A recent New York Times article discussed how Google has decided to close its “First Click Free” program, which allowed users to view portions of news sites without paying the usual subscription required to view articles. The company has now decided to limit users to five articles per day in an effort to preserve profits for large news corporations that are currently in harsh economic times.

This is not a new phenomenon; many other Web sites exist that provide free news to their viewers, making it hard for traditional profit-oriented news publications to stay competitive. The advent of online news has created questions for many publications that previously relied on monetary support of print newspaper subscribers. These customers, many of which rely on the up-to-date content of the Internet, seldom have the need for a daily subscription.

Read more…

I recently read in a Chicago Tribune article that the word “Unfriend” has been voted New Oxford American Dictionary’s 2009 Word of the Year. For the few of you that might be unaware of its definition, the term is used in social networking sites, such as Facebook, for the act of removing someone as a friend. Words such as this have become such a mainstream part of the English language that many have been added to renowned dictionaries across the globe. But is this sort of language abbreviation really a good thing?

The trend, I believe, does not just exist with MySpace and Facebook. Other sites, such as Twitter, also promote a sort of language abbreviation. Don’t get me wrong, I support Twitter and its use in our society. But think about it: one only has a 140 character limit in each post. We’re currently living in a society where abbreviated messages and to-the-point news is valued because of the speed of technology.

It is correct to view a dictionary as a tool for understanding active language. Many forms of slang have evolved from the Internet and social networking systems that have introduced a vast array of new vocabulary used in everyday life. The Oxford Dictionary, as well as many others, make it a point of adding new words to their lists all the time in order to keep the dictionary in sync with current language usage. In fact, Oxford contained as many as 301,100 entries in 2005. Many argue, shouldn’t the dictionary include made-up words? If one is unaware of the meaning of commonly used slang, shouldn’t he/she be able to look it up?

Yes. I do agree that the dictionary needs to act as a sort of accurate account of language use within today’s society. But voting a made-up word as Word of the Year? I feel that “unfriend”, along with many others, has become the slang form of what could be said in better English, and without much more effort. And for Oxford to honor this makes me question what the distinction will someday be between formal writing and casual speech. Do we really need to continue the trend of language abbreviation? I’m sure if one flipped open a dictionary, there exists an entire page of words that he/she didn’t even know existed, that simply haven’t been used because they’re “too long” or “too much effort”. But why should we use all the same words as everyone else and let these cool, less-known words die out?

It’s good that some parts of language are adjusting to the fast-paced world of online news and communication. As a journalist, I embrace this. And admittedly, dictionaries need to be up to date. However, I still think some old vocabulary words have their place and should be appreciated. And Oxford honoring “unfriend” seems a bit over the top.

The runner-up for Word of the Year was “sexting”. Classy, Oxford.

Much has been said about healthcare in the last few months. It seems there is nothing more to talk about. I mean come one we’re headed towards National Socialism or Communism (interesting how one policy can lead to wildly divergent political outcomes eh?), we’re going to kill grandma, we’re going to ration healthcare, we’re going to take healthcare decisions out of the hands of patients and put it in the hands of bureaucrats (a dramatic shift, no doubt, from my insurance company denying any and every treatment I’ve ever needed until I called in to bust some balls). Well this post is about absolutely none of those things, so I’d appreciate it if we could avoid such silliness.

No, this post is about the costs to our healthcare that arise from our social isolationism. Okay, so the title is a bit misleading, it says individualism, but I tend to not see a dramatic difference. Individualism encourages us to look to no one but ourselves for our necessities, which when taken to its logical endpoint, means we become more isolated. Semantics aside, my argument is pretty simple: our isolationism is costing us in our healthcare spending – and big time. Read more…

None of my 9am classes never really leave me feeling engaged or excited to learn.  That’s why much of the time I have my head down after walking out of lecture, and am lucky enough to see some of the many chalk and stencil markings that line the quad.

I learn something new each day-  today I learned that “ROTC discriminates against gays”.  (Not something I would doubt)

Read more…

Governor Quinn has named four new members to the BoT, all of whom are U of I alumni.

The new members are:

1. Former Springfield Mayor Karen Hasara
2. Timothy Koritz, a staff anesthesiologist at Rockford Memorial Hospital
3. Pamela Strobel, retired executive vice president and chief administrative office of Exelon
4. Carlos Tortolero, the president of the National Museum of Mexican Art.