your friends. Give your friends "gifts". Keep track of local shows. I had the option of not adding any, so I was still fine with simply denying all the requests to "start biting chumps" and find out who has a crush on me (ok, so I added that one, then removed it again in embarrassment when I realized I'd been tricked).
The straw that broke the camel's back came when I got online the other day to find a Thanksgiving pie recipe. I often use the website Epicurious.com for this purpose, and I have an account with them where I save potential recipes in a "box" in some wild fantasy that I'll one day have time to cook them. So I saved a recipe in the box. Then, as I do before and after almost every computer session, I checked Facebook. I stared at an entry at the top of the home page. Then I looked over my shoulder to find out where the Facebook spy goon was standing and reporting my activities to Corporate. Or did they just use a hidden camera?
The message that had catapulted me into a 1984 mindset said that Facebook would publish on my "news feed" (the home page for all Facebook users in my network of friends that reports on the Facebook activities of me and other friends) that I had just added "Pecan Pie IV" to my Epicurious recipe box. No joke. It wasn't even asking my permission. It was informing me. I had not been logged into both websites at the same time. I had not put in any request to link the two accounts in any way. But somehow, Facebook had used my name or email address, found the account on an unrelated, previously unaffiliated site, and kept track of my activity there to make Facebook's knowledge of my online - and offline - life more complete. Yike.
I got up from the computer and hid in the other room. Then I went back to Facebook to see if it knew that I'd opened a window. Ok, I'm exaggerating. But it was just that confusing. How did it know??
It just goes to show how complacent I've become about this thing that I didn't do anything more about the matter after that, other than to find the privacy setting that "shared" (I think "prostituted" would be a me appropriate word, but whatever) my Epicurious info with Facebook. I was a little bothered that I couldn't find out what other websites it was sharing with the feed (imagining lines like "Tuula has just checked her Gmail for the 18th time today"; "Tuula just spent 5 minutes on NYTimes.com but 14 minutes on craigslist" appearing before my acquaintances), but I figured I'd find out soon enough. Then I decided I'd wasted enough of my life to the thing and went on to do something more productive. (Myspace. Just kidding.)
I did learn a little more about this when my news feed informed me, this morning, that a friend had posted a "note" (similar to a blog entry) about Facebook's privacy settings. (Take that for irony, Facebook!) Apparently, others have noticed the goon standing behind their desks, and they don't like it either. There have been a few news stories on the new "feature", this one being the most complete.
It's hopeful that people have paid attention to this invasion, but I don't know whether the unhappy murmurings among users and a few "outsiders" will actually remove it. After all, there were news stories when Facebook opened itself up to the general populace, and when it launched what is now ominously referred to as "the feed." People were upset about those things too, but now they accept them and have even come to like them. (Personally, I rejected the feed at first. Then, I found myself having conversations with my friends like "Did you hear Monica broke up with Jake?" "Yeah, saw it on the feed this morning." "She's really pissed at him. She wrote on Sara's wall that she defriended him.")
There is a very thin line between an innocent gossip-aid and a spy. I think it gets crossed when my activity is shared with outside companies without my prior permission. Yeah, the Epicurious thing wouldn't have been a big deal. If they'd asked me. But they didn't, and I only found out because I was paying attention. I have a feeling only about half of my friends will notice this, and not many who do will actually do anything about it.
Orwell's nightmare future began with a sudden revolution, a definite shift in power toward a technology-enabled dictatorship. But the "party" in 1984 could have done it another way. They could have introduced the telescreens as a convenience to users, then slowly increased their dependence on the technology while adding to its invasiveness. In our case, this dependence is ironically linked to our need to stay informed, in touch, in the loop. I wouldn't dream of closing my Facebook account for fear of losing track of my friends. Unfortunately, the information we're receiving is falsely relevant; and is now becoming geared toward our habits as consumers more than our actions as "friends". And who is Big Brother in 2084? Not government. Marketers, and the corporations behind them.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
LA Times - "Marlboro Marine" series
Rescue operation aims to save a wounded warrior
I picked up the Oregonian this morning and read the last story in this series about photographer Luis Sinco and his relationship with the marine in this now-famous photograph at left.
The story sucked me in and after reading the print version, I went online for the rest. (A critique of the Oregonian: Why not publish the link where readers can easily access the entire series? Why make me search on your website, then on the LA Times' to find what I'm looking for?)
Sinco's series was fascinating not just as an excellent in-depth story of one Marine's (Miller) post-combat struggles, but also as a first-person account of a journalist's relationship with his subject.
Sinco wrote: "A journalist wasn't supposed to get personally involved with his subjects. But I felt somehow responsible for Miller. Over and over, I thought: It will be my fault if something bad happens to him."
Reading statements like this in a newspaper kind of surprised me at first. I've never seen a story that uses this perspective. But it effectively brought me in and kept me reading, even online, which tends to be tremendously distracting. Is this the format stories will move toward as newspapers try harder to engage their readers? Traditionally, I would be opposed to that, favoring a continued effort toward third-person objectivity. But then again, it works, and there really is only one side to this story.
I also wonder about the impact of this story on other readers: do they sympathize with Sinco as well as Miller? People seem to have this jaded, negative attitude toward journalists, saying that they only care about what will cause a sensation or sell more papers. Obviously, this particular journalist cares very deeply about his subject. How does his experience fit in with their stereotypes?
The only thing that bothered me about this piece was that it ran in the same paper that included a story about a bomb in a marketplace in Baghdad killing 15 people and injuring 56 others. Yes, a disgraceful amount of American soldiers have died in this war. But their numbers are nothing compared to the amount of Iraqis killed by related terrorist acts. I understand that it is much more difficult to follow the story of an Iraqi affected by this violence, but it would make much more sense to do so from a human-tragedy standpoint. Miller, to some extent, had a choice about going to war. The people in the Baghdad bombing had violence brought to their doorstep without any say at all in the matter. Maybe we should start looking more closely at their stories too.
Monday, November 19, 2007
anecdote 1
It rained all weekend, so it was difficult to find an anecdote with people in it while on my beat. So this one deals more with description and scene-setting, and might make a good segment in a story about the proposed Railroad Quiet Zones in Eugene.
It's a typically quiet evening at the Campbell House Inn. The large Victorian-style house on the hill sits regally in the rain, the large, multi-paned windows displaying gleaming dark wood furniture and Tiffany lamps. Their orange light spills out onto the well-manicured lawn and rose bushes with the season's last petals being tattered by large raindrops. The only noises here are the rush of the occasional car passing by and the nonstop chorus of gurgles coming from the gutters and storm drains that keep the neighborhood from becoming a lake during days of ceaseless rain like this.
Suddenly, a noise tears through the dusk that seems to blast away even the rain for a brief moment. It's a train - only a few hundred feet away on the railroad tracks below - sounding its horn for the neighborhood's two ungated intersections. Two short, screeching blasts, followed by a longer one that seems to stretch on for minutes. The volume is deafening, meant to warn pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists of the oncoming mass of steel and freight.
It's a typically quiet evening at the Campbell House Inn. The large Victorian-style house on the hill sits regally in the rain, the large, multi-paned windows displaying gleaming dark wood furniture and Tiffany lamps. Their orange light spills out onto the well-manicured lawn and rose bushes with the season's last petals being tattered by large raindrops. The only noises here are the rush of the occasional car passing by and the nonstop chorus of gurgles coming from the gutters and storm drains that keep the neighborhood from becoming a lake during days of ceaseless rain like this.
Suddenly, a noise tears through the dusk that seems to blast away even the rain for a brief moment. It's a train - only a few hundred feet away on the railroad tracks below - sounding its horn for the neighborhood's two ungated intersections. Two short, screeching blasts, followed by a longer one that seems to stretch on for minutes. The volume is deafening, meant to warn pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists of the oncoming mass of steel and freight.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
television
An interesting thought struck me yesterday. Everyone constantly says how dead the print media are, but nobody considers the death of television. But, when I look at most of the people around me (ok, all college students, but still), all signs point to newspapers surviving - albeit in online form - and television, in the traditional, boob-tube sense, rapidly losing popularity.
Nobody will read newspapers in ten years, the editors and old-schoolers worry. Kids these days get everything off the internet. Now, if somebody ever gave me a good argument about why "kids these days" ARE so different from kids in any other day, I'd have to congratulate them. Honestly, we're doing all the standard stuff - challenging the system, pissing off our parents, trying desperately to distinguish ourselves. I, for one, have given up on this effort, but I don't doubt that other of my generation will continue to try until they hit that magical point (probably when they have kids) when they decide they like the world the way it is and complain about anyone who tries to change it.
But anyway, a newspaper on the internet is still a newspaper. But television, when converted to online form, is something a bit different. It's not an Orwellian telescreen. It's user-controlled and relatively light on advertising. Best of all, it's no longer a necessity. I don't have a single friend who, when I come over, makes me compete with a blaring TV for attention. In my neighborhood, its Snoop Dogg on the stereo and band practice that keep me up, not late-night infomercials. Sure, the older generation may still spend a good portion of their time mesmerized by live television. But if someone I'm talking to brings up a show and I ask them when it's on, they'll have no idea because it's on all the time - on the net, free and often downloadable.
The TV network owners are probably in bigger trouble than the newspaper guys, because it seems that a lot of TV's profit comes from people watching things they don't necessarily mean to watch because they have the tube on in the background. Internet TV will never be compatible with this method of media consumption. As a result, I believe it could become more content-driven, not advertising-driven. Sure, formats can change, and the transition away from telescreens will probably be seamless. But if there's room to worry about the death of media, it's in TV, not newspapers and magazines.
Nobody will read newspapers in ten years, the editors and old-schoolers worry. Kids these days get everything off the internet. Now, if somebody ever gave me a good argument about why "kids these days" ARE so different from kids in any other day, I'd have to congratulate them. Honestly, we're doing all the standard stuff - challenging the system, pissing off our parents, trying desperately to distinguish ourselves. I, for one, have given up on this effort, but I don't doubt that other of my generation will continue to try until they hit that magical point (probably when they have kids) when they decide they like the world the way it is and complain about anyone who tries to change it.
But anyway, a newspaper on the internet is still a newspaper. But television, when converted to online form, is something a bit different. It's not an Orwellian telescreen. It's user-controlled and relatively light on advertising. Best of all, it's no longer a necessity. I don't have a single friend who, when I come over, makes me compete with a blaring TV for attention. In my neighborhood, its Snoop Dogg on the stereo and band practice that keep me up, not late-night infomercials. Sure, the older generation may still spend a good portion of their time mesmerized by live television. But if someone I'm talking to brings up a show and I ask them when it's on, they'll have no idea because it's on all the time - on the net, free and often downloadable.
The TV network owners are probably in bigger trouble than the newspaper guys, because it seems that a lot of TV's profit comes from people watching things they don't necessarily mean to watch because they have the tube on in the background. Internet TV will never be compatible with this method of media consumption. As a result, I believe it could become more content-driven, not advertising-driven. Sure, formats can change, and the transition away from telescreens will probably be seamless. But if there's room to worry about the death of media, it's in TV, not newspapers and magazines.
Friday, November 2, 2007
midterm fiasco lessons
I suppose we can blame it all on the blog.
A well-intentioned comment on my last post indicated that my writing had reinforced the commenter's conviction that Oregon's Measure 49 must go down. This is not in line with my beliefs and was certainly not the intention of this blog. I made a mental note to research the matter further and give a well-reasoned argument for the measure on my next post.
Then midterms hit, and I never got the chance to work on it. But, because of some poor scheduling on my part, I ended up switching my midterm story topic assignment for Reporting from football to Measure 49. Never have I felt so gleeful about a project that would determine a good part of my grade and require the sacrifice of my entire week.
I got started on Friday, talking to campaign representatives in Salem because I happened to be there and calling people I knew who might have Measure 37 claims. I finished my interviews by Monday evening and on Tuesday consigned myself to the library for most of the day (leaving to take a midterm exam that I probably didn't do so well on, considering I only studied for about half an hour). On Wednesday, I struggled with the conclusion until about 1 pm but turned in my 2000 words on time, without a hitch. I was exhausted from the effort and lack of sleep, but satisfied.
Yes, there were a couple times in that period that I complained to myself about the story's length. Last spring, I took an Environmental Writing class that required a 2000-word feature as a final project, and we had all ten weeks of the term to work on it. This summer, I completed a similar type of story in three months. But mostly, I found myself pondering the philosophical questions that my interviews brought up, calling a cagey logging company repeatedly, reading and re-reading legalese, and happily typing away through the night and day as I sipped hot tea to keep my strength up.
The moments surrounding the time that I realized I had written almost three times as much as I needed to are slowed down in my memory and riddled with gaps. I remember printing out the story in the Journalism school's computer lab, then standing in the hallway waiting to go into the classroom to turn it in. Then the record skips to the student who placed her assignment on the pile on top of mine. I remember noting how un-harried and calm she looked - but something marred the surface when she looked down at my first page. She said something like, "Wait, we only had to write 750 words, right?" Everyone standing around nodded their heads. "Oh good," she said, "I thought I saw it say '2000 words' at the top of that page." I had faithfully recorded the word count at the top of my story - and it was actually 2100 because I can never seem to hit those right on.
Now, everyone's probably had an experience like this, so I don't need to detail the mixture of remorse, anger, frustration, and - eventually - amusement, I felt upon learning this. I sputtered a few words, found my way outside, then I sat and stared at the fine detailing of the cement wall outside the J-school for quite a long time.
Lessons learned from the past week:
1. If something doesn't seem right, it's not.
2. I like writing features way too much.
3. Somewhere along the line I decided that I'd attained perfection and that I don't ever make mistakes. As a result, I also started not bothering to check on whether I've made a mistake, and that in itself was the biggest mistake of all.
4. Blogs are dangerous things.
A well-intentioned comment on my last post indicated that my writing had reinforced the commenter's conviction that Oregon's Measure 49 must go down. This is not in line with my beliefs and was certainly not the intention of this blog. I made a mental note to research the matter further and give a well-reasoned argument for the measure on my next post.
Then midterms hit, and I never got the chance to work on it. But, because of some poor scheduling on my part, I ended up switching my midterm story topic assignment for Reporting from football to Measure 49. Never have I felt so gleeful about a project that would determine a good part of my grade and require the sacrifice of my entire week.
I got started on Friday, talking to campaign representatives in Salem because I happened to be there and calling people I knew who might have Measure 37 claims. I finished my interviews by Monday evening and on Tuesday consigned myself to the library for most of the day (leaving to take a midterm exam that I probably didn't do so well on, considering I only studied for about half an hour). On Wednesday, I struggled with the conclusion until about 1 pm but turned in my 2000 words on time, without a hitch. I was exhausted from the effort and lack of sleep, but satisfied.
Yes, there were a couple times in that period that I complained to myself about the story's length. Last spring, I took an Environmental Writing class that required a 2000-word feature as a final project, and we had all ten weeks of the term to work on it. This summer, I completed a similar type of story in three months. But mostly, I found myself pondering the philosophical questions that my interviews brought up, calling a cagey logging company repeatedly, reading and re-reading legalese, and happily typing away through the night and day as I sipped hot tea to keep my strength up.
The moments surrounding the time that I realized I had written almost three times as much as I needed to are slowed down in my memory and riddled with gaps. I remember printing out the story in the Journalism school's computer lab, then standing in the hallway waiting to go into the classroom to turn it in. Then the record skips to the student who placed her assignment on the pile on top of mine. I remember noting how un-harried and calm she looked - but something marred the surface when she looked down at my first page. She said something like, "Wait, we only had to write 750 words, right?" Everyone standing around nodded their heads. "Oh good," she said, "I thought I saw it say '2000 words' at the top of that page." I had faithfully recorded the word count at the top of my story - and it was actually 2100 because I can never seem to hit those right on.
Now, everyone's probably had an experience like this, so I don't need to detail the mixture of remorse, anger, frustration, and - eventually - amusement, I felt upon learning this. I sputtered a few words, found my way outside, then I sat and stared at the fine detailing of the cement wall outside the J-school for quite a long time.
Lessons learned from the past week:
1. If something doesn't seem right, it's not.
2. I like writing features way too much.
3. Somewhere along the line I decided that I'd attained perfection and that I don't ever make mistakes. As a result, I also started not bothering to check on whether I've made a mistake, and that in itself was the biggest mistake of all.
4. Blogs are dangerous things.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Measure 49 info
Read this thoughtful article by one of my favorite environmental journalists for more information on measures 49, 37 and eminent domain/property rights issues:
Taking Liberties
More on this when I get time.
Taking Liberties
More on this when I get time.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
A conversation at the Campbell Senior Center
I am having a lot of fun covering my "beat" - four square blocks just North of downtown Eugene. Yesterday, I went to one of the buildings in this area, Campbell Senior Center. I wanted to just summarize one of my interviews there for my computer notes, but it turned into a semi-interesting short essay.
I wander down the hall to the "pool room," which contains two tables and a whole wall of windows with views of the park outside. Rain is pouring down, obscuring the river just beyond the grassy expanse and making the afternoon seem later than it is. In the room, three men are engaged in a billiards game. My presence doesn't interrupt the rhythm of their turn-taking much, but they do seem fairly entertained by me and my reasons for visiting. Ed Aragon is the most talkative.
The receptionist enters the room to collect money out of the box on the wall. A sign instructs users to pay 25 cents per day. She shakes the coins she found in the box in her open hand. “I got two quarters and three guys here, it just doesn’t add up,” she says. The men look at each other for a moment, then
I notice a bulletin board covered of pictures of elderly men playing pool, and I comment that there seems to be quite a lot of pool players around. “Some of ‘em died on us,”
One of the men racks the balls, but makes a weak break. All three of them use a metal guide on a stick to steady their aims. The rules are lax – shaky hands sometimes inadvertently move balls. As
Now that the afternoon is drawing to a close,
At the moment,
Before I go, he gives me a few more personal details. He was born in
He wins this game, just barely, all three men egging each other on light-heartedly. I joke that his opponents are trying to make him feel better for the previous loss.
No point to that,
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Hm, might be a drought.
Here's an AP story that ran in the Oregonian on Wednesday:
Drought Tightens Its Grip on Southeast
This headline is different than the headline the Oregonian gave it in their print edition - "Drought Strangles Southeast States". I'm not sure who makes those decisions, but the second headline definitely adds more drama. I'd much rather have someone "tighten their grip" than "strangle" me, and I think it's amazing that the same story ran under such different names.
But that's not the only point where this story fails to make clear the true nature of the water crisis in the Southeastern US. It's not that they misreport the facts - it's that the facts are buried and then glossed over with false "advantages" to the drought.
This article is a classic example of an issue getting boxed in as "environmental" news and thus treated with frightening levity. The truth is, droughts affect more than crop yields and fishing. Four paragraphs into this story, we're hit with a scary sentence: "But little rain is in the forecast, and without it climatologists say the water source for more than 3 million people could run dry in just 90 days."
Wait, what?
In 90 days, 3 million people will be without water, unless rainfall starts compensating for the extreme drought that has been taking place in the last few months. Which it isn't likely to.
Shouldn't more people be frightened about this?? Isn't this already a catastrophe? Even if it does start to rain and the people of the Southeast scrape by, it's sure to be worse next year. It's a documented weather trend. Not only that, but aquifers are running dry, and the population is growing.
So why does the AP lead the story with an anecdote about a lake and make it seem like the biggest concern is that people can't put their boats on it anymore? Any why does it completely leave out the above information about the real seriousness of the situation?
It doesn't get better from here. "Sweltering temperatures and a drier-than-normal hurricane season contributed to the parched landscape," the story says. It would have been so easy right there to refrence the general upward trend of temperatures and the certain human causes of those temperatures. Instead, the writer implies fate and bad luck to be the root causes of all this misery, basically throwing his hands in the air (and causing readers to do the same).
The conclusion to this article barely deserves mentioning for its obvious stupidity, but I'll say it anyway: Get 'em while you can, Mr. Biggers. The AP won't tell you, but next year those fish will be drying up and blowing away in the wind.
Drought Tightens Its Grip on Southeast
This headline is different than the headline the Oregonian gave it in their print edition - "Drought Strangles Southeast States". I'm not sure who makes those decisions, but the second headline definitely adds more drama. I'd much rather have someone "tighten their grip" than "strangle" me, and I think it's amazing that the same story ran under such different names.
But that's not the only point where this story fails to make clear the true nature of the water crisis in the Southeastern US. It's not that they misreport the facts - it's that the facts are buried and then glossed over with false "advantages" to the drought.
This article is a classic example of an issue getting boxed in as "environmental" news and thus treated with frightening levity. The truth is, droughts affect more than crop yields and fishing. Four paragraphs into this story, we're hit with a scary sentence: "But little rain is in the forecast, and without it climatologists say the water source for more than 3 million people could run dry in just 90 days."
Wait, what?
In 90 days, 3 million people will be without water, unless rainfall starts compensating for the extreme drought that has been taking place in the last few months. Which it isn't likely to.
Shouldn't more people be frightened about this?? Isn't this already a catastrophe? Even if it does start to rain and the people of the Southeast scrape by, it's sure to be worse next year. It's a documented weather trend. Not only that, but aquifers are running dry, and the population is growing.
So why does the AP lead the story with an anecdote about a lake and make it seem like the biggest concern is that people can't put their boats on it anymore? Any why does it completely leave out the above information about the real seriousness of the situation?
It doesn't get better from here. "Sweltering temperatures and a drier-than-normal hurricane season contributed to the parched landscape," the story says. It would have been so easy right there to refrence the general upward trend of temperatures and the certain human causes of those temperatures. Instead, the writer implies fate and bad luck to be the root causes of all this misery, basically throwing his hands in the air (and causing readers to do the same).
The conclusion to this article barely deserves mentioning for its obvious stupidity, but I'll say it anyway: Get 'em while you can, Mr. Biggers. The AP won't tell you, but next year those fish will be drying up and blowing away in the wind.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Lokey Donation Coverage
This morning, I recieved an email from UO President David Frohnmayer, announcing the largest ever donation to the university's academic departments - $74.5 million.
Lately, one of my biggest gripe points has been how Phil Knight (the UO graduate who co-founded Nike) seems to own a disproportional amount of my school with his almost complete sponsorship of its athletic program. (Not that this is a bad thing, but now that he sells racially profiled shoes, it starts to feel that way.)
Anyway, I was excited to hear about Lorry Lokey's donation. Maybe now UO's academics can share the limelight with athletics, at least until Knight trumps Lokey with a larger donation.
The announcement also brought up an interesting point of comparison between two local papers. I've been reading Slate Magazine's column "Today's Papers" in an attempt to stop failing the news quizzes in my Journalism class, and have found it fascinating to compare what papers run what stories and where. When I looked into the Lokey donation story a bit more, I realized that the same comparison can be made at a local scale, with revealing results.
My first questions when I heard the news about the donation were "What is the largest amount that has ever been given to non-academic purposes (ie athletics)?" and "What is the largest academic donation the University has ever received?" I pulled up the Oregon Daily Emerald's site. The campus paper ran the story at the top of its web edition (well, under two banner ads), with an image of the now-renamed Lorry I. Lokey Science Complex. When I skimmed the story, however, I didn't find the information I was looking for. It did say that Lokey has given a total of $132 million to the University, and gave a breakdown of where the funds would go, which was nice. But I left the very short story hungry for more information.
Next, I tried the Register Guard. Their story was also on top (no ads) and almost twice as long as the Emerald's. It gave more context, including some of the information I was looking for: Knight's got Lokey beat for a single-donation record with a $100 million athletic donation made earlier this year. Still, I don't know what the previous record was for strictly academic donations, and I'd have to do a bit more digging to find out. But the Guard's article did a much better job of covering the whole story, from the controversy over athletic donations to Lokey's plans to donate more in the future.
There are certainly a whole list of factors that make the Emerald's coverage so different from the Guard's coverage of the same story, and I won't try to name them all. Obviously, the Guard has much more space to work with. The Emerald is probably making the assumption that students are familiar with the controversy over athletic donations, and wanted to cover Lokey's act for what it was: not a jab at Knight or an attempt to end the argument, but an honest gift to the University that rises above athletics vs. academics fights.
Put that in your shoe and smoke it, Phil!
Lately, one of my biggest gripe points has been how Phil Knight (the UO graduate who co-founded Nike) seems to own a disproportional amount of my school with his almost complete sponsorship of its athletic program. (Not that this is a bad thing, but now that he sells racially profiled shoes, it starts to feel that way.)
Anyway, I was excited to hear about Lorry Lokey's donation. Maybe now UO's academics can share the limelight with athletics, at least until Knight trumps Lokey with a larger donation.
The announcement also brought up an interesting point of comparison between two local papers. I've been reading Slate Magazine's column "Today's Papers" in an attempt to stop failing the news quizzes in my Journalism class, and have found it fascinating to compare what papers run what stories and where. When I looked into the Lokey donation story a bit more, I realized that the same comparison can be made at a local scale, with revealing results.
My first questions when I heard the news about the donation were "What is the largest amount that has ever been given to non-academic purposes (ie athletics)?" and "What is the largest academic donation the University has ever received?" I pulled up the Oregon Daily Emerald's site. The campus paper ran the story at the top of its web edition (well, under two banner ads), with an image of the now-renamed Lorry I. Lokey Science Complex. When I skimmed the story, however, I didn't find the information I was looking for. It did say that Lokey has given a total of $132 million to the University, and gave a breakdown of where the funds would go, which was nice. But I left the very short story hungry for more information.
Next, I tried the Register Guard. Their story was also on top (no ads) and almost twice as long as the Emerald's. It gave more context, including some of the information I was looking for: Knight's got Lokey beat for a single-donation record with a $100 million athletic donation made earlier this year. Still, I don't know what the previous record was for strictly academic donations, and I'd have to do a bit more digging to find out. But the Guard's article did a much better job of covering the whole story, from the controversy over athletic donations to Lokey's plans to donate more in the future.
There are certainly a whole list of factors that make the Emerald's coverage so different from the Guard's coverage of the same story, and I won't try to name them all. Obviously, the Guard has much more space to work with. The Emerald is probably making the assumption that students are familiar with the controversy over athletic donations, and wanted to cover Lokey's act for what it was: not a jab at Knight or an attempt to end the argument, but an honest gift to the University that rises above athletics vs. academics fights.
Put that in your shoe and smoke it, Phil!
Friday, October 5, 2007
WSJ Article analysis
The assigned purpose of this blog was to break down some news articles, to deconstruct the writer's thought process and, most likely, learn something in the process. This article is from the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ is my absolute favorite daily newspaper (Well, until Rupert came along... but that's another story), and with good reason. Take this story, for example.
Republicans Grow Skeptical on Free Trade
As a side note, I want to mention that this story was in the top right of the main page in Thursday's issue, which some may find surprising. After all, isn't the WSJ (I like to say that "Wuss-juh", but you don't have to) a business publication and therefore conservatively biased? Many of my Eugene friends and acquaintances believe this and frown upon me for my devotion to the paper. My response is that, first off, there's nothing wrong with exposing yourself to political views you might not agree with. Secondly, given the corporate conglomeration that comprises the mainstream media today, why not read a paper that is open about its bias toward business news?
Actually, this newspaper is fairly even-handed in its coverage. Yes, the opinions page is another matter. But there was actually a study done on newspaper objectivity and the WSJ came out as being one of the most unbiased in the nation. If I could ever figure out where I heard of this study so that I could actually cite it, this argument would be a lot stronger. But anyway, let's get back to the task at hand.
So, the breakdown:
The story starts off with the dateline giving us the "where" - Washington. The lede then repeats what was said in the headline with a few additional facts: how many republican voters ("who") said that they were skeptical of free trade when polled, and what is their ultimate concern (the health of the U.S. economy). It also gives the "so what" - that this change in opinion could make foreign trade deals more difficult in the future.
The writer then goes on to detail the results of this poll, and we learn the other "W"'s of the story. When: Not as relevant, so he just says that the poll is "new". The important thing is that this is a dramatic change from the results of previous polls, where republicans have traditionally supported free trade.
A little further down, the author quotes his second source (the first being the poll itself). The quote simply confirms the "so what," as does the next sentence, which adds another element of timeliness by mentioning an upcoming political debate.
This bit of context allows the author to shift the focus of the article from the poll (which doesn't provide a lot of room for analysis) to the upcoming election and the condition of the Republican party in general. The next couple of paragraphs compare Democrat and Republican approaches to free trade, and the shift in opinion from the Republican party since a previous poll in 1999.
The author then uses a subhead to demarcate some background on what's going on with free trade deals currently being written. The next subhead launches further discussion of the Republican party's approach to the presidential race, touching on national security, tax cuts and healthcare.
The last paragraph brings the discussion back to free trade, with a somewhat surprising quote from Republican candidate Mike Huckabee that does a good job of summarizing the article. "If Republicans don't stop it," he says, referring to deals that ship jobs overseas for the benefit of CEOs, "we don't deserve to win in 2008."
This article, like many in this paper, doesn't stick to any traditional format. It's a pyramid structure at first, but the extra analysis at the Republicans' chances in the presidential race makes it kind of a bloated pyramid. A pyramid with an addition on the side, maybe a sun room or a pool.
Uh, anyway, the point is, it's an interesting, much more useful way to tell the news, and that's why I picked the article. I also picked it because the ideas in it bring up some interesting questions. I've been taught in the very basic economics classes I've taken that free trade among nations is, theoretically, always to the benefit of every party involved. If Canada can make snowshoes more efficiently than it can grow bananas, and Panama grows bananas more efficiently than it can make snow shoes, it makes perfect sense for those two nations to trade those products. (Actually, it doesn't at all, because Panama has absolutely no use for snowshoes, but that's beside the point.) The problems with free trade, then, don't have anything to do with efficiency or pure financial cost. I think this is where many Republicans get hung up. Why not produce a product as cheaply as possible? Who cares where we have to go to get the things we want? Why would Canada grow its own bananas?
On the other hand, I think Democrats get hung up on the external costs of free trade, those that have nothing to do with prices in the store. Exploitation, loss of jobs for Americans, quality (the lead thing will be with us for a long time, I'm sure). Maybe Canada should produce its own bananas because it would create many jobs, prevent Panamanians from unfair treatment by banana plantations, and keep the darn lead off the skins.
Who's right? I suppose they both are, and I don't know nearly enough about it to analyze any further. The important thing is, other people are making this analysis too, and it might result in more sensible international trade policies from the U.S.'s end of things. Thanks, Wuss-jah.
Republicans Grow Skeptical on Free Trade
As a side note, I want to mention that this story was in the top right of the main page in Thursday's issue, which some may find surprising. After all, isn't the WSJ (I like to say that "Wuss-juh", but you don't have to) a business publication and therefore conservatively biased? Many of my Eugene friends and acquaintances believe this and frown upon me for my devotion to the paper. My response is that, first off, there's nothing wrong with exposing yourself to political views you might not agree with. Secondly, given the corporate conglomeration that comprises the mainstream media today, why not read a paper that is open about its bias toward business news?
Actually, this newspaper is fairly even-handed in its coverage. Yes, the opinions page is another matter. But there was actually a study done on newspaper objectivity and the WSJ came out as being one of the most unbiased in the nation. If I could ever figure out where I heard of this study so that I could actually cite it, this argument would be a lot stronger. But anyway, let's get back to the task at hand.
So, the breakdown:
The story starts off with the dateline giving us the "where" - Washington. The lede then repeats what was said in the headline with a few additional facts: how many republican voters ("who") said that they were skeptical of free trade when polled, and what is their ultimate concern (the health of the U.S. economy). It also gives the "so what" - that this change in opinion could make foreign trade deals more difficult in the future.
The writer then goes on to detail the results of this poll, and we learn the other "W"'s of the story. When: Not as relevant, so he just says that the poll is "new". The important thing is that this is a dramatic change from the results of previous polls, where republicans have traditionally supported free trade.
A little further down, the author quotes his second source (the first being the poll itself). The quote simply confirms the "so what," as does the next sentence, which adds another element of timeliness by mentioning an upcoming political debate.
This bit of context allows the author to shift the focus of the article from the poll (which doesn't provide a lot of room for analysis) to the upcoming election and the condition of the Republican party in general. The next couple of paragraphs compare Democrat and Republican approaches to free trade, and the shift in opinion from the Republican party since a previous poll in 1999.
The author then uses a subhead to demarcate some background on what's going on with free trade deals currently being written. The next subhead launches further discussion of the Republican party's approach to the presidential race, touching on national security, tax cuts and healthcare.
The last paragraph brings the discussion back to free trade, with a somewhat surprising quote from Republican candidate Mike Huckabee that does a good job of summarizing the article. "If Republicans don't stop it," he says, referring to deals that ship jobs overseas for the benefit of CEOs, "we don't deserve to win in 2008."
This article, like many in this paper, doesn't stick to any traditional format. It's a pyramid structure at first, but the extra analysis at the Republicans' chances in the presidential race makes it kind of a bloated pyramid. A pyramid with an addition on the side, maybe a sun room or a pool.
Uh, anyway, the point is, it's an interesting, much more useful way to tell the news, and that's why I picked the article. I also picked it because the ideas in it bring up some interesting questions. I've been taught in the very basic economics classes I've taken that free trade among nations is, theoretically, always to the benefit of every party involved. If Canada can make snowshoes more efficiently than it can grow bananas, and Panama grows bananas more efficiently than it can make snow shoes, it makes perfect sense for those two nations to trade those products. (Actually, it doesn't at all, because Panama has absolutely no use for snowshoes, but that's beside the point.) The problems with free trade, then, don't have anything to do with efficiency or pure financial cost. I think this is where many Republicans get hung up. Why not produce a product as cheaply as possible? Who cares where we have to go to get the things we want? Why would Canada grow its own bananas?
On the other hand, I think Democrats get hung up on the external costs of free trade, those that have nothing to do with prices in the store. Exploitation, loss of jobs for Americans, quality (the lead thing will be with us for a long time, I'm sure). Maybe Canada should produce its own bananas because it would create many jobs, prevent Panamanians from unfair treatment by banana plantations, and keep the darn lead off the skins.
Who's right? I suppose they both are, and I don't know nearly enough about it to analyze any further. The important thing is, other people are making this analysis too, and it might result in more sensible international trade policies from the U.S.'s end of things. Thanks, Wuss-jah.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Media and Global Warming
If you haven't been living in a cave the last five or so years, you've heard about global warming. Call it climate change if you like. One professor I had preferred global climate collapse - he felt that the words "warming" and "change" are deceptively benign. Either way, the reason you've heard about this phenomenon, if you're like most of the country, is because you've read about in the papers, heard about it on television, or otherwise had a journalist inform you. If you're someone who has known all along that the climate is behaving in frightening ways and that humans are to blame, you've probably spent some time now either rolling your eyes at the "controversy" or have attempted to keep the media fires burning by jumping into the flames yourself.
As a double major in Environmental Studies and Journalism, I am constantly barraged by both sides of this issue. Yes, my shoe-less, be-dreaded, soy-gobbling Environmental Studies comrades, you're right. The media has kind of screwed this up. We pretty much ignored the scientists right up until Al Gore got on his electric expanding ladder thing before the whole nation and prevented us from ignoring it any longer. Ph.Ds who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the destruction of our climate system couldn't get our attention for more than a second, but the minute one of our own gets up there, it generates what must be a multi-million dollar media buzz. Then everything gets the prefix "green" or "eco-" or "sustainable", until suddenly the American public goes from being mildly interested to severely annoyed. I know I did. What the hell does "sustainable growth" mean, anyway, aside from being a pretty cute oxymoron?
Not only did the media industry completely wear out the phrase "global warming," but they also cast a completely inaccurate shadow of doubt on the science behind it. In what is probably an honest effort to be fair (or oil industry meddling, depending on who you ask), journalists often cite sources that straight up deny all or parts of accepted atmospheric science. Getting a schizophrenic person to comment on a story about the strange noise coming from the basement that everyone else attests is a malfunctioning boiler, and then citing him as an expert next to the plumber and the building engineer is not the way to tell both sides of the controversy. It creates a controversy where there never was one. And its been horribly detrimental to efforts to fix the hypothetical boiler.
But, my environmentalist friends, you have to admit - those crazy climate paparazzi did do some good. Nobody has even been able to run for election in the 2008 race without at least mentioning an environmental policy. More people are thinking about when they drive and why than ever before, and not just because gas prices are through the roof. "Green" is the new marketing buzzword, and in some cases, the products it sells might actually do some good for the climate.
But that's all the back patting I will shell out, fellow New York Times-toting, glasses-wearing, good-naturedly competitive journalists. Because you haven't been listening to what the hippies over at the ENVS department have been saying at all. The solution to global warming, along with most other impending environmental catastrophes, is not to consume differently but to consume less. Scientists simply aren't asking us to buy a hybrid car, or invest in schemes that offset individual carbon emissions by growing plankton, or to reconsider nuclear energy. If most logical people actually read the scientific research, they would have to conclude that the human species must completely change its lifestyle in order to avert a complete shift in the way natural systems work. We, as the teachers and informers of the nation's adult population, need to advocate anti-consumerism, not more consumerism. No car, not hybrid car; locally grown, not "sustainably" grown in Chile; turn down the heat, forget the new reactor.
I'm not sure whether this shift is even possible, given the structure of the media in this country. We don't just promote consumption, we depend on it. If people don't buy newspapers, internet access and cable subscriptions, they won't be getting our content in first place. So all I'm asking for is a little less sillyness on our part, intrepid reporters. Stop abusing the honest Environmental Studies people with "eco-" catchphrases and false experts. Maybe we really actually can slow down climate change, but only if talk of global warming stops being a trend and becomes a permanent feature in society.
Oh, and ENVS friends, please put on some shoes.
As a double major in Environmental Studies and Journalism, I am constantly barraged by both sides of this issue. Yes, my shoe-less, be-dreaded, soy-gobbling Environmental Studies comrades, you're right. The media has kind of screwed this up. We pretty much ignored the scientists right up until Al Gore got on his electric expanding ladder thing before the whole nation and prevented us from ignoring it any longer. Ph.Ds who have dedicated their whole lives to studying the destruction of our climate system couldn't get our attention for more than a second, but the minute one of our own gets up there, it generates what must be a multi-million dollar media buzz. Then everything gets the prefix "green" or "eco-" or "sustainable", until suddenly the American public goes from being mildly interested to severely annoyed. I know I did. What the hell does "sustainable growth" mean, anyway, aside from being a pretty cute oxymoron?
Not only did the media industry completely wear out the phrase "global warming," but they also cast a completely inaccurate shadow of doubt on the science behind it. In what is probably an honest effort to be fair (or oil industry meddling, depending on who you ask), journalists often cite sources that straight up deny all or parts of accepted atmospheric science. Getting a schizophrenic person to comment on a story about the strange noise coming from the basement that everyone else attests is a malfunctioning boiler, and then citing him as an expert next to the plumber and the building engineer is not the way to tell both sides of the controversy. It creates a controversy where there never was one. And its been horribly detrimental to efforts to fix the hypothetical boiler.
But, my environmentalist friends, you have to admit - those crazy climate paparazzi did do some good. Nobody has even been able to run for election in the 2008 race without at least mentioning an environmental policy. More people are thinking about when they drive and why than ever before, and not just because gas prices are through the roof. "Green" is the new marketing buzzword, and in some cases, the products it sells might actually do some good for the climate.
But that's all the back patting I will shell out, fellow New York Times-toting, glasses-wearing, good-naturedly competitive journalists. Because you haven't been listening to what the hippies over at the ENVS department have been saying at all. The solution to global warming, along with most other impending environmental catastrophes, is not to consume differently but to consume less. Scientists simply aren't asking us to buy a hybrid car, or invest in schemes that offset individual carbon emissions by growing plankton, or to reconsider nuclear energy. If most logical people actually read the scientific research, they would have to conclude that the human species must completely change its lifestyle in order to avert a complete shift in the way natural systems work. We, as the teachers and informers of the nation's adult population, need to advocate anti-consumerism, not more consumerism. No car, not hybrid car; locally grown, not "sustainably" grown in Chile; turn down the heat, forget the new reactor.
I'm not sure whether this shift is even possible, given the structure of the media in this country. We don't just promote consumption, we depend on it. If people don't buy newspapers, internet access and cable subscriptions, they won't be getting our content in first place. So all I'm asking for is a little less sillyness on our part, intrepid reporters. Stop abusing the honest Environmental Studies people with "eco-" catchphrases and false experts. Maybe we really actually can slow down climate change, but only if talk of global warming stops being a trend and becomes a permanent feature in society.
Oh, and ENVS friends, please put on some shoes.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
mission statement
For me, journalism two things. First, it is a sneaky way to for me to indulge my complete nerdiness and be in a job/educational path where I constantly learn about new things. If it weren't for journalism, I'd be one of those all-over-the-place college students, switching from art to science to economics to English and graduating in seven years with no idea which area I'd want to sit down and focus on for the next four decades of my wage-earning years.
The other reason I pursued journalism was because the only thing that really has been constant in my relatively short life has been an interest in reading and writing. I read everything. I really think my brain is abnormal because when I look at a magazine page or a posted sign or whatever, my eyes go straight to the text and ignore the pictures altogether. I read things that no reasonable person would read: the safety card in the airplane, the junk emails in my inbox, shopping lists found on the grocery store floor. I just love to see how other people express themselves, especially when they're no doing it expressly for editors or serious readers (as journalists and book writers usually are). Writing is pretty fun for me too, but I get a little awkward writing about myself or about fictional things. So non-fiction seems ideal.
My journalistic dream is, very generally, to travel somewhere interesting and write about it. This could be in shorter freelance pieces or for a book, eventually. In five years, it's difficult to tell. I should graduate in two, with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Environmental Studies and a minor in Economics (ok, so I went all over the place anyway). Anyway, after graduation I'd like to go to a smaller magazine somewhere in the Northwest for a couple of years, interning or maybe even getting paid. Lately I've been thinking I'd really like to do an internship at High Country News. At the end of that, I would ideally be hired by National Geographic. I know this probably won't happen, and I also know that if my tastes and goals continue to evolve at the rate they have been, I don't want to make plans now that I'll blow off in a year. So normally I evade the "where do you see yourself in five years" question by making a serious face, giving the National Geographic answer, and then we all have a good laugh and the questioner moves on.
So there's the mission. It's based in a lot of things I've thought over quite a bit, so although it may not be the most solid plan ever, I have faith that it will work out in a way that's best for me. If not, and I end up working at a porn shop in Eugene, I'll have good material for my book.
The other reason I pursued journalism was because the only thing that really has been constant in my relatively short life has been an interest in reading and writing. I read everything. I really think my brain is abnormal because when I look at a magazine page or a posted sign or whatever, my eyes go straight to the text and ignore the pictures altogether. I read things that no reasonable person would read: the safety card in the airplane, the junk emails in my inbox, shopping lists found on the grocery store floor. I just love to see how other people express themselves, especially when they're no doing it expressly for editors or serious readers (as journalists and book writers usually are). Writing is pretty fun for me too, but I get a little awkward writing about myself or about fictional things. So non-fiction seems ideal.
My journalistic dream is, very generally, to travel somewhere interesting and write about it. This could be in shorter freelance pieces or for a book, eventually. In five years, it's difficult to tell. I should graduate in two, with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Environmental Studies and a minor in Economics (ok, so I went all over the place anyway). Anyway, after graduation I'd like to go to a smaller magazine somewhere in the Northwest for a couple of years, interning or maybe even getting paid. Lately I've been thinking I'd really like to do an internship at High Country News. At the end of that, I would ideally be hired by National Geographic. I know this probably won't happen, and I also know that if my tastes and goals continue to evolve at the rate they have been, I don't want to make plans now that I'll blow off in a year. So normally I evade the "where do you see yourself in five years" question by making a serious face, giving the National Geographic answer, and then we all have a good laugh and the questioner moves on.
So there's the mission. It's based in a lot of things I've thought over quite a bit, so although it may not be the most solid plan ever, I have faith that it will work out in a way that's best for me. If not, and I end up working at a porn shop in Eugene, I'll have good material for my book.
Monday, September 24, 2007
J361
Once again, a professor has required me to take an action that I've been meaning to do for a while but never quite had adequate reason. This is a little bit bigger than going to the art museum or visiting an instructor's office hours, but I think it will be at least a learning experience, if not something I continue doing forever.
I've actually never been a blog-loving person. My life has always closely revolved around the internet (which, I admit, adds a certain element of laziness as well as nerdiness to my personality), but I never understood why the blog craze happened and is still happening. After all, we don't pay much attention to the random verbalizations of the scruffy-looking person on the bus or the thousands of books that are published every day. Why then, when placed in a digital format, does the chaff of people's minds become so attractive? Why are we so obsessed with updating the world on what we did this morning, or giving them instruction on how to make a chocolate pie, or complaining endlessly about politics?
I'm sure there's something to this blog thing. Maybe now that I keep one, I'll start reading others. Maybe someone will tell me which are worth reading, because I really have no idea and don't want to waste time finding out when I could be reading something that was written by an experienced writer, using credible sources, and checked by an editor.
Time to wrap up. I sound like the crabbiest person alive, which kind of sucks for the first blog entry. I'm not, and I won't complain about this topic anymore, at risk of falling into the trap of the self-serving blogger.
I've actually never been a blog-loving person. My life has always closely revolved around the internet (which, I admit, adds a certain element of laziness as well as nerdiness to my personality), but I never understood why the blog craze happened and is still happening. After all, we don't pay much attention to the random verbalizations of the scruffy-looking person on the bus or the thousands of books that are published every day. Why then, when placed in a digital format, does the chaff of people's minds become so attractive? Why are we so obsessed with updating the world on what we did this morning, or giving them instruction on how to make a chocolate pie, or complaining endlessly about politics?
I'm sure there's something to this blog thing. Maybe now that I keep one, I'll start reading others. Maybe someone will tell me which are worth reading, because I really have no idea and don't want to waste time finding out when I could be reading something that was written by an experienced writer, using credible sources, and checked by an editor.
Time to wrap up. I sound like the crabbiest person alive, which kind of sucks for the first blog entry. I'm not, and I won't complain about this topic anymore, at risk of falling into the trap of the self-serving blogger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
