Andrew's last

Well, here it is. The last one. It's hard to believe we're leaving tomorrow, right? I still don't think it will hit me until next week, when I wake up from one of my (many) naps. Yay, jetlag!

In so many ways, this month has been interesting. I agree with Amanda: I'm SO glad I took cross-cultural journalism down here. Of course, the location didn't hurt. But I had heard horror stories about this class. I thought, overall, our group held interesting, informed discussion. I think the course in Columbia could benefit from a similar seminar-style setup. From what I've heard, in J2000's current form, the course is too impersonal, too cold. Here, I felt I was part of the group; I felt engaged in the debate of the day. All around, nice job, folks! As with any course, the clash of differing perspectives made this "synthesis" possible. At times, I didn't agree with some of you. However, in the end, isn't this the point? Aren't we suppose to have our reason challenged? Aren't others supposed to question so we may begin to question ourselves? Interesting stuff ...

Let this final note serve as a public "thank you" to everyone. I had a blast. OK, so I didn't exactly have the world's toughest job, being the only guy amid all of you. But I enjoyed my position all the same. ;)

In all seriousness, I made friends who will last a lifetime. We shared a lot, ya know. It's only logical "Sydney" will occupy a special space in our minds. We will forever remember those mornings that came too early, those nights that didn't last long enough. All around, things turned out OK, right?

Cheers to us all. Safe travels and best wishes.

~Andrew Astleford
(See also: Andy, A-squared, The Tower, Lighthouse, "That guy with the different variations of funny" -- and my personal favorite, courtesy of Vinti -- Larry the Cucumber)

Andrew on Vinti's presentation

I'd like to write a response to Vinti's presentation...

I think the debate surrounding "Is blogging journalism?" is interesting. Yesterday, I enjoyed listening to everyone's take. The diversity of opinion about this topic goes to show how far blogging must go. At this point, it's still a rather undiscovered medium. It will constantly evolve. And accordingly, the established media's duty will be to adapt to society's ever-changing news consumption habits. Blogging, inevitably, will be a part of this solution.

However, I think if we get too caught up in surface-area analysis -- the question of whether one form is more relevant than the other -- the potential impact of each could be compromised. Why marginalize the strengths of both? Why not combine the positive attributes of blogging/podcasting, etc., with the time-tested methods of gathering and processing information? If the "mainstream media" can discover how to synthesize the strengths of traditional journalistic practices with new-age approaches, perhaps the industry will begin its journey toward self-retribution.

I invite everyone to take a look at the Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World's Web site. It's a marvelous setup. I'm surprised more newspapers haven't patterned themselves in this way. Granted, the Journal-World benefits from many factors to make its "synthesized Web site" a possibility -- the Journal-World is the only show in town; it's part of an umbrella that owns a majority of the area's media -- but what the paper's management has done with this, in my opinion, is visionary. The manner in which the Journal-World combines television material with its newspaper copy is brilliant. The manner in which it offers "Web-exclusive content" in a relevant way is also worthy of mention. And of course, you can find a blog to suite just about any interest ...

Therefore, I think more people can look toward this model of "synthesis" as a means to present media in the future. Rather than concerning ourselves with the question of whether blogging and journalism are mutually exclusive, the industry can perhaps benefit from drawing from the positive attributes of both to create a solution to the woes of today. Then, journalism can begin to create a useful, interesting template for a target audience it so desperately seeks to serve.

Andrew on women in sports journalism

Kudos to both Lauren and Jessica for their presentations today. Nice job!

I'd like to concentrate on Lauren's topic a little further, though. I thought the choice was interesting, because as a sports follower, who, inevitably, spends ample time watching ESPN, I have become conditioned to male dominance in this area.

Some view sports journalism as a "man's game," that women have no place among the Goliaths of our time, that testosterone is necessary for survival in the dark underworld of celebrity sport. I, myself, tend to discount this point of view. But some still don't ... it's a slow, arduous process.

As many of you pointed out, women are more likely to be pushed in front of the camera for their "Barbie appeal." Some are hired on looks and looks alone. Some have their abilities as quality, hard-working sports journalists completely ignored, at least by a vast majority of the target audience (i.e. young, beer-guzzling males).

At the risk of sounding sexist, there IS a market for sex appeal. Granted, it's a rather niche market, given that we currently live in such a PC world. But it's a market nonetheless ... there's no denying this.

Have any of you watched Fox Sports Net's "Best Damn Sports Show"? I dare to say Lisa Guerrero was hired for sex appeal. You might remember Guerrero. She was, among other things, a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Rams. She stared in a show called "Sunset Beach." And in 2006, she appeared topless in an issue of Playboy. Sex appeal? I'll let you decide ...

Don't get me wrong. There are fabulous female sports reporters out there. I have always admired Andrea Kramer. Leslie Visser, too. Both have become institutions for their respective outlets -- and deservedly so. But, in my opinion, (attractive) women in sports broadcast journalism will continue to be viewed with skepticism. Some will continue to question their true reason for being there. Good looks or true knowledge? Hard working or fast-track beneficiary?

Until the status quo changes, this will be the case for a long time.

Andrew on bloggers, etc.

OK, so I'll try to fit this in before we leave for the Powerhouse Museum. Let's see how it goes...

I enjoyed our discussion about the role of bloggers versus the institutional media today. I think it's naive of us, as "traditional" journalists, to assume blogs and other forms of alternative media aren't going to affect how we conduct our jobs. If anything, alternative outlets of information will dictate how we view a story. Subsequently, this will force us to approach our practices in a different, less established way. This will be a good thing, mind you. There's no need to oppose this shift in thinking, because such a shift will determine the direction in which journalism travels during the next 20-30 years. With so many differing perspectives injecting themselves into the analysis of life's daily struggle -- especially if we're talking about a headline-grabbing piece -- then change, and the way we view said change, is inevitable.

How can we, as the traditional media, continue to follow the path of straight objectivity, if others offer more interesting, humanistic (see personal) perspectives? How can we, as the traditional media, continue to hold dated notions that our audience will eventually come back ... once people get their fix of "subjective news"?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the opposite situation -- that once we lose people, they are gone forever -- is more likely the case.

As we have said in class, we can't afford to continue to practice the status quo. In my opinion, people will expect a more humanistic approach from the "mainstream media." With so many outlets from which the public to choose, it will become obligatory for the media to become more personal with its presentation of information. If this means becoming more niche-oriented in daily reporting, then so be it. The public, moreso than ever, has become selective with its consumption of information. The "mainstream media" -- whether it be from blogs or other forms of alternative presentations -- will have to cater to the demand for personalized news.

However, in my opinion, the human angle amid conflict, etc., will be of interest until humanity is no more. People will always have a craving for the personal connection within every story.

How does this situation relate to me? Why should I associate with the conflict and trials of the party affected?

It will the job of future journalists to articulate relevancy in a personable, yet affective manner to turn the public's attention to corporate-driven journalism amid the cacophony of the "private sector." Then, and only then, will we begin to regain the public's trust (if this is even a possibility), and more importantly, have a paycheck waiting for us at the end of the day.

Andrew on TexANG

Well, apparently I beat Amanda to the blog, too! Yea!

Jessica,

Wouldn't it be wonderful if newsrooms were more concerned with an accurate portrayal of a story rather than being fixated with the hunger to be the "first on the scene" or to "scoop" a rival? Wouldn't it be wonderful if newsrooms cared about credibility over competition, public concern over commercial image, truth over Nielsen ratings/circulation figures/readership surveys/market trends? Wouldn't it be wonderful if newsrooms became more "human" again?

Alas, from a purist perspective, this will never be the case. Journalism, as I've said before, is a commercial enterprise. (Sorry to be a broken record.) Therefore, in this capitalist system of ours, there are winners ... and there are most definitely losers. There are industry "stars" ... and there are minimum-wage mailroom peons. There are "friends" ... and there are cutthroat "enemies". There is a right way to conduct business ... and there is a wrong way. Any misstep along the way, and you risk losing your position in the pecking order of public awareness.

Unfortunately, for the CBS News team on the TexANG story, everyone fell victim to the pressures/joys journalists experience on a daily basis. It's part of who we are. It's a part of who we become. If you're serious about this business, you're naturally competitive. There is a hunger that goes along with crafting a story like TexANG. You want to taste the glory of greatness, to see your work praised among your peers. You want to taste your own slice of immortality, to know what it feels like to blaze a trail in the black forests of ignorance. And when this quest becomes all too consuming to contain in the innermost crevices of your conscience, the story becomes you. The story drives you. This is when you know things start to get serious. You follow the story's eccentricities -- every last one of them, until the journey for justice is exhausted (or postponed for a greater battle) -- often without explanation or the very need for one. This may sound strange, but you become so engrossed with every development's twist and turn, the boundaries of reason become blurred. Your ability to stop and say "Hey, wait a second, this doesn't seem right..." becomes weakened, because such caution could compromise your hunger. Such caution could compromise you. And during this most fragile of ethical tangos, truth -- whether we are mature enough to admit so or not -- becomes marginalized. It becomes something less immediate at the forefront of our minds. It becomes something less of a concern.

This is why, in my opinion, the CBS News team failed. They failed not because they were ulterior in their motives, not because they were biased or unfair. But because, at their core, they let the joys of journalism neutralize their ability to step back from the hunger. They let their "second nature" compromise their ability to question their rush to glory. In the end, the CBS News team failed not because they were subhuman of some sort or careless -- although they most certainly were. But this would be too shallow of an assessment...

Yes, in the end, the CBS News team failed, because they couldn't escape the story, they couldn't escape themselves. They couldn't step back from the chase. And this, when it was all said and done, cost people their jobs, their livelihoods. The pressures to produce cost everyone involved a piece of who they once were...

Andrew's post on media transparency

Vinti, while I agree with you that, inevitably, people will consume the kind of news they want, journalists could do a better job of explaining themselves to the public, if only to counter the media's inaccurate portrayal from conservative talkshow hosts and liberal spin doctors.

I think, as a whole, the industry does an anemic job of communicating the nuts and bolts of how something becomes news. That's where I think the "people's perceptions are off" argument becomes somewhat valid. That's where the industry becomes weakened.

Consider this: If a news organization dedicated time, even if it's only a little each month, to explanation of "behind the scenes" work -- including discussion about the reporter's information-gathering process and the debate that went along with the crafting of the story (both topics John Q. Public is largely clueless about) -- then perhaps the target audience would be more aware that we, as journalists, are often too occupied with trying to do our jobs than to have time to concern ourselves with whether we tailored our pespectives to a specific side of the political spectrum.

Sometimes, I become frustrated when people suggest the media is "biased", because this is a rather obvious, shallow statement. Of course the media is biased. We've mentioned this before. Every reporter, whether they chose to admit so or not, is shaped by his or her background. This will forever be the case. Journalism, by its nature, happens to attract people who want to "change the world." Therefore, such people, generally, will be more forward-thinking, in my opinion. Therefore, such people have a greater chance of being labeled with the "liberal" tag, even though this is an unfair assessment for the very professionals to whom I give the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps I'm naive in saying this, but I think journalists, as a whole, strive to be fair. I think, as a whole, journalists strive to be accurate. I think, as a whole, journalists don't "intentionally" slant their reporting to appease a certain viewpoint. Of course there are "extremes" (Rathergate, Jayson Blair, etc.), but it's not fair -- or intellectually accurate -- to allow unfortunate events to paint this topic with such a wide brush.

Credibility is a journalist's lone currency. If credibility becomes compromised, so does the industry. Once credibility is gone, journalism, as we know it, ceases to exist. Call me an idealist, but I tend to believe journalists can salvage their standing in the public's eye, as long as communication is improved. The future depends on it.

Here's a link to the Sydney Morning Herald's story on media ownership laws:

Story here.