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.

The article mentions that large news corporation conglomerants such as Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation have accused Google of “stealing content from them”, though Google maintains that “it helps publishers by bringing them new readers” and also mentioned the various technical measures that sites can take to limit which parts of its articles readers can view.

As a journalist, I embrace the technological advancement of multimedia because of how easily it can be accessed by readers as well as how it adds to the depth of a story. Some readers are very visual and may not even look at a story if it does not have a video or audio element to it; it centers around personal preference. I believe that convergence adds a sort of element to telling a story that investigative journalism has never seen before. Overall, I think that many people are much more connected to what is going on around them because of these technological innovations.

But there is no doubt that the journalism industry is in a time of change, not just in regards to mediums of information, but from a economic standpoint as well. Admittedly, the monetary condition of this profession is somewhat of a valid concern. However, the view of journalism as a business or “selling stories” is not something that I support. The purpose of journalism throughout history has been to inform the public; extreme connection to the corporate world has its dangers. I hope that in its future, news never turns into the sort of commodity that one “buys” in order to have access to it and that readers are never viewed as mere “consumers” of what is written.

GOOGLE’S ANSWER: “LIVING STORIES”

Today’s New York Times reports Google’s answer to corporate media’s complaints: the company has began an experiment, the “Living Stories” project, which has been assembled along with reporters, editors and web producers at the New York Times and the Washington Post. According to the article, all content on the site is sorted by subject in reverse chronological order, giving readers a taste of each article in a series.

I think this could prove to be a wonderful solution; Google seems to be effectively maintaining the balancing act of satisfying both readers and the preservation of the monetary condition of the industry. It should be interesting to see where the idea heads.

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.

I found an editorial written by John Kass (Chicago Tribune) that I believe encompasses my argument perfectly. Kass writes that although what is happening in Iran is a horrid atrocity, American involvement could possibly compromise our international relationships and national security: “Complicating all this is that Israel might attack, to knock down the growing Iranian nuclear capacity that threatens Israel. Such an attack might destabilize the Iranian regime, but it would certainly provide another anti-American rallying cry for radical Islamists throughout the world, at a time when Obama is reaching out to Muslim nations.”

What has happened in Iran in recent weeks has been abominable;  deaths, such as Neda Agha-Soltan, have occurred as the result of innocent Iranian citizens fighting for what is right. I fully support these citizens and the reasoning behind the riots; the Iranian elections were not fair, and civilians should be rioting. However, republicans say that the answer is for the United States to get involved and tell the Iranian government what to do. I’m not sure I agree with that. Obviously, the Iranian government is in the wrong, and the horrors that have befallen these innocent civilian rioters completely defies any sort of morality or rationality that a government should have in relation to its citizens. However, it seems that telling the Iranian government what to do would only complicate things. The United States seems to have somewhat of a reputation worldwide for arrogantly getting involved in business that isn’t ours. This only solidifies that belief.

I believe that as American citizens we are quite privileged to live in a country in which we are not slaughtered, beat, and jailed by our government for questioning what it does. Consequentially, we should feel a want to support these demonstrations and get involved with the cause. But the US government telling the Iranian government how to handle their affairs, I feel, is crossing the line. In a perfect world, yes, Obama could tell Iran how ridiculously immoral the treatment of their citizens has been and how dysfunctional their election process is; but we live in a world where Obama is held accountable for our own safety and must act accordingly.

While these small news groups have expanded their international coverage, many of their journalists and freelance writers have landed in sticky situations that, sometimes, the publication does not have the power to wiggle out of. However, large news corporations in the same situation have been able to use their “experience and leverage” as the article puts it, to protect their journalists. The article quotes Kevin Sites, a freelance journalist:
“There’s an impetus with any upstart news organization that you have to be bolder and you have to be more aggressive than other news organizations to get attention for your stories. That has to be admired. That also has a real inherent risk in it.”

These small news groups exemplify the shift to the future of journalism where journalists, both broadcast and print, are expected to do multiple technological tasks while covering a story; this enables the reader to further understand the topic through different visual and audio means. I myself am pursuing a career in journalism, and I’m already gearing up for numerous multimedia exposure I need to have in order to get a job after undergrad. I think this sort of expanded technological coverage is good, don’t get me wrong. In covering some stories, I think multimedia coverage is exigent. As a result, journalists are forced to become more interactive with the subject they are covering, sometimes putting them into dangerous situations, unfortunately (like Lee and Ling in North Korea). According to the story, in 2008 the Committee to Protect Journalists found that of 125 jailed journalists, at least 56 worked for online outlets and that 45 of the total were freelancers. This is a danger all journalists overseas suffer today, no matter who they’re working for. This article just examines how some get away with it more than others.

I think that small news organizations, such as Current TV, are necessary. They serve as independent groups that aren’t subject to the political and corporate ties of a large news organization. Unfortunately, they end up being the ones who suffer for trying to cover things that some large news corporations may not be. And purely because they have none of these corporate political backings? It seems unfair. I realize that the journalism industry has fallen into difficult monetary times, however, reporting for some publications has become a business; some only heavily cover what their audience wants to read and will pay for. This isn’t always what they SHOULD read, however. Small news groups, without this obligation, I think save the purpose of the profession. It’s just disappointing that because of their independence, their journalists are subject to more peril for merely doing the right thing.

At some points in Sotomayor’s speeches I find her speaking from a more open-minded point of view focused on compromise. For example, in a speech given at Princeton in 1996 she said, “I underscore that in saying this, I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures.” I agree with this.

However, in a response to Sandra Day O’Connor’s comment that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion”, Sotomayor said (at Seton Hall University law school in 2003): “I’m not so sure that I agree with the statement. I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Yes, it is true that a white man will have different life experiences than a Hispanic woman. However, saying that these experiences make one or the other more qualified, is quite frankly, ridiculous. Why should she assume that because her perspective may be different, her value in the judicial system is worth more? This sort of single-mindedness worries me. O’Connor, I believe, had it completely right. Above all, the Supreme Court should come together to rule on issues within our country, and not stand as a grouping of nine individuals in which we instill more “value” on some than others because of their race, ethnicity, gender, cultural background, ect. Yes, controversial cases have dissent among the justices because of differing opinions and backgrounds, but that is what makes the system fair; while each member may be different, the court serves as a sort of collective unit of wisdom. Wisdom itself is something that can be possessed by anyone; it is not something that is obtained by one culture over another, but rather, by acceptance. I would love to see the addition of a Hispanic woman to our Supreme Court, but I worry that her assumption of superiority over other members of the court demonstrates an example of disunity that should not be present within such a crucial area in our judicial system.

University of Chicago student starts “Men in Power” advocacy group

According to a recent Chicago Tribune story, University of Chicago student Steve Saltarelli recently founded a male advocacy group entitled “Men in Power”. The group was founded to celebrate male achievement while promoting entrance into the competitive workforce. The article also mentions how many members of the group see it as a necessity as a result of the job market shrinkage with the advent of more women reaching higher career positions. Saltarelli proposed the idea in a satirical column, but started the group after he received an overwhelmingly positive response. In this column, Saltarelli wrote, “Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP.”

While I believe that this group has the same right as any other gender or cultural group to assemble, its premise seems a bit blurry. It is true that in many male-dominated professions, women are now being offered more jobs in an effort to diversity the workplace, putting some men out of jobs. But “reverse sexism”? Really?

I am not at all advocating against merit. I don’t believe a woman should be hired instead a man merely because of her gender, paying no attention to his or her qualifications. But I find this group’s viewpoint a bit skewed. For example, Corporate America continues to be a male-dominated career field. According to CNN, only 15 of the current Fortune 500 company CEO’s are women. Certain fields, yes, are dominated by women. But similarly, many professions continue to be associated with men.

I support this group in that there are already many other advocacy groups which focus specifically on women or certain minority groups. Consequentially, yes, males have this same right to celebrate their role in society. However, I sometimes think that the presence of these groups (regardless of what race, ethnicity or gender that they focus on) can promote a feeling of segregation and isolation in society. American society has often been described as a sort of “melting pot” of cultures, in that various cultural backgrounds and beliefs coexist to mix together, culminating into a sort of multicultural national stew. Do we always have group ourselves with people exactly like ourselves? From the same socioeconomic backgrounds, with the same ideals, political leanings, ect.? Joining groups like this that promote these ideals can be positive and proactive. But I can’t help but be concerned as to how groups like this, especially with a name like “Men in power”, will promote single-mindedness.