Friday, March 16, 2007
podcast 1.3
short and sweet by nate and iz. paste and copy in browser http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/uhtoday/podcasts/spj1.3.mp3
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Invisible Line of Objectivity
Recently I have been challenged with the idea of objectivity, and how close its relationship is to the dividing line.
I covered a lecture by a world known Evolutionary Biologist, whose beliefs and teachings I did not even remotely agree with. Richard Dawkins is a very opinionated British man, that has no problem stating his case, and fighting it to the death, was the impression that I took from the encounter.
I am transparently a devoted creationist; and it seems this title, as not so subtly defined by Dawkins in his talks, is a derogatory name for an ignorant person. Dawson numerously name called creationists and their beliefs-all of them.
Reporting on this controversial subject
Listening to his lectures I couldn’t help but leave slightly amused, and puzzled by the view of the atheist. It was when I began to sit down and write that I realized by perspective would undoubtedly interfere with my reporting.
Normally covering a story that I have an opinion about could be easily taken-up by another writer, but in that situation I was the writer for the story and it had to be done.
Who else, than a faithful creationist, to give perspective to the story that would it give it credence? Religion, like that of other poll margin issues, is of the greatest importance to a majority of Americans, and definitely to the rest of the world. It had made sense to me finally, that if topics such as religious beliefs, sexual preference, social standings, abortion, and other serious controversial floating politics can not be discussed in a realistic forum in the news medium, the supposed objective form of journalism, than there is no other place for them.
With this in mind, I decided that my presuppositions of Dawkins were allowed. He was a representation of the people in all parts of the world with his same viewpoint, and I was the representative for the other half, and together giving into this bias openly, I could then become as impartial as possible and tell the Ka Leo audience, whom I guessed in this story would be attendees and would-be attendees to the lecture, the newsworthiness of the event, with my thoughts aside.
On a more personal note, I don’t think Dawkins thought much of me. I was kind casual and informal in my interview with him, I cant really help the style that I have developed here in Hawaii, and I think it scared him slightly considering his typical interviewees are professional journalists for large-scale newspapers. I came to this conclusion when he told me blatantly to ask him a more “sensible question.” Sensible. Haha! A word choice only a British would do, and hearing this made me laugh. Opps.
I covered a lecture by a world known Evolutionary Biologist, whose beliefs and teachings I did not even remotely agree with. Richard Dawkins is a very opinionated British man, that has no problem stating his case, and fighting it to the death, was the impression that I took from the encounter.
I am transparently a devoted creationist; and it seems this title, as not so subtly defined by Dawkins in his talks, is a derogatory name for an ignorant person. Dawson numerously name called creationists and their beliefs-all of them.
Reporting on this controversial subject
Listening to his lectures I couldn’t help but leave slightly amused, and puzzled by the view of the atheist. It was when I began to sit down and write that I realized by perspective would undoubtedly interfere with my reporting.
Normally covering a story that I have an opinion about could be easily taken-up by another writer, but in that situation I was the writer for the story and it had to be done.
Who else, than a faithful creationist, to give perspective to the story that would it give it credence? Religion, like that of other poll margin issues, is of the greatest importance to a majority of Americans, and definitely to the rest of the world. It had made sense to me finally, that if topics such as religious beliefs, sexual preference, social standings, abortion, and other serious controversial floating politics can not be discussed in a realistic forum in the news medium, the supposed objective form of journalism, than there is no other place for them.
With this in mind, I decided that my presuppositions of Dawkins were allowed. He was a representation of the people in all parts of the world with his same viewpoint, and I was the representative for the other half, and together giving into this bias openly, I could then become as impartial as possible and tell the Ka Leo audience, whom I guessed in this story would be attendees and would-be attendees to the lecture, the newsworthiness of the event, with my thoughts aside.
On a more personal note, I don’t think Dawkins thought much of me. I was kind casual and informal in my interview with him, I cant really help the style that I have developed here in Hawaii, and I think it scared him slightly considering his typical interviewees are professional journalists for large-scale newspapers. I came to this conclusion when he told me blatantly to ask him a more “sensible question.” Sensible. Haha! A word choice only a British would do, and hearing this made me laugh. Opps.
Friday, March 9, 2007
For Newspapers, the Web is Real...
I'm the editor of a newspaper.
At one time, the word "newspaper" was a compound word: you're giving people news on paper.
Somewhere along the line, scrolling, watching videos and accessing articles through keywords from backdoor Google searches became the norm at Ka Leo, even if none of the editors really thought about it in the newsroom.
Our current readers -- members of the five-second news feed generation of the Internet Age -- have been jonesing for our online content since we first went offline in early February. And as time goes on, it seems like the withdrawal symptoms are worsening. Hawaii is addicted to point-and-click news and the indulgences of instant archive searching and GoogleAlerts, as well as the stream of letters and hearsay, have made it extremely apparent.
Even Ian Lind, an ex-journalist from the Star Bulletin, mentioned Ka Leo's offline status in a recent entry in his super-popular blog. People are asking for the Web site, including myself.
Wait, I think I'm getting ahead of myself. Rewind to August 2006: mtvU, a Viacom-owned brand and collegiate offshoot of MTV, purchases College Publisher, a company that publishes online versions of about 200 different college newspapers in the U.S. The move was mostly made to benefit the advertisers under the Viacom and MTV umbrella by providing a direct outlet to a collegiate demographic via college papers.
Scary, I know. This one company, this Viacom-owned company, is essentially monopolizing the collegiate newspaper market. And guess what? Ka Leo O Hawaii is a customer of College Publisher, leaving our online version essentially at the mercy of a multi-billion dollar media cannibal.
I just finished reading a blog (<-- it also lists the names of every College-Publisher/ MTV/ Viacom-owned college paper) by a former employee of New Digital Group (the company that formerly hosted www.kaleo.org and was eaten up by College Publisher) who shared that sentiment. He mentioned something about domain-acquisition that was a little past me, but his worry was warranted.
The first contract that College Publisher presented to Ka Leo at the beginning of this year really worried me. In it were terms that bled into editorial control and limited our advertising capabilities, including one term that prohibited us from writing about MTV and its bazillions of Viacom-owned affiliates. The terms seemed to go directly against some of the things that mtvU said in an FAQ press release, which stated: "mtvU shares College Publisher's respect for the importance and integrity of student journalism -- and will maintain a strict church/state separation between their content and the sites in the College Publisher network."
Haggling the terms was a difficult process, especially since the Church of Viacom was blessing us with free initial online services, but we have come to a reasonable agreement that gives us full editorial control online. Contract renegotiations should be complete by March 9, with the Web site coming up shortly after.
The redesign, although I drafted it a while ago, was also a lengthy process. I wanted to do it good on the first crack; College Publisher charges $100 per hour for any additions after the initial free job, and that's $100 that the UH Board of Publications doesn't currently have as they work toward off-campus printing negotiations and fund raising for a new press. And the company's definitely making bank on that, especially since they've waited until all of the major schools' sites were completed to release a bunch of new features, tempting schools to get $100/hour additions. But it's the contract that's been a pain in my side for so long.
It was right at the beginning of February, when our Web site first started going offline, that our Commentary Editor decided to write a commentary piece about the "social injustice" that he felt the Punahou Carnival supports. Predictably, we got a huge backlash, including 200-something comments on that one article online. There was even mention of it in the Star Bulletin by columnist and Punahou student parent John Heckathorn. When our Web site suddenly ceased, it really fanned the fire, leading people to believe that I was hiding something. It was far from and totally contrary to the truth. I wish people could have read and continued to comment on the article. I ended up custom-responding to more than 50 letters and quelling the situation within three weeks, but the situation underlined the evolving need for the Internet, especially as a public forum.
I agree with many other college editors and advisors that the mtvU acquisition is mostly a good thing. It will bring huge opportunites to our Adverising Department online and in print, although mtvU owns much of the advertising space online and even limits us to five ad spaces on top of their three (including two mtvU-affiliated ads above the scroll). It also provides us with online options that dwarf our previous Web sites', including a video player, blogs, a revamped archive system and an RSS feed.
But will those goodies make up for the freakoutedness that has plagued our staff writers and readers and the flak that I've received as a result? Not unless the profit we make with new ads can pay for years of therapy and a 24-pack of Rogaine.
In last year's October earthquake, it wasn't the shaking but the loss of power, phone lines and Internet that sent people into a panic. People are now totally plugged into the world, and they freak out when a circuit gets cut here and there. My laptop weighs 6 pounds, but I carry it with me like a beeper.
Look for Ka Leo O Hawaii online (www.kaleo.org) soon (and 'soon' is as specific as I can be).
-Matthew K. Ing
[P.S. - Can someone please find out what's up with the Advertiser's online archive? Their policy of restricting unpaid access to only seven days worth of content is frustrating.]
At one time, the word "newspaper" was a compound word: you're giving people news on paper.
Somewhere along the line, scrolling, watching videos and accessing articles through keywords from backdoor Google searches became the norm at Ka Leo, even if none of the editors really thought about it in the newsroom.
Our current readers -- members of the five-second news feed generation of the Internet Age -- have been jonesing for our online content since we first went offline in early February. And as time goes on, it seems like the withdrawal symptoms are worsening. Hawaii is addicted to point-and-click news and the indulgences of instant archive searching and GoogleAlerts, as well as the stream of letters and hearsay, have made it extremely apparent.
Even Ian Lind, an ex-journalist from the Star Bulletin, mentioned Ka Leo's offline status in a recent entry in his super-popular blog. People are asking for the Web site, including myself.
Wait, I think I'm getting ahead of myself. Rewind to August 2006: mtvU, a Viacom-owned brand and collegiate offshoot of MTV, purchases College Publisher, a company that publishes online versions of about 200 different college newspapers in the U.S. The move was mostly made to benefit the advertisers under the Viacom and MTV umbrella by providing a direct outlet to a collegiate demographic via college papers.
Scary, I know. This one company, this Viacom-owned company, is essentially monopolizing the collegiate newspaper market. And guess what? Ka Leo O Hawaii is a customer of College Publisher, leaving our online version essentially at the mercy of a multi-billion dollar media cannibal.
I just finished reading a blog (<-- it also lists the names of every College-Publisher/ MTV/ Viacom-owned college paper) by a former employee of New Digital Group (the company that formerly hosted www.kaleo.org and was eaten up by College Publisher) who shared that sentiment. He mentioned something about domain-acquisition that was a little past me, but his worry was warranted.
The first contract that College Publisher presented to Ka Leo at the beginning of this year really worried me. In it were terms that bled into editorial control and limited our advertising capabilities, including one term that prohibited us from writing about MTV and its bazillions of Viacom-owned affiliates. The terms seemed to go directly against some of the things that mtvU said in an FAQ press release, which stated: "mtvU shares College Publisher's respect for the importance and integrity of student journalism -- and will maintain a strict church/state separation between their content and the sites in the College Publisher network."
Haggling the terms was a difficult process, especially since the Church of Viacom was blessing us with free initial online services, but we have come to a reasonable agreement that gives us full editorial control online. Contract renegotiations should be complete by March 9, with the Web site coming up shortly after.
The redesign, although I drafted it a while ago, was also a lengthy process. I wanted to do it good on the first crack; College Publisher charges $100 per hour for any additions after the initial free job, and that's $100 that the UH Board of Publications doesn't currently have as they work toward off-campus printing negotiations and fund raising for a new press. And the company's definitely making bank on that, especially since they've waited until all of the major schools' sites were completed to release a bunch of new features, tempting schools to get $100/hour additions. But it's the contract that's been a pain in my side for so long.
It was right at the beginning of February, when our Web site first started going offline, that our Commentary Editor decided to write a commentary piece about the "social injustice" that he felt the Punahou Carnival supports. Predictably, we got a huge backlash, including 200-something comments on that one article online. There was even mention of it in the Star Bulletin by columnist and Punahou student parent John Heckathorn. When our Web site suddenly ceased, it really fanned the fire, leading people to believe that I was hiding something. It was far from and totally contrary to the truth. I wish people could have read and continued to comment on the article. I ended up custom-responding to more than 50 letters and quelling the situation within three weeks, but the situation underlined the evolving need for the Internet, especially as a public forum.
I agree with many other college editors and advisors that the mtvU acquisition is mostly a good thing. It will bring huge opportunites to our Adverising Department online and in print, although mtvU owns much of the advertising space online and even limits us to five ad spaces on top of their three (including two mtvU-affiliated ads above the scroll). It also provides us with online options that dwarf our previous Web sites', including a video player, blogs, a revamped archive system and an RSS feed.
But will those goodies make up for the freakoutedness that has plagued our staff writers and readers and the flak that I've received as a result? Not unless the profit we make with new ads can pay for years of therapy and a 24-pack of Rogaine.
In last year's October earthquake, it wasn't the shaking but the loss of power, phone lines and Internet that sent people into a panic. People are now totally plugged into the world, and they freak out when a circuit gets cut here and there. My laptop weighs 6 pounds, but I carry it with me like a beeper.
Look for Ka Leo O Hawaii online (www.kaleo.org) soon (and 'soon' is as specific as I can be).
-Matthew K. Ing
[P.S. - Can someone please find out what's up with the Advertiser's online archive? Their policy of restricting unpaid access to only seven days worth of content is frustrating.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
