I just realized that a year ago today my internship at the Daily Herald ended. I was the features intern and covered arts and entertainment in Utah County.
By the time it was over I had discovered that I really like newspaper writing, and had decided to make a go at being a reporter. I figured if I kept at it I should be able to get a job within a few years.
But, it only took about six months, two of which were spend out of the country not looking for jobs (after returning to the country I applied for hundreds of jobs, in and out of the news industry). With today being the one year mark since my internship ended, I was thinking about how interesting and great that fact is. Today I'm a court and crime reporter at the Daily Herald. Huzzah.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Job Realities
A few days ago I dreamed I was a film critic for Vanity Fair. It was awesome. Then I woke up, only to realize I was a crime writer at the Daily Herald.
Friday, April 23, 2010
How to (Really) Save Journalism
I'm not the most experienced journalist out there, but that hasn't stopped me from formulating ideas on how to save the industry. In case you haven't heard, the newspaper business is in shambles because everyone is getting their news online these days. No subscriptions equals no money.
The New York Times' solution to this problem has been to start changing for online subscriptions. Later this year, you'll be able to read some of the paper's content online for free, but you'll have to pay to get all of it.
With all due respect to The New York Times, that's a terrible idea. Few are willing to pay for internet-based news, and the strategy risks turning the paper into a boutique publication with a very specialized—and limited—readership.
A better solution would be to eliminate most of the newspaper industry's physical infrastructure. Get rid of the presses, of course, but also close the offices. Shut down the phone lines. Stop buying cubical walls. Out with the industry's "things" and "places." Make everything digital.
At issue here is the fact that old media (newspapers) are trying to imposed old payment models (subscriptions) onto new media (the internet). Unfortunately for the papers, however, different kinds of media evolved their own, inherently different delivery platforms. Think about it: books radically changed the way people consume media. They all but killed oral tradition, and took learning out of the hands of a select elite.
Today, the printed word has had a good run, but that run is ending. (That link goes to Slate, by the way, which actually tried to charge for content at one point, but then gave up.) I think people still want to read the news, but they are doing it less and less on paper. To simply treat the internet as if it were paper is insanity. It ignores the fact that it's fundamentally different.
However, because the internet is a virtual place, it seems only fitting that internet-dependent companies become virtual as well. Reporters can still write and report, for example, without the physical office. They can work remotely, saving both themselves and their companies time and money, all the while adapting the content to the medium, not the other way around.
My two writing gigs have influenced my attitudes on this topic. First I write for Rhombus. Until about a month ago, I had actually never even met another person who works for Rhombus (I met the editor, coincidentally, on the street while walking home one day). We communicate entirely by facebook message at Rhombus, and there is literally no physical infrastructure for the magazine.
Contrast that, however, with my experience at the Daily Herald. There, I go into a gigantic building everyday where I have a computer, a phone, a desk, a break room, etc. All that stuff costs someone money, but the thing is, I don't really need any of it. I have my own cell phone, which I can just as easily use (and often do), my own computer, and a chair and table at my house.
In other words, I could do at least as good a job reporting for the Daily Herald at home, at the library, in a cafe, etc., as I'm currently doing. Who knows, I might even do a better job because I'd have fewer distractions.
In reality, I enjoy the social aspect of going into the office. I like being around people to work. But if it means that the industry will eventually dry up, or that the number of writing jobs goes from many thousands to many dozens, I'd gladly sacrifice that one aspect of the job to have the others.
Ultimately, major news outlets will probably always need some physical office for their head editors and executives. They may also need to occasionally call in their reporters for meetings (though I can't imagine why video chatting wouldn't be sufficient). However, a small office with a single conference room ought to be enough, even for the biggest papers. If someone needs specific tools to do his or her job, go ahead buy that person a computer and the software too. The company would still be saving money on rent, electricity, phone, etc.
These measures probably wouldn't completely offset the loses the newspaper industry is suffering, but they would represent a (currently absent) proclivity to look for creative solutions to new media-related problems. After all, it's called "new media" because it's not the same old thing, and the same old payment model just isn't going to work. And, in the end, even if they didn't completely solve the problem, they'd help. A lot.
The New York Times' solution to this problem has been to start changing for online subscriptions. Later this year, you'll be able to read some of the paper's content online for free, but you'll have to pay to get all of it.
With all due respect to The New York Times, that's a terrible idea. Few are willing to pay for internet-based news, and the strategy risks turning the paper into a boutique publication with a very specialized—and limited—readership.
A better solution would be to eliminate most of the newspaper industry's physical infrastructure. Get rid of the presses, of course, but also close the offices. Shut down the phone lines. Stop buying cubical walls. Out with the industry's "things" and "places." Make everything digital.
At issue here is the fact that old media (newspapers) are trying to imposed old payment models (subscriptions) onto new media (the internet). Unfortunately for the papers, however, different kinds of media evolved their own, inherently different delivery platforms. Think about it: books radically changed the way people consume media. They all but killed oral tradition, and took learning out of the hands of a select elite.
Today, the printed word has had a good run, but that run is ending. (That link goes to Slate, by the way, which actually tried to charge for content at one point, but then gave up.) I think people still want to read the news, but they are doing it less and less on paper. To simply treat the internet as if it were paper is insanity. It ignores the fact that it's fundamentally different.
However, because the internet is a virtual place, it seems only fitting that internet-dependent companies become virtual as well. Reporters can still write and report, for example, without the physical office. They can work remotely, saving both themselves and their companies time and money, all the while adapting the content to the medium, not the other way around.
My two writing gigs have influenced my attitudes on this topic. First I write for Rhombus. Until about a month ago, I had actually never even met another person who works for Rhombus (I met the editor, coincidentally, on the street while walking home one day). We communicate entirely by facebook message at Rhombus, and there is literally no physical infrastructure for the magazine.
Contrast that, however, with my experience at the Daily Herald. There, I go into a gigantic building everyday where I have a computer, a phone, a desk, a break room, etc. All that stuff costs someone money, but the thing is, I don't really need any of it. I have my own cell phone, which I can just as easily use (and often do), my own computer, and a chair and table at my house.
In other words, I could do at least as good a job reporting for the Daily Herald at home, at the library, in a cafe, etc., as I'm currently doing. Who knows, I might even do a better job because I'd have fewer distractions.
In reality, I enjoy the social aspect of going into the office. I like being around people to work. But if it means that the industry will eventually dry up, or that the number of writing jobs goes from many thousands to many dozens, I'd gladly sacrifice that one aspect of the job to have the others.
Ultimately, major news outlets will probably always need some physical office for their head editors and executives. They may also need to occasionally call in their reporters for meetings (though I can't imagine why video chatting wouldn't be sufficient). However, a small office with a single conference room ought to be enough, even for the biggest papers. If someone needs specific tools to do his or her job, go ahead buy that person a computer and the software too. The company would still be saving money on rent, electricity, phone, etc.
These measures probably wouldn't completely offset the loses the newspaper industry is suffering, but they would represent a (currently absent) proclivity to look for creative solutions to new media-related problems. After all, it's called "new media" because it's not the same old thing, and the same old payment model just isn't going to work. And, in the end, even if they didn't completely solve the problem, they'd help. A lot.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Broadcast Journalism is a Joke
If you have a Netflix subscription you may have noticed the recent ad on the envelop for CNN’s HLN. The ad features headshots of three women—Jane Velez-Mitchell, Nancy Grace, and Joy Behar—with information about their respective shows. As ads go, it’s an unremarkable bit of information that probably won’t prompt many Netflix users to tune into CNN.
What is remarkable, however, is that the ad it looks like it should be plugging a movie parody of broadcast journalism, rather than the real thing. Most obviously, all the women are wearing dramatic makeup and have huge hair. If style is admittedly a matter of personal taste, I’d at least expect news anchors to go with something that doesn’t look like a fashion disaster from 1995. If that wasn’t enough, the photos of the women have actually been heavily airbrushed and doctored. If there was a man in the midst of these pictures we could compare the doctoring between genders and perhaps come to a conclusion about the media’s biased portrayal of women. That isn’t the case, however, and instead the pictures look like glamour shots of washed up 1970’s porn stars.
Compounding the awful headshots is the ad’s general failure to establish a serious aesthetic through its design choices. For example, the bold, sans serif font along the top is a little too bold. It’s also too “tall” as a font and gives the impression that the words are begins screamed, rather than simply asserted. Likewise, the logo for Jane’s show, “Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell,” looks like its advertising NASCAR, not news. Nancy Grace and Joy Behar’s respective fonts aren’t any better and convey a “daytime talk show” aesthetic rather than an evening news program. As I look over the ad I’m finally struck by the fact that even the worst visual assignment I ever received as a teacher of rhetoric was more successful.
While the ad is annoying, the real problem is that it serves as a kind of diagnostic on the state of TV news. The programs it advertises begin at 7 PM and end at 10 PM; that’s primetime when CNN should have its highest ratings. Accordingly, it would make sense that CNN would air its most important, serious material during that time. Instead, I can only assume from this ad that CNN airs a lightweight combination of opinion editorializing and infotainment.
Consequently, culpability for this absurdly ineffective ad does not lie solely with the women it depicts nor the inept graphic designers who put it together. Instead, the entire profession of broadcast journalism should be blamed. The ad suggests that “news” really isn’t the focus of the news.
While that’s all fine (after all, networks do have to get ratings), it seems odd that TV news has continued its march toward entertainment when real journalism in newspapers, on the radio, or online, is literally collapsing all around us. Some of the country’s oldest and most venerable newspapers have folded this year, and there are tens of thousands fewer reporters now than before the recession. That means that there are fewer outlets for people to read legitimate journalism. If TV news like the kind on my Netflix envelop can be written off as a joke (which I believe it absolutely can), that means that there is simply less journalism out there and people are less informed.
Obviously the news world is changing right now, but it’s unfortunate that in that environment CNN is either incapable or unwilling to advertise serious reporting. There are many people in this country that would like to be informed about world events (and who need to be informed), but if this recent Netflix ad proves anything it’s that TV has completely failed as a part of the fourth estate.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Talk To Strangers
The Family Matters theme song opens with the line “it’s a rare condition, in this day and age, to read any good news, on the newspaper page.” Of course, it’s probably been rare to see good news in newspapers in any age, but that doesn’t make the song any less apropos for our time. More specifically however, I’m always surprised to see “news” that exists seemingly for the sole purpose of making people afraid of some commonplace thing. For example, I remember when my mom stopped letting us eat raw cookie dough because she read that the raw eggs could give us salmonella. A lot of the news I read online seems to work in similar ways. It makes us afraid of common foods, different people, normal behavior, and global pandemics (really, just look at the “Crime” or “Health sections on any news site for numerous examples). None of this news is fabricated; instead it finds a real problem and suggests that it might be a real big problem. (Jon recently discussed hitchhiking and how people become afraid of people, among other interesting points.)
While all these threats may be very important, the result of all this fear mongering “news” simply seems to be less trust. People suddenly have to avoid activities they enjoy and, even more disheartening, they avoid new people because those people may be drug addicts, "gang bangers," or mass murderers. As a result communities shrink and interactions become laced with suspicion. The pattern of fear is perpetuated as parents remove their children from social situations because they can’t trust other adults not to molest their kids.
I see this as a real problem, so maybe I’m guilty of doing the very thing I’m condemning by describing a situation and then raising alarm over it. The difference, I hope, is that there is a simple and rather pleasant solution to this problem: choose to trust. I think it’s possible to choose to believe that every person out there is actually a great person. It’s possible to assume that public places won’t make us sick. It’s possible to assume that every child who goes over to a friend’s house or gets on the internet won’t fall victim to a sexual predator.
In some circles, choosing to trust is already common. One example that comes to mind is couch surfing, which involves allowing total strangers into your home while they’re traveling. Depending on how it’s done the participants may know more or less about each other beforehand, but ultimately it requires that people simply believe that they won’t hurt each other. And in the end, they usually don’t. I experienced a similar situation recently when a band from Las Vegas offered to let my band stay at their house on an up coming trip. They didn’t know us and we very easily could be the kind of people who would rob them blind (or worse). Still, they chose to believe that that wouldn’t happen and the result was that we’ve all made new friends.
In the end, these examples can’t solve the world’s problems, but they do lead me to believe that fear and suspicion are choices that can be avoided. I also know that if everyone chose to trust everyone else all the time, there would be causalities. Someone would end up trusting the murderer or the sexual predator. Still, fear doesn't seem to provide much protection now, and, more importantly, the trade off is worth it. If we try to trust more we'll be happier and have more fulfilling experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)