My homecoming

As I made the trip back home for Thanksgiving break, my dad enlightened me on what I've missed in Frederick county while I've been gone. Turns out the County Commissioners are doing whatever they want with little regard of how their changes negatively affect our city and county.

The best part is that my parents apparently participated in a protest.

Our city newspaper, like many other newspapers have all sizes, had to let people go. There are fewer people covering these kinds of events beyond the general "He said, she said" reporting. A part of this is a criticism of that paper and a part of it is just the way small town news reporting has become.

I don't know of any bloggers in my hometown that go to these meetings and openly criticize the County Commissioners. I'd certainly like to see a non-traditional journalist challenge my county government, and considering I'm away half of the year, I'm not exactly open for that job.

Drudge fudges facts

When I first went to The Drudge Report, I wanted to gouge my eyes out from the shoddy design. Then I wanted to bang my head against the wall when I saw what Drudge linked to. Now I think I want to gag after reading Drudge's "accurate" original reporting.

In 1999, Drudge claimed to have a world exclusive story about a woman's claim that her child was Bill Clinton's son. Sure, there are sources in his article. Drudge has a loyal readership, people who would willingly believe whatever he writes.

He's one man with no journalism training who links to articles he wants other people to read. In that way, he kind of sounds like a blogger. However, bloggers provide links to sources, proving that what they're reporting is factual.

A timeline shows that Drudge was really pushing this story. I know I recently said that having opinions and biases is a good thing, but I don't believe Drudge is the type of person who can fairly report something while acknowledging that he has a certain political leaning.

Proposed bills against copyright infringement will only hurt innocent sites

Congress is looking into two bills, The Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Privacy Act, that have good intentions behind them, but could bring about significant harm to websites.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the bill and said it

• Gives the Department of Justice authority to go after a foreign Internet site that the DOJ alleges infringe U.S. property rights. The DOJ can get a court order requiring ISPs to prevent access to the infringing sites, and require payment processors (like credit card companies) and online advertising networks from doing business with such sites; and
• Empower owners of copyrights (and other rights), such as movie studios, to bring actions against any “Internet sites dedicated to infringement,” whether in the U.S. or overseas, and get a court order to stop payment processors (like credit card companies) or online advertising from doing business with such sites.

However, the bill reaches too far and attempts to bypass court orders. Instead of waiting for a judge to rule whether a website is infringing on copyright, websites will be immediately blacklisted when they are suspected. More details by Brian Dengler of Street Fight Mag are here.

Professors have written against the proposed bill, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation made a list of popular and important sites that could be blacklisted under the overarching power of SOPA. Their list includes:

• Etsy
• Flickr
• Vimeo

These sites are about people sharing art they've created. While copyright infringement is still an important issue, can't these politicians think of anything better to do than "Let's just give power to others to shut down websites at will and put off dealing with the core issue"?

Pick at the things you love

Or hate. But I think it's more interesting when people expose flaws in something they love.

Journalism cannot truly be objective. Beginner journalism classes tell student journalists that they must be objective. I've heard it come before things I find more important, such as holding yourself accountable for what you write and minimizing harm. Both freshman and sophomore years, professors told us students in class that we had to be objective. Sometimes I wonder if they want us to be soulless reporters, merely regurgitating "news."

I'm never going to be objective. I am extremely opinionated. I have certain biases, and I'd rather they be in plain view. Someone could most likely figure out my political orientation (or at the very least figure out which side of the spectrum I'm on), my favorite types of videogames, my favorite book series, and a handful of my values just by reading a few things I've written on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, or blogs. Will that haunt me in the future? Possibly, but I'd rather be honest to myself and accountable to my values.

Halfway through my sophomore year on winter break, I visited my English teacher from high school. As always, we got into a discussion about politics and journalism. We were discussing objectivity when she said, "Let's say you're assigned to interview Dennis Kucinich. How would you question him compared to a different politician?"

(Here's a hint: I adore him.)

At the time, I was convinced if I were to cover something or someone I loved, I would inherently slant the story. I still believe I would possess that inherent bias, but I think I'd be more likely to critique someone or something I love. Journalism doesn't need blind followers of an idea or a person, but it does need critical thinkers who are motivated to do research. And, most of the time, that motivation stems from being in love with something.

For example, Mayhill Fowler, a citizen journalist for Huffington Post's Off the Bus, was the one who broke the story about Obama's offhand comment about small-town Americans. Fowler was also an Obama supporter. Fowler debated whether she would write the story because she didn't want to hurt Obama's campaign, but in the name of good journalism, she thankfully published it. (Look at me slanting this blog post!)

Fowler even openly reported she was an Obama supporter. Other supporters attacked her for publishing the article. I don't think they realized she was doing journalism--not PR.

It's okay to have opinions. If you don't stand something, you'll fall for anything.

New media expose people's true colors

With Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and who knows what else, readers can get more acquainted with the minds behind the content they're reading. Whether that prompts a reader to continue reading or let it go, I still think it's a good thing that we're able to better know writers and editors. Most of the time it's to support them.

And then, now and then, someone slips.

McKinley Noble, a staff editor at GamePro, made a slip-up yesterday in a tweet. It says:

What does rape have to do with the #TombRaider reboot? Buy the 1st GamePro Quarterly & solve the mystery on page 49.

It turns out that he thought the voice acting was bad.

I like GamePro, and I don't think Noble is an awful guy. I was certainly outraged when I saw his initial tweet, and I--along with several others (both men and women)--demanded an explanation over Twitter. But I do know that his reputation has fallen in my mind. He may be a good editor, but I do not agree with the way he trivializes and jokes to try to make it seem like the rest of us are wrong for not being able to take a joke.

The storm he got last night has faded from the Internet now. I believe this is because videogame magazines are, generally, not read as frequently as other sources for general news. If this guy was a journalist for something like the New York Times or the Washington Post, I'm sure he'd get more than just a stern talking to.

"Transparency is the new Objectivity"

Jay Rosen was the one who said that in 2009 and he was the one who inspired this post.

Last year, I was told that objectivity is the end goal for every journalist because if you cannot be objective, then you cannot properly present a story.

When did objectivity turn into "Here's Side A. Here's Side B. Now, argue!" which is the kind of stuff you can see on any large broadcast news station today. Fox is not so fair and balanced, CNN should not be the most trusted name in news, and MSNBC claims it leans forward rather than left or right.

I have my biases. I am extremely left-wing (I'm so far left that I'm waving at the mainstream lefties from miles away--even they think I'm too far left). I have my own set of values. There are some things that I deem unimportant and there are some things that I readily research on my own. I will report on differently because I am my own person with my own ideals.

That doesn't mean I can't fairly report on things I like or dislike. In fact, that make me more likely to go uncover something an objectively apathetic journalist might miss. The stereotypical objective reporter misses the larger point of stories because he's too busy moving on to the next story without any sense of attachment to the last one. Arianna Huffington was the one who said, "Mainstream media suffer from attention deficit disorder. New media suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder."

Objectivity sounds more like knowingly lying to your readers. If you can't be objective, don't pretend to be. Acknowledge your biases and keep them out of the story, but allow them to spur you on.

Being a successful blogger

I'm not always an organized person. I fluctuate between keeping a tidy room with organized areas for my homework and ignoring a messy room with folders somewhere along the foot of my bed. At the beginning of the year, I establish a certain time for me to do my homework and I refuse to do anything pertaining to "my time" until my work for the day is finished.

And yet I've got a growing list of things to do each day.

I don't often keep myself tied to a strict schedule. Sometimes that's great (it leaves me flexible), and sometimes it's awful (homework is occasionally done at the last minute and in a sloppy manner). I believe this describes me as a blogger. I'm open to suggestions, but I always don't do anything with the suggestions. I try to be insightful, but my posts aren't always regular.

When William Jacobson, blogger and founder of Legal Insurrection, visited our Independent Media class, the most important thing I took from it was this: Bring something new to your blog everyday. If you don't give people a reason to come back and see what you want to say, you need to make frequent--but well-thought--posts.

This has not always been easy for me. I keep another blog for fun, something I find to be important for bloggers who want to find a way to think and write about a subject everyday. For me, it's video games--the reviews, previews, news, rumors, and discussions of gaming culture. I try to balance posting to that blog as well as posting to this blog (you know, since this is for a class), but things often don't work out as planned. There are times when I honestly can't think of anything to write about. And when I do write something, I often ramble (like I'm doing here right now!).

I guess my point is--to be a successful blogger, you have to commit to it. You don't need to quit your day job to do it, but you do need to cut into some of your personal time to maintain your blog. To do that, you need to set aside time to post daily, study your subject, and interact with your readers. I only hope that I can improve on all three of those things.

Don't Lock Out Bloggers

In my hometown, the local newspaper covers fewer and fewer government meetings because their staff has shrunk dramatically. This is a nationwide trend. And it's exactly where bloggers should come in.

In 2008, a blogger was excluded from an executive session because they said he wasn't a true member of the media. Their proposed policy on who qualified as a member of the news media included:

• Regular reporting on the Lake Oswego City Council

• Multiple personnel with defined roles

• Registration with the state Corporation Division

• Reporting "conducted continuously (at least weekly) and permanently"

• Publications or broadcasts that include "at least 25 percent news content"

• Media representatives would be allowed to attend executive sessions if they provide evidence that includes "proof satisfactory to the City Council that the person is gathering news," along with a press badge, a recently published news article with their byline or an editor's note on letterhead.

he me. In Frederick, MD, board discussions over education, taxes, policies, etc. were open to the public. Each weekly Board of Education member was open to every resident, and I even attended one with several classmates to protest a decision they had made. I was in a high school journalism class -- and that definitely wouldn't cut it under Oregon's proposed policy -- but I lived there and had every right to say what was on my mind.

If I could do that as a 17-year-old with no media credentials, why not let in the bloggers? I don't even need to bring up the fact that the Oregonian blogger Mark Bunster was doing the public a service (as journalists do) by reporting on information most probably wouldn't obtain on their own. A part of that is apparently because Oregon doesn't enjoy letting residents attend sessions, but mostly because those meetings are dull, dry, and doze-worthy. The councilors should be happy anyone even wanted to listen to them talk.