The Future of Journalism in One Word

I finished up my little project for this class. And thanks to all who helped out.

Here's what came of it:


In case you don't remember, the question was to describe the future of journalism in one word. I wouldn't mind some feedback if you have the time.

On a side note, I hope you all are surviving finals week.

How much does our need for speed transfer?

So I was looking (or at least trying to look) through GQ earlier and getting incredibly annoyed by the fact that I couldn't find the table of contents. I think it literally took me like a minute to flip back and forth through that odyssey of ads. (There are 36 pages of ads to search through before finally reaching the table of contents. I just counted.) I know a minute doesn't sound like much, but you're all of the same impatient, information-hungry generation as me, so you know how that seems like forever.

Then I remembered that post on kottke about Google's new, free, faster DNS service. Why are they putting out a free DNS service? Because apparently speed matters so much, that slowing down the amount of time it takes for the search page to load from .4 to .9 seconds caused a 20% drop in traffic. For half a second. That's nuts!

But it made me wonder if the same thing stands for magazines (pun not intended). When I'm waiting in the check-out counter, I browse the magazines, and if they look interesting, sometimes I buy one (though it has to look pretty good to justify $5--yes, I know that is a blasphemous thing to say in this class). I think if I were the type of person to browse GQ in the checkout line, and it took me that long to even find the table of contents, I would give up. If half the time I flip open the magazine, I get someone selling me $100 perfume (or cologne) instead of some actual content, I say to hell with it and start browsing the candy instead.

Just sayin.

Part of my final project

As part of my final project for this class, I could really use your help. I just needed you to send me with a one word response to describe the future of journalism. If you could do that, I would appreciate it. Your response will be made public, but it won't be associated with your name. E-mail your one-word responses to jayhuerbin AT gmail DOT com. So, yeah, just send me your feelings on the future of journalism. One word and we're good.

More great stuff from Clay Shirky

Remember that Clay Shirky piece we read earlier this semester about the future of newspapers?

Well, he was interviewed for an 8-minute segment about the future of journalism and what he thinks media might look like. The interview was done by Leonard Witt at Sustainable Journalism. You can visit the SJ site or my blog to watch the video. It's a really good video and Shirky is very well-spoken.

Even Wired Magazine gets in on the blog fun.

Randomly bumbling around today I found myself at the how-to wiki on Wired.com. Get what they have?

How to start a blog:

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Start_a_Blog

pretty entertaining.

What the balls

My friend Sam showed me this blog:

Style Rookie

Basically, it's a fashion blog run by a 13-year old.  Her fashion is questionable, though I'm not partial to haute couture unless donned by Lady GaGa or created by Luxirare (check this blog out too and pine for her lifestyle with me), but the content is secondary to my reason for bringing it up.  This girl is 13-years old. She was born in 1996, and she runs a pretty tight blog.  She has a solid, developed voice, which I find charming but I can see other people thinking it's obnoxious, and she updates regularly with a buttload of material. Beyond even that, each of her blog posts recently has collected over 100 comments.  And she's 13.  What the fuck was I doing when I was 13?  I was writing my own web code and designing websites and maintained a blog too, but at most I got maybe 30-some-odd comments, which is actually impressive because I was egocentrically writing about my completely uninteresting life as a 13-year old and should have gotten less than 0 comments if possible. 

My point is that kids are running wildly successful blogs in terms of readership. This can be an indication of the learning curve in the information age, the future of publishing resting in the hands of the youth, the sign of things to come from our children, etc etc, but what this says to me is, "Well, if a 13-year old can do it, why can't I?"  Think of how much more you know now than when you were 13.  Think of how refined your opinions are and how you can intellectually defend them now. Yeah, maybe this girl is a fashion savant, but still: if 13-year olds are running successful blogs, why can't we?

Future of the Net

Just found this blog post predicting the major changes to the Interweb over the next year.

Rupert Murdoch & Google are Cracking Down

Hey all,

Just came across this article on the BBC: Google to limit free news access

"Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced."

At first I was wondering if this only applies in the UK, but then I found this similar article in the WSJ, and realized the new policy is universal.

Sounds like a pretty fair idea to me. Then again, I'm not currently working on a research paper that requires me to find some specific WSJ article from sometime within the past 3 months (or some such situation that would likely involve clicking more than 5 articles). But even if I was, despite being horribly frustrated, I think I'd still objectively understand the reasoning behind the limitations. Ah, free-dom is so hard to let go of once one has become accustomed to it...

PS Maureen, I bet your dad would be interested in reading this.

blogging for success, even when you're homeless

A few months ago while reading ELLE I came across this letter to E. Jean, the magazine's advice columnist:

Dear E. Jean: I’m currently homeless and living in a Wal-Mart parking lot. I’m educated, I have never done drugs, and I am not mentally ill. I have a strong employment history and am a career executive assistant. The instability sucks, but I’m rocking it as best as I can. Recently I stumbled across a job notice (a reality show casting call for executive assistants) and was intrigued enough to apply. It was a shot in the dark, and I assumed I’d never hear back. Surprise! I was called in this week! And I promptly bombed it. When I found out who was involved in the show I got kind of starstruck and completely froze up. My usual personality did not radiate. My question: How does one get another shot when one screws up a job interview? Homeless, but Not Hopeless

Her reply:

Miss homeless, my dear: You don’t “get” another shot. You take it. Wear the new suit you get from Dress for Success (the fantastic organization that provides interview suits and career development guidance to lowincome women, Dressforsuccess.org), find a company, a store, a business you admire, and show up ready to work. When you speak with the manager, don’t ask for a job. Simply introduce yourself, tell her why her company is brilliant, and give her three ways you can help her succeed. Follow up with a phone call, plus a visit the following week.

Of course, the cleverest way to land a good job (and get an apartment) is to already have a good job/internship/volunteer position. This strategy permits you to impress the interviewers with the superhuman passion you have for your current projects.

This is what you did with your letter: You knocked me out with your courage and spirit. I am therefore, Miss Not Hopeless, offering you a four-month internship. Of course it’s the most hideously humdrum internship in America. You’ll be stuck with the tedious job of organizing research for my book, transcribing interviews, and analyzing data from 1,800,000 pages (not a misprint) of a college sex survey I did on Facebook. I looked you up and discovered you’re on the West Coast and that you write a highly entertaining blog. You possess a brain and access to a computer. Excellent! If you accept this internship, you’ll telecommute to my East Coast mountain office one hour a day, six days a week. At the end of the four months, if you don’t have a job and an awesome place to live, I will become YOUR intern.

My thoughts at the time were less than eloquent: Holy shit.  This girl just got an internship with ELLE.  All because she wrote a letter to an advice columnist.  And, apparently, was entertaining enough of a writer on a blog.  Can that happen?

Apparently, it can.  Read the blog: the Girls Guide to Homelessness. I'd suggest looking specifically at the posts she made before she landed the internship at ELLE (before August).  She has a great, personable tone.  Apparently she's living in a shitty trailer now, which is eons better than living in a shitty parking lot.

TV cowers under the might of the Internet too

I know this class is more about print, but I've found myself wondering how TV and film are faring in relation to the internet (what with Netflix, illegal downloading, etc.) Well I just came across an article posted yesterday at the NYTimes about GE planning to sell NBC to Comcast (Comcast? Really?) and it cites this reason:

Although the News Corporation, the conglomerate controlled by Rupert Murdoch, considered making an offer, Comcast was the lone serious suitor, a testament to the uncertain future of mainstream media, as the Internet has fractured audiences and few viable business models have emerged for the distribution of content online.

Just another person parroting what we've said 400 billion times in class, I know, but at least from my experience, TV has been thought of as a "safer" industry than print (this one time an older guy, an alumnus of Pitt, said, when I told him I was a writing major, "Welp, hope you're thinking to get into TV!")

The article also says NBC's ratings are last place in primetime. What? The Office and 30 Rock are the only two prime time shows I watch right now. Apparently having two Emmy-winning comedies doesn't mean jack-shit:

In a risky move, Jeffrey Zucker, the head of NBC Universal, moved Mr. Leno into the 10 p.m. slot, clearing the way for Conan O’Brien at 11:30 and radically remaking prime time.
But so far the move has only produced lackluster ratings and a poor lead-in to local news, further exacerbating NBC’s problems in prime time. The move has also become emblematic of network television’s struggle to re-imagine itself at a time of declining ad revenues and online competition.

Sort of funny, but when I first moved into my apartment I decided I only wanted internet because I can do without TV (thanks to Hulu and Netflix) and landlines are worthless. And the Comcast website said it would be 20 bucks a month. But then the lovely Comcast lady goes, "Oh, well, internet by itself is $69.99, BUT you can get this awesome splendiferous package with digital cable for only $74.99!!!!!!!!!" So I said, "Okay," but thought, "Eff you Comcast and your overpriced bullshit. Why am I paying you anyway, you annoying middleman? Shouldn't I be paying the people who actually make the content?"

So I guess now I am. Kind of.

In Defense of Murdoch

Hey all,

Maureen sent the following things to me and, because of tech difficulties, asked if I would post them on the class blog. Then I had even more tech difficulties and was unable to. But now it's all good once again. - Joel

First, a note from Maureen, which includes a note from her dad, to whom she sent the Jeff Jarvis article in which he criticized Murdoch:

So prompted by the discussion that we had in class about Rupert Murdoch,
I decided to ask my Dad's opinion on the subject, since he works for the
New York Post. I sent him the article by Jarvis and here's what he had
to say:

"It makes sense for Murdoch, and others, to keep their news content off
Google and other sites that collect and distribute proprietary content
without compensating the producer, because the websites like ours
are struggling to make money. What Google is doing is very much like
what Limewire and similar music file-sharers did: they took other
people's music without permission and gave it away, which infringed on
the rightful owners - the bands, the publishers - ability to sell their
work to paying customers.

The internet is a dicey marketplace. People who sell tangible products,
like amazon, can make money. Pornographers make lots of money. But news
sites, who have been giving their content away in an attempt to attract
advertisers, have not been profitable. Murdoch's plan is to charge a
subscription fee for a comprehensive News Corp web site that would
include content from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The
Times and Sunday Times of London, Fox News, and all the other News Corp
products. But, he can't do that if people can go to Google, for example,
and access for free the content he spends billions of dollars to
produce.

The is not old-fashioned thinking. This is the direction internet
publishing is taking today. If internet publishers cannot find a
business model that allows them to make money, they will stop putting
their info on the net."

Then my response:

Hey Maureen,

That's excellent that your dad responded to Jarvis's article. Please thank him for his response, which is really thoughtful. A lot of people would completely agree with him, and in many ways I do, too. The problem is that, now that readers have become accustomed to getting stuff for free online, there's a lot of resistance built up to the idea of suddenly having to pay for it. The strategy works for Murdoch at the WSJ, because subscribers are willing to pay for authority they feel only the Journal provides. Harder with other news sites, though, to get readers to be willing to pay for what they deem to be "just the day's news." The Post has its own voice and authority, obviously, but even when the New York Times tried to put a handful of their marquee columnists behind a pay wall, readers revolted, and people found ways to make the columns available on other sites anyway.

He's completely right that what's happening at Google is the print analogue to music file-sharing, and so there are probably some lessons to be learned there. One of them is that the corporate music industry is drastically smaller now than it was ten years ago, and individual bands and small labels are once again making money by touring—essentially giving their music away online and using that as a way to attract listeners to tours, rather than touring to get listeners to buy albums, which is a complete reversal of the model.

As Clay Shirky said, right now print is in the middle of change, we're at the moment of the printing press, which means we can see what's being lost but we can't yet see what the new landscape will look like. It may be that Murdoch is right, that NewsCorp is, collectively, authoritative enough that readers will pay to get through a door that allows them access to all its brands. Recent history suggests otherwise, though--that readers don't want to pay and that someone will find a way to make that info, or the most desired portions of it, available for free anyway.

It's a brutal time to be in publishing, though someone is going to figure out how to make money off Internet journalism. It just might not be all the same old players. (Which isn't to say that I think Murdoch is going broke any time soon; just that my instinct--which is certainly no more informed than your dad's--is that pretending the Internet isn't there is probably not the path, though maybe NewsCorp readers are loyal enough that it will work. As with all of these questions, who knows?)

Then this from Maureen:

Maureen: I found something on Gawker that talks about the Murdoch pay wall. They
actually agree with it.
http://gawker.com/5411780/the-coming-search-engine-media-wars

Trouble in the Blogosphere

Okay.  I'm ready to give up.

People i've been trying really trying to post comments on all your blogs this morning.  I've typed them four... five... even six times.  Jay - I really wanted to comment on that internet designed swiss paper, and Matt I really really really wanted to discuss genres with you.  Each time I click post it refreshes the page to... nothing, at leaset not my comments.

I'm going to blogger.com logging in with my gmail account, going to your blogs from my home page, typing the comments, and then hitting 'post'

Is there some secret I missed?  I'm going to contact Google and see if there is something wrong with my account...

Any helpful hints or tricks out there?

Hypermagic Headphase - Worth a few minutes of your time

I used to play music with a guy named Jeremy.   A fellow WPTS DJ, i'll credit him with pushing my interest in folk and country.  He graduated and moved back to central pennsylvania, but I still follow his blog.

Worth checking out, and certainly entertaining.  Rants, raves, music, books, films


http://headphase.blogspot.com/

-Ben C.

A print paper that looks like an online paper

A few days ago, I decided to start up my own blog on journalism today and the effects of new media. I'm having fun with it and already learning a ton.

With that, I found a story from a Swiss paper that was looking to redesign their paper. One of the five groups was Information Architects, who streamlined the paper to look a lot like the print paper.


The company, iA, wasn't awarded the redesign, but they had two "controversial" ideas in their pitch:

1. Blue words. These words are meant to be scanned easily, so somebody could read the front page in 20 seconds. If somebody wanted to learn more about the story, they could type the blue words into the paper’s website search function and get more information. “Links in print obviously doesn’t mean that you can click it, it means linking the paper to the online edition.”

2. Reader comments. Next to a story that appears in print is a reader’s comment that appeared online. The goal is to further the connection between writer and reader.

If you check out my blog post, you can read a little more about it and six of their main pitches to the Swiss paper (as well as a link to iA's post about their redesign). It's a really cool read, especially if you've ever worked in layout with a paper or magazine.

And it makes you think, isn't it time for newspapers to start catering the "user"?

Esquire infuses print magazine with interactive media

So I was in the library today and happened to pick up the current issue of Esquire sitting on one of the coffee tables between reading chairs on the first floor. The cover was an image of Robert Downey Jr., legs spread, hands pointing to a mysterious box between his feet. On his left was the headline: "WTF?! A living, breathing, moving, talking magazine? For instructions on how to use that thing Downey's sitting on, see pg. 21 and visit esquire.com/ar."

I promptly followed both sets of directions, and upon turning to the aforementioned page, a quick article described the strides Esquire is taking to "Augment" their rag. "It's the gateway to experiencing a magazine - this magazine - in an entirely new way" says the article. Author David Granger describes the new technology of "augmented reality" to "take the experience of Esquire into a new realm - a little world that comes to life in the space between this magazine and your computer screen."

So I tried it out.

The website directed me to download a program unique to Esquire that utilizes the webcam on your computer to recognize the odd, pixelated box that seemingly opens up brand new horizons. After five minutes of downloading I was underway. Program open and symbol presented to my Macbook iSight, Mr. Downey Jr. pops up and begins to explain, in a most Downey-esque fashion, what I have just unlocked. He then prompts a quick trailer for his upcoming Sherlock Holmes film.

A further article in Esquire explains that there are other symbols in other articles that will prompt further "augmented" bits of reality. There is even a Lexus ad containing a indecipherable (by the naked-eye) pixel-box. I will neglect to give away all the secrets of this digital existence and urge you to seek out the truths that lay locked away in the box that Downey holds between his legs.

Shit My Dad Says

Here's a link to an article on PasteMagazine.com about Shit My Dad Says and the book and TV deals he got. Maybe the future's not so bleak. Or maybe we just need our dads to hurry up and get senile and ornery so we can exploit them for material.

My favorite from his Twitter feed:

"A mule kicked Uncle Bob once. Broke his ribs. He punched it in the face.. My point? You have an ingrown fucking toenail. Stop bitching."

Article of Blogging Interest

Scientist announces that she is call girl and blogger Belle de Jour
Paul Gallagher
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 November 2009 01.51 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/15/belle-de-jour-blogger-prostitute

Relevant Film

Wondering if anyone has seen the film Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, directed by Frank Capra. (1939) Capra also did Its a Wonderful Life. Anyways, its a great film and it highlights the importance of print news... in 1939.

Yinz Luv ... Jim Shearer

I first put this together for my blog, but I posted it here because it's relevant to our class in some sense.


For those of you who have checked out my blog in the past will know I'm a big fan of the low-budget, no-budget Yinz Luv Da Stillers web show. I'm also gaining a lot of respect for Jim Shearer, the creator of the show. So much so that I wanted to write a feature story on him for the Post-Gazette. Unfortunately, the editors there didn't show interest (because, I think, they don't get the importance of the revolution going on online). So instead, I asked him to do a Q&A session with me regarding the world of web shows and web journalism in general.

Jim is 34 yars old, grew up in Pittsburgh, attended Shaler Area High School, and now lives with his wife in New York City. His day job is with VH1 hosting Top 20 Video Countdown. He started Yinz Luv 'Da Guins during the 2008 playoffs and had so much fun doing it, he started Yinz Luv 'Da Stillers when their season kicked off later in the year. He has been working in television since 2001 when he started with MTV, and his dream is to come back to Pittsburgh if he had the opportunity to do a show here.

I got hooked on YLDS when I was in Iraq and couldn't catch all the games because of the time difference. So, onto the Q&A:

Q: Most journalistic reporters are not allowed to be “fans” of the team they cover. Your web show allows you the freedom to also be a fan. How would YLDS be different if you had to remain “objective”?

A: I don't think YLDS could exist if I had to remain objective. The easiest thing about doing YLDS every week is that there is always a good guy and a bad guy, a protagonist and an antagonist. The story curve is already written for me. The show takes a Pittsburgh fan's perspective, instead of an x's and o's approach, and as a Pittsburgh fan I can only be so objective to the opposing team.


Q: You’ve already done a two-part episode interview with Jack Ham for your show. What has that interview taught you about the direction of your show? Are there any other ambitions or projects you would like to take on?

A: I would love to interview more Steelers and people associated with the team (beat writers, training staff, ex-Steelers, dedicated fans, etc.), but living in New York makes that very difficult. If I could ever find my way back to Pittsburgh, you'd find more episodes like the one with Jack Ham--instead of me just sitting in my bedroom all the time. As for ambitions, my main is goal to to eventually find some type of media work in Pittsburgh; the reason I started the series in the first place.


Q: What motivated you to record and put together this weekly web-show in the first place?

A: Oops, looks like I already answered this question. After my contract ended with MTV I began looking for work in Pittsburgh. The consensus was I didn't have enough on-air sports experience (although I had interviewed a slew of athletes and worked on many a sports show while at MTV). I started the Yinz Luv series to create a make-shift sports reel and to gain the sports experience that I apparently lacked for the Pittsburgh market.

Q: You also have a career on actual television and experience with both VH1 and MTV. How is the production of YLDS different from your television work?

A: Instead of working with a team of many people, it's just me. Also, the equipment I use isn't nearly as expensive as the stuff we use on VH1. My eight years of professional production experience has helped me out a ton though. Conversely, Yinz Luv has helped me on the professional side of things. Since YLDS doesn't have a budget for a teleprompter (obviously), I'll memorize the script in my head, a technique that has helped me out on many a VH1 Top 20 shoot.


Q: If somebody approached you and said, we want to pay you and take YLDS to television, and they offered you a half-hour weekly show, what would you do to make the show fill that half hour?

A: Oooh, that would be the dream. Believe it or not, content-wise it might be easier to do a 22-minute show (can't forget about those commercials) than a 10-minute YouTube show. There's a lot of stuff I end up cutting out for time constraints. With highlights, the gratuitous comedy skit, analysis, the occasional song parody, and interviews, I'd have no problem piecing together an awesome half-hour weekly show.


Q: What opportunities has the world of the web provided you in show production that regular media could not allow you?

A: An audience and not having a chain of command saying "no" to me for whatever reason.

Q: Do you ever run into people who recognize you from YLDS but have no clue you’ve ever been on regular television?

A: It's funny, I've been on VH1 for nearly a year now, was on MTV and MTV2 for six years, and every time I'm noticed out in public, it's for YLDG and YLDS. I don't even get a monstrous amount of views, so it's odd that I'm noticed more for a low budget web-show I run out of my bedroom.


Q: How is your television fanbase different from your web shows fanbase?

A: On YLDS and YLDG it feels like I'm part of the team, part of one big Pittsburgh family. On TV, it's a crap shoot. People will like or hate me depending on my music tastes, how my hair looks, or how well I did when interviewing their favorite artist.

Q: How do you push yourself to record a show after a Steelers loss?

A: I try to make a loss as entertaining as possible, and try to make the next game feel as hopeful as possible.


Q: Do you have any crazy pre-game rituals?

A: Whenever there's a big Steelers or Penguins game, I'll make a Roethlisweiner sandwich (smoked sausage, onions, tomatoes, hot mustard, saurkraut, salt-and-pepper). The Steelers and Pens have never lost when I made them; that's why I don't press my luck and eat them before every game.


Q: You have a degree in Journalism from Waynesburg College, so I’m sure you’ve noticed how, because of blogging and the web, many of the news industries are dying out or are forced to strategize new ways of delivering their information. Do you envision television shows ever having to face that sort of crisis in the future? Do you ever feel like YLDS is ahead of the curve in that sense (having established a web base)?

A: We're in such a weird place right now. I think, eventually, TV and the web will mold/evolve into one entity. When I was younger we had 13 television channels, then 50, now I have well over a thousand. Think of all the blogs and web-shows on the internet, there's the same number of eyes with a gazillion more outlets to choose from. Although it'll be easier to reach niche audiences, it's going to be tougher to reach the mass audience. Because everything is becoming so scattered, media professionals are going to have to know how to do it all, so in that respect, I may be a wee bit ahead of the curve, since I'm an on-air host, who can produce, write, shoot, direct, and edit.


Q: You’ve said (in a Pittsburgh City Paper interview) that the local sports media are sort of “missing the big picture” when it comes to sports shows. What is that “big picture” in your mind?

A: Whenever I've heard back from the Pittsburgh sports market, it's always comments like, "We could never do a skit with copyright material." The "big picture" is that I can handle myself in front of and behind a camera, fully capable of hosting any type of sports program coming out of Pittsburgh. Half of the stuff I do on YLDS couldn't fly on TV, I realize that, but I wish someone would say, "Eight years of national TV experience, three years of making sports web-shows in his bedroom, this guy's got more than enough professional tools to work on-air in the 'burgh."

Pittsburgh Bloggers - BlogFest

Check out opinyinz for more information and Pittsburgh Bloggers for even more information, but the gist is that this site is a congregate of all types of blogs with Pittsburgh authors as the main thread. The blogs don't even have to be about Pittsburgh - simply Pittsburghers blogging. The event (BlogFest) is a meet-n-greet for all the bloggers and blogger enthusiasts to see what's going on in the community. Learn some tips, offer a few that you have learned as an amateur blogger, or get some drinks at Finnegan's Wake if you're in need of some social lubrication to get the gears turning.

ALSO: Submit your blog to the site so they can include you in the "New Blogs" section to get a headline and attract some traffic. The requirements seem pretty broad: blogger fulfills the need for an RSS/ATOM feed and all of you being students residing in Pittsburgh fulfill the residence requirement - there, you're in. Just fill out the form and you're golden (::knocks on wood::).

"The Reconstruction of American Journalism"

I don't no if anybody will have time to read through this before class, but if you can at least give it a good skim:

"The Reconstruction of American Journalism"

I found this link on the TPN page as I was going over it today. It touches upon a lot of the issues pertinent to what we are currently discussing and attempting to collectively organize. The suggestions at the end of the article as to how to fund journalism in the future are particularly worth discussing in class.

So it looks like the Post Gazette reporter arrested during the G-20 got off. Let's hope over students can say the same...

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09287/1005358-100.stm

Personal Fallout Over Andrew Sullivan's Address

This relates to class, but not the G20. Seriously, if anyone doesn't think it belongs on this blog, let me know somehow and I'll take it off.

As I mentioned in class, I shared a link to Andrew Sullivan's article with my father on his facebook wall. Today I had an emotionally agitating conversation about it. The other person involved is my father's, best friend's, son. All three of his friend's sons served in Iraq and my dad sent them a lot of mail and support while they were there. I've grown up knowing them too, although all of the sons are several years older than I am, so we haven't had much in common. Still, I see the man I'm debating with several times a year, which is why I was very surprised that this escalated so quickly.

I think the stakes were high on both sides of the argument, and I admit that my first response to his post was a bit inflammatory. Here it is, I've only used his initials and resisted the temptation to edit my typos:

Ellen (to my father)
"This article is written by a conservative journalist who (I think) very
fairly evaluates the Bush administration's use of torture and urges the
former president to take some sort of action.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/bush-torture"

C.B.
"President Bush,
You don't know me, so I'll appologize for the personal tone of this letter.
I voted for you in 2004, and I'm damn proud of it. I didn't agree with all of your domestic policies, in fact, some of them piss me off, but you were spot on in your foreign policy. I respect the hell out of you for your backbone, and I wish our current president had one just like yours. I understand the need to kill those that would kill us, before they kill us. I know that you had intelligence that said that Iraq had WMDs, and that you acted in good faith. I also understand that Saddam Hussein was one ruthless mofo who killed many thousands of his own people with chemical weapons, and tortured countless others in ways that would make water-boarding look like pattycake. But no worries Mr. President, I'm sure the American people will one day grow up and stop trying to burn you for doing what you thought (and I agree with you) was right.

Thanks, and God Bless"

Ellen
"'I'm sure the American people will grow up and stop trying to burn you for doing what you thought was right.'"

It's pretty easy to state a personal opinion. It's harder to make a reasoned argument based on specific evidence from many first hand sources and multiple definitions of torture, including ones that president Bush has stated that he subscribes to.

I don't know if you actually read the whole article, but I would care more about your opinion if you had some convincing reasons why Saddam, killing and torturing Iraqis is somehow worse than Bush killing and torturing Iraqis."

C.B.
"My published opinions are always based on a degree of factual knowledge, and usually firsthand at that. (Can I help it if MSNBC doesn't cover it?) Whereas you have cut and pasted a link, I have written of my own violation, which lends itself to my argument being the more considered. I have no desire to banty words with such an impertinent and heavily opinionated young Lady such as yourself. My original letter to Pres. Bush was posted for the benefit of your esteemed father, as 'evidenced' by it being on his page, because, as I'm sure you'll agree, it is always better to present two sides of an argument, rather than one.
I'm sure you will forgive me for my dismissive tone.
Best regards,
[see above]"

Ellen
"First of all, I do appreciate your service to your country and respect your decision to follow what you believed to be right, and to stand by it. However, I don't think that gives you a monopoly on the truth of the situation. The link I posted includes the testimony of several soldiers who served in Iraq and probably had similar experiences to yours, but came to different conclusions as humans are apt to do in any situation.

I never expressed any opinion on the topic of torture, the war or anything other than what constitutes a valid argument. I was sharing an article that I found to be interesting with my father, so that we could discuss it rather than yelling at each other. Granted my tone truthfully betrayed my shock at your statement.

Of course anything posted in a public forum is open to criticism, so we both have that right. I'm surprised and offended to hear you calling me "an impertinent and heavily opinionated young lady" when you yourself have expressed an extremely controversial opinion that human rights violations are justified as a matter of national security and the people making those calls are above responsibility. The "young lady" is extremely cutting, and, as I'm sure you intended it to be (I withhold my forgiveness), extremely dismissive."

C.B.
"Very well. I appreciate your commitment to your argument."

END

That got really mean, very quickly. And though I stand by what I said, I feel kind of sick about it all. The worst part is, what happens when I run into this guy again? Without facebook we would have gone our whole lives never caring or giving a second thought to the other's politics. Even if we both had very vocal views online, the chance of our paths intersecting would still be slim. Through social networking (and I'm not even friends with C.B. on facebook) we now have an extremely antagonistic, public relationship that can be viewed by all of our family and friends.

A Different Perspective

I thought I'd offer a different perspective on the Oakland events during the G-20. I saw this posted on facebook on Monday, September 28 by one of my facebook friends and couldn't help but be convinced by it. I personally went home during the G-20. I know Pitt decided not to close the University, but I made the decision that I would rather avoid the situation entirely. My friend that posted this decided to stay. He did not get arrested or teargassed or anything. He wrote that:

I was on campus early in the evening. When I heard the message along the lines
of "This has been deemed an unlawful gathering. If you do not clear the area you
may be subject to police force which may include gas, arrest, etc..." being
blared from an armored police van, I returned to my apartment and stayed there
all night. If you wanted to be outside in such a dangerous and confusing
situation, then it was your own responsibility for assessing the risks at which
you put yourself. Was I robbed of my right to freely roam campus that night? Yes.
Was it the police? No. It was the eruption of violence and disobedience from the
protesters.

Below is his facebook post. It received only two "likes" and 8 comments, several which argued against him. My guess is most of you won't agree with it, but like I said, I wanted to offer a different perspective on the whole event.

There has been a lot of buzz going around Pitt, Pittsburgh, and, sadly, the
entire country, about the police reaction to the "protests" this weekend. I am
absolutely sick of hearing about this nonsense, and I wish that people would
just take a deep breath and use their heads for once in their life.First of all,
the assembly was declared unlawful. Is the word "unlawful" unclear to anybody
else? Because it is perfectly clear to me. Unlawful - (adj.): NOT lawful:
illegal. You have the constitutional right to LAWFULLY assemble and petition our
government. Who decides if an assembly is lawful? YOU DO NOT. The police
declared the assembly to be unlawful. Meaning that if you remained in the group,
you are now breaking the law. What about this is difficult to understand?

Furthermore, WHAT WAS the POINT? At one point in the night, the crowd
just started chanting "We, the people, have the right to assemble." There was no
point. This disgusts me. Our forefathers gave us the right to assemble for what
purpose? Thats right, to get shit done. If our government decides to make a law
that 90% of the American population disagrees with, we have been given the
PRIVILEDGE to assemble and fight for our cause. THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE SHOULD NOT BE ABUSED TO PROVE A POINT. NONE of your rights should be abused to prove some point about how free you are. Your constitutional rights were created to ensure that you can live a life where you are able to achieve your goals and fulfil your dreams. The freedom of speech was NOT granted to you so that you can CLEARLY flaunt your rights just to cause unecessary controversy. Everyone
participating in this weekend's riots is, in my eyes, anti-patriotic. You have
taken what made this country a peaceful and amazing place to live, and used
those rights to purposely create conflict with the law enforcement.Also, the
phrase "police brutality" is being used. Brutality. BRUTALITY. Really. Brutality
is NOT being shoved with a night stick. It is NOT being gassed. It is NOT being
pepper sprayed. It is NOT being shoved with a plastic riot shield because you
are too stubborn to OBEY LAW ENFORCEMENT. BRUTALITY is a vicious use of physical force. If you were not hospitalized, you did not encounter anything BRUTAL.

Tazers, pepper spray, nightsticks, riot shields WERE DESIGNED as means of
non-brutal physical control. What EXACTLY do you propose that they do to
maintain physical control of a situation? They have to move you. If you don't
move, and are breaking the law, they have to move you. It is their job. You must
be physically moved. What is your solution? Cause right now, the tools the
police used to PHYSICALLY CONTROL the situation are the best tools available. If
you want to be controlled by a "Pillow-covered Comfy-shield 3000" then I suggest
you invent it. Furthermore, you should feel LUCKY that you live in a country
where you are not SHOT ON SPOT for such blatant disobedience of law
enforcement.Finally, the most irritating of all of my problems with this whole
event, is just the blatant disrespect for authority. Disrespect is a fucking
widespread epidemic in this country, and I blame the anti-spanking hippie
movement (both in schools and at home). The police of Pittsburgh were out there
risking their lives and you people don't give a FUCK. FUCK you. If you got a
problem with decisions made by a law enforcement OFFICIAL. FINE. Take it up with the city. Or the president. I don't care. But EACH OFFICER was doing nothing
besides THEIR JOB. To serve and protect...protect YOUR UNTHANKFULL ASS. They didn't each decide "Hey! Lets go gas as many kids as we can!" They were all just doing their job as best they could, taking orders FROM A SUPERIOR. Somebody told those officers to get out there and stand in a line and hold that line. Do you
think that 1000 individual riot police drove there by themselves and said "Shit!
999 other guys had the same idea!" No. They were put there by the city.The
officers did not have some personal beef with you, they were doing what they
were told to do. If you disagree with the declaration of an unlawful protest
that is fine, but to physically confront an officer is unfair, disrespectful,
and just disgraceful. These men and women have dangerous jobs. Do you think that
police officers are forced into their position? Do you think its easy? No. They
take this job because they love to protect the innocent. They're not trying to
hurt you. They put their lives at risk every day to enhance the quality of
yours. What thanks do you give them? Disrespect, disobediance, and you wave the
Bill of Rights in their face like it is a fucking weapon. We had 3 Pittsburgh
police shot and killed, in ONE day, this past year. I will never question an
officer and his use of force. Just think for a moment about what kind of shit
police offficers come across. Three of them were murdered responding to a
domestic call. YOU NEVER KNOW where the danger is going to come from. Some of
the protestors we demonstrating in violent ways, and you never know when other
people might get the same idea. You don't know who has a gun, a knife, a bomb,
ESPECIALLY in this scenario.....People from all over the world were here. There
was a large liklihood of any one of you rioters being a dangerous terrorist.And
just consider what was at stake here....the most important leaders in the world
were in town. Not miles away from the riot getting ready to erupt. Do you let
the group grow larger and larger, moving, destroying, getting more riled up? Or
do you protect the safety of the area that THE PRESIDENT is near, and put an end
to the excitement and make sure the situation is in control.I'd probably say
that the safety of the president is of high importance. Wouldn't you? Plus
leaders from around the world....and how does Pittsburgh look to the world if we
let a riot run free to engulf the city...I dunno man. You were all just looking
for a reason to riot. You were all looking for reasons to get mad at the police.
You were pushing your Constitutional rights to the edge just to get a
reaction....its all just fucked up, man.Leave it up to Americans to create so
much stress, controversy, and violence out of a simple thing: freedom.

Please Support the Arrested Students!

Hey everyone,

My friends and I wrote up this petition for the university to push the city to drop all charges against student arrestees and to refrain from putting us before the Judicial Review Board. Please sign it and forward it to everyone you know!

(Some of us went around the campus earlier today getting signatures, and we've already got about 300)

Support the Students

Bike Girl

I'm assuming you've all seen the video of "the bike girl", as she is being referred to in the media and on the streets. She's become the embodiment of the protesters' beef with the actions of the police during the G-20, and today she came to my newspaper class because she's apparently friends with my instructor's daughter (pgh's a small town, eh) and we were able to group interview her about the whole ordeal.

For the voyeurs (all of us): Her name's Lauren Wasson, and she's not a protester or an anarchist, but a curious onlooker that got caught in the melee. (Really? No way!) Why she threw the bike? Anger, incited by the love taps from the riot police. ("I don't just go throwing my bike at cops everyday.") She's never had a speeding ticket and she's facing a felony now. According to her, the police were hitting her and pushing her before the news camera started filming them, and then they dislocated her shoulder when they had her on the ground and, of course, bruised her. (Oh! And the big bad professional news programs got both her age and information about her work wrong. Ha. Fact checking at its finest.)

Obviously, it was really awesome to get a story of such timeliness and significance straight from the source, since--as I'm sure you all know too well--.... people don't care to talk to student reporters. Or students in general.

But there's a certain aspect about this that I think relates to our class, and it's the more substantial reason why I posted this: Thanks to the internet, Facebook, YouTube, and TV news stations posting videos online, her story has spread like mad throughout the region and she's become a psuedo-celebrity in days. Although this has exacerbated her torment in some ways, I also think she's been handed a soapbox and a megaphone. But, of course, that means other people have too. She said that when she got out of jail Friday, a guy she's never met from Columbus, OH, emailed her to say he set up a Facebook group and a petition site for her cause. Conversely, an unknown woman called in to Honsberger Live (a controversial program on KDKA news radio that I've never heard of) and told him that she lived next to Lauren in Shaler (where Lauren doesn't and has never lived) and was happy she was arrested because she was a piece of shit and is going to hell, or something like that--I'm paraphrasing what Lauren paraphrased so don't quote me.

It reminded me to some extent of Emily Gould, and how quickly the internet can inflate or deflate someone's ego or fame-- or rather, how quickly we can, by shouting from the rooftops via one innocent, inconspicuous click. Worth thinking about.

Your story, a G20 tale

One of our reporters at the Post-Gazette is interested in talking to students who were arrested during the G20. His name is Jerome Sherman and email is jsherman@post-gazette.com

If anybody has a good story to tell, go ahead an shoot him a line.

Downtown Iraq

Walking around downtown last Thursday morning felt a lot like being back in Iraq. I deployed in 2008 as a public affairs Soldier, and the downtown scene had that same silent, on-guard feel of walking through the roads of Camp Victory or the Green Zone in Baghdad. The only difference this time, I didn’t have my M16 rifle with my load of 30-round magazine, and I was in civlian clothes instead of in uniform. In Iraq, I never had to fire a shot. Downtown, I’ll continued my walk with my own personal digital camera. I guess, you could say that I went out armed.

Like in Iraq, my mission now with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was similar. Take photos. Get the action. Write stories.

The various checkpoints around town were cut off by concrete blocks and military humvees with National Guard and Air Force troops standing by. Most of them are wearing their ballistic vests (for those of you who know the military lingo… the dreaded IBA). No rifles and no kevlar helmets this time around, but the feel of security was still similar. Up-armored trucks weaved their way around the streets. Instead of Military Police, various police officers and law enforcement walked around with zip-tie handcuffs clipped to their belts.

In Iraq, we had these 20-foot, concrete T-walls that surrounded every inch of our base. On top, there were coils of concertina wire that looked like hollowed snakes. In downtown Pittsburgh, instead of walls, massive buildings blocked the view of the grim sky at various angles. Fences surrounded Market Square and various other spots. The same concertina snakes wrapped their way around the chain-linked fences blocking off streets. At one checkpoint, security forces installed a ramp that jutted out to block off any speeding vehicle coming that way. The ramp lowers to allow access to vehicles with credentials and police cruisers. That same kind of ramp is installed in the Green Zone at the gate of the main palace.

On Camp Victory, which is located just a few miles south of Baghdad, we had our famous Green Beans Coffeehouse. This morning, I stopped by Crazy Mocha for old time’s sake. Not bad, but I still miss the cappuccinos in Iraq.

The only other vehicles downtown, other than police and military, were Port Authority buses transporting passengers to and fro.

Just like in Camp Victory, I had that feeling of being on the inside. The feeling that any danger or harm may be "out there" but would try to come "in here." It was only later that news reports would show that most of the activity took place in Oakland.

Police and Military stood by awaiting any potential attack. This time, it might be protestors on foot holding signs and digital cameras instead of insurgents riding on beat-down trucks armed with AK-47s and explosives.

The city stood silent as I walked around the perimeter for about an hour that morning. Was this the silent before the storm?

I hoped not.

Pitt News updates

I don't have the exact numbers right now. But from what the editor-in-chief told me, traffic hits to the website went up at least 10-fold from Thursday to Sunday and the paper's Twitter saw about 300-400 new followers.

The photo editor recapped his desk's G-20 experience here. It's an interesting post and really shows how much time the media, not just The Pitt News, really put into their covering of G20 and especially the protests.

A lot of the news was started on the streets by students and onlookers who would use Twitter to update events and was eventually picked up by media sources. There was a big push from independent media sources that helped show an even closer look at the protest/riots through the use of video on the streets.

London Vs. Pittsburgh

I was in London last semester during the G-20, although I did not personally see much of anything. As American students we were told to stay as far away from the protests as possible and the information I received was from the news and accounts of coworkers. Obviously I saw a lot more of this G-20 and I think that Pittsburgh was better off than London. Although there was some police brutality and whatnot, overall our city seems to have survived the summit. In London one man died due to police brutality... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=fvw and there were countless other attacks and arrests.

Of course, London is a lot bigger than Pittsburgh and 8 million people are a lot harder to control than 400,000. Did Pittsburgh handle the summit any better than London given it's size?

It seems like no one explained to the police that there are students who live in Oakland and couldn't get to their apartments/dorms because they were being ordered to disperse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA&feature=related

i missed it

well i sort of missed it. i was working thursday night actually, making buckets of ice cream on atwood street at dave&andys. no one messed with the store, which was nice. there was a big fire engine parked outside which helped things i reckon. friday i stayed home and drank beer and played the new nhl10 game for xbox with some buddies. ive had bronchitis all week so going into a heavily policed area with tear gas in the air didnt entice me. so i guess i pretty much missed it. i dont know what breaking windows proves anyway. the night we won the superbowl was ridiculous, and it seems to me thats probably how the g2o night(s) were. i remember groups of kids trying to smash open the tops of parking meters, circled around it, with the big heavy steel contraption bouncing around dangerously, hitting kids in the shins. i dont know if anyone busted any parking meters this weekend. they might have.

It is Our Campus

It seems really obvious watching video footage of last Thursday and Friday that the police were a bit out of hand. This is our campus and it’s not the student’s fault that the University was kept open and therefore hundreds of students remained on campus. I am not disputing that maybe it would have been a better choice to stay inside their dorms and houses, but you cannot lawfully confine students to their rooms because the school refuses to cancel classes and close dorms. It seems like Oakland would have been better off without the hundreds of cops. Tensions were high because of the cops and I don’t think their presence was helpful on either Thursday or Friday night. I don’t have anything against cops and when I was walking through Oakland and into the big rally of Friday afternoon, I was actually kind of glad all the cops were there. It seems like during the day they behave themselves and stay on the sidelines unless something illegal or potentially dangerous is happening. But the footage from those two evenings show the police being unnecessarily violent.

G-20 Summit - Pre Highlights & Uncertain Thoughts...

I attended a luncheon at the University Club on Wednesday with four different people speaking about the reasons for the G-20 Summit. That was very informative and uneventful. The afternoon following the luncheon was what I found interesting. I observed Oakland preparing for the G-20 Summit.

From 2:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. I observed Oakland transform into a martial law community. I began to see many police officers in camouflage attire patrolling in various areas in Oakland. As the hour drew later, I also noticed many army Hummers filled with military officers. As the afternoon progressed, more and more police activity (ie., police motorcycle and automobile motorcades, police bicycle patrols, etc.).

While walking past Soldiers and Sailors Memorial I noticed a large group of people getting off of a Port Authority bus, and with a closer looked, I saw that it was a group of police officers. It seemed like forever for them all to get off of the bus. They proceeded towards Soldiers and Sailors Memorial. Then another Port Authority bus pulled up and more officers flooded off of a bus. Three bright blue cards with 'Kennywood' on the side pulled up on the the street to the left of Soldiers and Sailors Memorial, and police officers with matching blue shirts got out of the cars and congregated on the sidewalk prior to heading into Soldiers and Sailors Memorial. I began taking pictures with my cell phone.

It was after 4:30 p.m. and a friend called and asked me to join her for something to drink. We decided upon coffee, Starbucks, then I recommended not going to Starbucks since it was supposed to be a 'target' place for the protestors. We decided on McDonalds and both got something to drink from McDonalds, then it occurred to me that McDonalds was also supposed to be a 'target' spot for the protestors. We noticed two to three security guards in McDonalds and figured that they were there for the anticipated protestors. I suggested that we not sit too long in McDonalds, to avoid any potential disturbances. We took a couple sips of our beverages and left McDonalds.

We proceeded to walk to our cars, only to hear sirens in the background and notice PA state troopers walking around and on many of the corners in Oakland. It was 6:15 p.m. and every corner in Oakland had two state troopers on every corner. Some corners had up to ten state troopers congregated together and talkings amongst themselves. We walked across the street, against the light and my friend warned me that we were jay-walking because the light turned red. I told her to just keep walking and we should be alright. She said, "But we shouldn't be jay-walking with all of these police officers around us." As I turned around, it looked as though were surrounded by state troopers and one of them said, "No. You are not going to get a ticket. You are fine." I asked one of the officers if I could take their picture and they said it would be alright.

We took pictures of vaious things on the way back to our cars. It was an eery feeling to see so many police officers every in Oakland Pre G-20 Summit. A feeling that I have never quite felt before in Pittsburgh. I began taking random pictures of Oakland landmarks, just in case... because, sometimes you never know what to expect in a world filled with so much uncertainty.

The next day (Thursday), I stayed home and watched things unfold on television and on the internet. I posted minute-by-minute posts on facebook as things were actually taking place.

- - -

September 24 at 4:49 p.m. Channel 11 is broadcasting the coverage LIVE. The G-20 Resistance protesters have been asked to disburse. The SWAT team is moving in. The police have declared the march an unlawful assembly.

September 24 at 4:51pm Pittsburgh TODAY is Truly "Someplace Special." A whole lot of activity going on right now. Please pray for PEACE in our city...

September 24 at 5:07 p.m. The news coverage reports "It is a dramatic showdown!'" Police arresting people now. Stay away from Downtown, Lawrenceville, and Bloomfield unless you want to get caught up on the craziness.