Re-Views of the News

Every Wednesday evening in our home, we listen to a local radio show called Views of the News. There are several reasons for this. First, we are nerds, especially when it comes to the news and media. Second, the #1 journalism school in the country resides here. It would be foolish not to tap that resource once in a while for some insight into the news media. Third, it's on after Marketplace and therefore isn't bad, classical music.

Normally, I find Views to be a nice diversion from daily life, sort of a throwback to radio talk shows (sans irate callers) of yesteryear. The topics are timely but benign for the most part. However, tonight's show sort of rubbed me the wrong way.

Before I go on, it should be noted that I in no way am attacking the hosts, producers, or KBIA. We all work for the same employer and that would be against certain policies. What I am doing is respectfully disagreeing. Moving on to the topics...

The first topic was the #balloonboy story of Falcon Heene and his fictitious balloon ride through Colorado airspace. The story was one of those classic cable news fiascoes where all news around the world stops as the newscast is hijacked by [enter random, extraordinary event that has no consequence for the rest of us and really just appeals to the voyeur inside all of us here]. I followed it on Twitter, trying to concentrate on my work but not succeeding (extending my day unfortunately).

The View's take - aside from simultaneously blaming the media and audience for indulging in such voyeuristic garbage - was that the key difference between the online media and traditional media (read "newspapers, radio, and TV") was that traditional journos think it most important to check all the facts first before reporting while the online media just get the story out there and check facts later.

They're wrong.

I blog and Tweet from time to time. While I am in no way a reliable source of information, I do understand the thinking and motivation of the citizen journalist and online media. The idea is simple, really. Put it out there. Someone in your network will repost or comment. Someone else will Google it or look it up through other means. The facts will pour in. The errors will be corrected. Through collaboration and audience participation, the narrative will be pieced together. We no longer live in a time where we wait for the evening news or morning newspaper to get the story. We watch it and participate in it as it unfolds.

The second story didn't allow me to come down from the outrage over the first misinterpretation.

Earlier this week, the fabulously infamous Yes Men pulled another great hoax on the United States Chamber of Commerce. It seems that the merry pranksters posed as Chamber spokesmen and declared that the Chamber was reversing its stance on climate control legislation. (The actual Chamber was and is against such regulations.) Of course, the Yes Men were exposed but not before they exposed the chamber for its idiotic stance. (Now you know where I stand on the political spectrum.)

Once again, the View had it wrong.

The three, wise professors thought it a travesty that these Yes Men continue to pull hoax after hoax on poor corporations and the federations that represent them. Their claim is that these deceptions do nothing to solve national and global problems. In fact, it's claimed that the Yes Men actually harm those they want to stand up for and turn public sympathy to the bad guys/multi-national corporations.

Brought into the conversation was the screening of The Yes Men Fix the World at last year's True/False festival. At least one of the View's hosts was in attendance for that showing of the film and he was appalled at the reaction of the audience who cheered for the Yes Men as they lied to and manipulated the media, corporations, and various other power brokers into falling for their entertaining pranks.

I was there too, but I had a different take as I do about this past joke played on the Chamber. What the Yes Men do is important, inspirational, and effective. It's important because it exposes wrongs committed by those in power against the powerless to an enormous audience. The film and this week's stunt inspire people by showing them that we don't have to take what corporations or the traditional media are shoving down our throats. And yes, it is effective. People are duped, even the victims. However, I seem to remember the victims of the tragedy in Bhopal and those left homeless in New Orleans due to the the re-purposing of their homes appreciated the Yes Men's work in standing up for them while exposing the truth about their situations. These people usually figured it was a hoax from the beginning, but they understood what the Yes Men were out to accomplish. Again, truths were revealed through their work of deception.

That brings me to an interesting topic in the worlds of both traditional journalism and community/citizen/guerilla journalism: truth.

There is no one, essential truth. Because a journalist checks all the facts and asks all the questions she can think of doesn't mean she'll only report the truth. That is one version of the truth, no matter how thorough or ethical a journalist may be. The truth is not as simple as right or wrong. In every story, there are many truths. Each blog, newspaper article, Tweet, evening news report, vlog, etc. holds some truth. Traditional journalism does not control the market on truth. Sure, they have the training and resources to gather most of the truth, but they can never have it all.

The one part of the program I agreed with came from former host and current guest Rod Gelatt. Now, as the amateur that I am, I will attempt to paraphrase Dr. Gelatt's sentiment. He talked about how journalism and the media will change, so the students should be prepared to change their view of what it is they are training to do or plan to do in the future.

This is something the media is not doing: adjusting to change. Newspapers are dying because they were unwilling to change how they delivered information when they had a chance. Now, the New York Times is laying off its reporters. Radio and TV are jokes. Radio is becoming so homogenized that we might as well only have a handful of stations for the entire nation. And TV is all about ratings and being sensational. To counter any argument about TV journalism, all I have to do is point at Fox "News."

The media's future is online. The future is talking with communities, not about them or at them. The future in media is in collaboration. There is no more banking system where the newspapers, TV networks, and radio stations hold all the capital to divvy out to the masses as they see fit. There are many more truths out there than traditional media is willing to accept at this point in time.

At this point, I could get more revolutionary, but that would get away from my original intent just to review a radio program. I just wanted participate in the conversation instead of passively accepting the stories and opinions shared on KBIA's Views of the News. So, there you have it.

Views of the News can be heard every Wednesday evening after Marketplace on 91.3 KBIA here in COMO.

Blog Action Day: Ending Poverty

Like I said before, I don't have any time to blog, but this is important. Today is Blog Action Day. The goal is to get as many bloggers as possible to post something on ending poverty. Check out the site, read some of the other blogs, and do one thing to fight poverty today. That could be a blog post, sending a link to ten people you know, making a donation to a charity that combats poverty, etc. Just do one thing today to fight poverty.

That is all.

(Picture courtesy of Wikipedia)

Fixing the "Problem"

We have a problem. Whenever an issue arises that steps outside whatever society has deemed "normal" our response is to police and punish the act. No one thinks about how new developments might benefit us or our community or even if the act is truly criminal. Our knee-jerk reaction is to fight innovation at every step.

An example of this is skateboarding. Before this extreme sport became a national pastime, it was outlawed in nearly every town and city across the country. I remember the day they put up the "No Skateboarding" signs in my hometown. Kids were slapped with citations for choosing to skateboard. It didn't seem to matter that they chose to spend their time on skateboards rather than on drugs or whatever kids do to get into trouble. Eventually, someone wised up and created skating parks and started skateboarding events. What was once a hobby for punks and degenerates has now become a viable sport and even career choice.

A very similar sort of activity that has not gained nearly as much positive redirection is graffiti. Cities and towns are obsessed with stopping graffiti artists. While I understand the detrimental effects of gang signs spray-painted on public buildings or the destruction of private businesses (especially mom and pop shops), I don't get the big deal about artists simply trying to improve the scenery.

Take this guy for instance...

Buket, as he's known on the streets, tagged a freeway overpass during rush hour. Granted he's just trying to get his name out there, but listen to cranky old Charlie Gibson talk about graffiti...

Of course, there's a local story that caught my eye this morning. It seems our city council has nothing better to do than head an effort to clean up graffiti as soon as it appears. That sounds like a challenge, not a deterrent.

COMO has embraced skateboarding with its own skate park, why not create a similar space for graffiti? For a town that claims to support the arts, it sure has a lot to learn about art. Take Banksy for instance. Here is a graffiti artist who has made a living out of his craft as well as some of the most compelling art around. Plus, he has found ways to make something ugly like urban landscapes beautiful and thought-provoking.

Besides incarceration or legal trouble, our society also likes retribution through the wallet.

The AP is all up in arms over bloggers quoting their "stories" without proper compensation. Of course, when bloggers quote other sources, they normally link back to the original text, allowing their readers the opportunity to make up their own minds while simultaneously increasing the source's traffic. Now, there's a whole pricing scale for quoting AP stories. This is how the archaic journalism fascists want to combat their irrelevancy in a Web 2.0 world? Why not join us? Oh wait. Newspapers have tried the blog thing. They must not make enough money from these endeavors, otherwise they wouldn't care. The fact is that more and more people are ending paper subscriptions and signing up for RSS feeds instead. (I'd quote an AP story, but I'm sort of broke right now.)

Whatever. Newspapers regularly cite sources without linking back to their sites. Why doesn't the AP practice what they preach? I guess the only recourse we have is to never use the AP as a source or to ask for compensation whenever interviewed by a so-called journalist.

In fact, I may just do that. Whenever I'm interviewed for a news story, I should warn the reporter that I will require monetary compensation for my words. It's my intellectual property, isn't it? Of course, I am rarely quoted, so this may be a mute point.

But I digress from my original argument.

Why doesn't the AP take a more proactive stance by embracing the blogosphere? Just ask that bloggers link back to the original source (which they already do) and maybe even include the AP in their blogrolls. Conversely, the AP could provide training for bloggers in reporting ethics and listen to claims by bloggers that traditional media is biased. This is just a beginning, but let's fix the problem instead of punishing it.

I could go all day, but I won't. Maybe if we all start thinking of ways to bridge the gap between tradition and new ways of expression, we might rediscover the benefits in invention.

(If you plan on quoting any part of this blog, just link back and leave a comment with a link to your blog/news story. I'll figure out a pay scale later.)

The Future of Music

From time to time, I blog about music, primarily that of the indie variety. Currently, the music industry has gone through some significant shifts of which I have an opinion.

This guy got me to thinking about how music is and will be distributed. Bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have bypassed record labels and traditional distribution outlets by making their latest releases available online for little or no money. Of course, other musicians such as Prince have done this before, but none as current or recognizable as Radiohead have taken on the industry in such a way. It's akin to the Beatles handing out copies of Abbey Road at Piccadilly.

The free music doesn't stop there. Bands are utilizing tools on the internet to get their music to the masses by giving it away. A site like Daytrotter might make exclusive recordings available or Brooklyn Vegan provides MP3 samples of nearly every band it covers. Some bands simply give the music away in the form of free CDs in order to drum up some buzz for their tours where they make their real income.

Of course, the music industry might as well give it away as they continue to lose money. In fact, some have looked at giving it away in various ways to excite consumers enough to buy the records. What they used to call "getting a single played on the radio" is now just flat out giving it away. Will the 99 cent single go the way of the CD? Wait and see.

For me, it doesn't matter whether they give the music away or not. Most of it is crap. And that which is not crap has been done before. Whatever is left is what I buy and am happy to do so.

What has filled this void in music left by all that inferior product put out by an out-of-touch music industry? Indie rock. Band after band have made a living since the mid-nineties (in Sonic Youth's case, longer) by simply recording better music and hitting the road. They may not be selling millions of records, but they are not suffering from the same affliction as the majors have. Never before have independent labels and bands have been so successful. It gives me hope.

What isn't filled with a lot of hope is the state of music journalism, especially in indie circles. As people turn to Pitchfork or Brooklyn Vegan, they turn away from such indie publishing stalwarts like No Depression or Punk Planet. Does it mean that music magazines are dead? No. Does it mean that mediocre rock journalism leads to your magazine folding. No...look at Rolling Stone. What it does mean is that magazines are behind the times. They are not able to keep up with the next "it" band or latest genres. Online magazines and blogs are just better equipped to provide that up-to-the-second information indie fans crave. (As for RS readers...I can't explain it.)

Magazines are even turning to the blogosphere for their tips and news. Take the latest Spin. For the first time in the magazine's history, they featured a band on their cover (Vampire Weekend) that had yet to release its first album. All this was based on the buzz the band had created among the blogging elite. First Tapes 'n Tapes, then Vampire Weekend, now there's Black Kids. (Actually, there's probably someone else, but you get the point.)

The accessibility to new technologies has meant greater access to new music and at faster speeds. For a music junkie like myself, it's meant a nonstop flow of fresh tunes. For the majority, though, it has meant an over saturation of mediocre noise. This will most likely continue until record labels realize that, in the end, good music is actually profitable. And they better keep it coming, because we're reading and listening faster than ever.  The magazines aren't keeping up.  Will the record industry?

Coffee and Dreams for the District

The "District", the partially nameless moniker arbitrarily given to COMO's downtown area, is constantly witnessing changes in storefronts and eateries - for better and worse. It often occurs to me that this part of COMO is both the reason this place is livable and the source of much of my misery. This contradictory feeling is mainly due the potential of the downtown that never feels fulfilled.

I know that it's already been reviewed by "real" journalists, but I have to express my pleasure in discovering the District's newest coffee shop, Kaldi's. From what I've heard, Kaldi's is based out of St. Louis and actually supplies much of the coffee for some Columbia coffee joints. So, it's not completely new to Misery, but it is a welcome new member of the District.

Kaldi's took over the nice corner space on 9th and Cherry, once occupied by one of those crappy noodle chains. I have to say that the space is way more appropriate for a coffee shop than it was for soup and noodles. The interior is sleek, trademarked with Kaldi's logo, and provides a variety of seating.

The coffee has been fine. Actually, I've liked most of the coffee in COMO. None of it is spectacular, but it's all well-roasted and brewed. The latte' at Kaldi's is a little heavy on the milkiness and light on the coffee taste. The coffee doesn't stick out which is fine - it's neither spectacular nor bitter.

What I like is that Kaldi's provides another coffee space that isn't hippie-dippy (Lakota), hipster-Christian (Artisan), or loaded with local yokels (Coffee Zone). It's an alternative that diversifies the coffee scene in downtown COMO without being Starbuck's.

The menu is varied and interesting, similar to Artisan. R and I enjoyed our savory crepes (salmon in one, turkey sausage and bacon in the other). The crepes were interesting, but a little on the Misery-bland side.

Over breakfast, we got to talking about the changes that are happening in the district.

First of all, there is an actual tapas restaurant. We're not talking about a place that serves Horsd'œuvres on little plates. No. We're talking about real Spanish-influenced tapas. Throw in some Rioja and I might forget I'm in Misery.

Secondly, there is word that Cucina Sorella and/or Trattoria Strada Nova will be returning upon the arrival of its founder. This would be a welcome return of one of COMO's best breakfast spots. Without Cucina, the quality of breakfast in this town dropped dramatically.

Third, it appears that the Ragtag/Uprise move to Hitt Street is making serious progress. I, for one, will be eager to attend films at the Ragtag knowing that there will be two to choose from. Rumor has it that one theater will have seats similar to the thrift store throw-aways like the current location and the other will have more traditional theater seating. Whichever is fine with me. I'm just exited to have choices of indie films in this town.

As far as the dreams I have for the District, I wish some stores would fill the empty space. I'd even be fine with some chain stores like Urban Outfitters or Banana Republic. These kinds of stores would be better than no stores and might bring additional traffic downtown to help support the existing businesses. Also, the rumor of Trader Joe's coming to COMO has to come to fruition. A downtown location would be ideal and this town could easily support the discount natural/organic/international food store.

Then, there are the businesses in COMO that should be downtown and not in a strip mall. JinaYoo's Asian Bistro has been the happiest addition to COMO's dismal dining scene in the last three years and should be downtown. Speaking of great Asian food, why hasn't Osaka made the move to the District? Besides the sheer entertainment of the hibachi, their sushi is far superior to Sake, downtown's current sushi joint.

These improvements and the return of hotels to downtown might even be enough to give the District a real name. (The Doc[umentary] District? The Mizzou District? The District of Columbia?) The hotels could be a big piece. There is talk of the Tiger returning to its golden era as a grand hotel. Then there's the project by the university to create a downtown hotel that can host conferences. (However, can this really happen when the university is in such dire economic straights?) Hotels would provide the District with the population and life it needs to be a viable downtown.

I'm coming to terms with the possibility that I may be here for quite awhile, so I want the place to improve as much as possible. A lot of that improvement can happen downtown to make this an exciting place to live. It could give me a reason to forget that we're two-hours from any major city with real restaurants and entertainment.

In the meantime, I'll attend the Modest Mouse show on Thursday (after a burger at Booche's), catch a flick at the Ragtag, and stay at home Saturday to watch The Game (OSU/Michigan-for all of you who aren't familiar with college football). That should do for now.

Accross the Vick Divide

The media has done it again! They have found yet another issue with which to polarize our country. And as usual, the issue has strong racial undertones. The issue for which I'm writing about is the Mike Vick dog-fighting fiasco.

ESPN conducted a town hall meeting concerning "The Vick Divide". Even in the title, ESPN has implied (or screamed) that there is a deep division between those who support Vick and those who have condemned him. Much like OJ Simpson's legal troubles (the first time), an African-American sports hero is supposedly condemned by whites and unconditionally supported by blacks.

ESPN's program did little to disprove this polarization. By allowing brief amounts of time for each panelist to share his/her two cents on the topic, ESPN reduced the Vick story to even more soundbites, ignoring the complexities of race and animal rights surrounding the story. They even used some of those same snippets in the following program, NFL Tonight to further the polarization and simplify the controversy.

The sad part for me is that there are serious issues left out of the debate, and those topics are being ignored by the groups that need to address them the most.

The race divide is the first and foremost issue that is ignored by white people. Like the OJ case, many whites refuse to admit that race may play a factor in their condemnation of Vick. It is difficult for us to see how Vick could have been influenced by his cultural upbringing. This background does not excuse Vick's heinous acts, but it does provide a context that helps one understand his motivation. Understanding can help people feel empathy, not something I'm hearing much from his critics.

Of course, I would be remissed if I didn't address the same problem with much of the black community's inability to see the guilt in what Vick (or OJ) did based on their own racial bias. Sure, black men have been disproportionately sentenced to all-too-harsh jail sentences over our country's racist history, but that doesn't mean Vick's crimes should be ignored.

Who cares whether or not Vick plays football again. He made some pretty poor decisions and will pay for that in jail time. Of course, he won't attend anything that resembles a serious prison, but he will serve time nonetheless. Football is the least important thing here.

The important fact that is lost in this debate is that dog fighting is a deplorable practice. 48 states consider dog fighting a felony, and it's illegal in the other two. This means that regardless of how the public judges Mike Vick, he broke the law. Dog fighting is wrong.

Of course, just as ESPN (and the rest of the news media) cannot properly address the breadth of the Mike Vick case, neither can I. No blog post is able to fully demonstrate the nuances of race relations, animal rights, issues of class (yes, Vick's ridiculously rich), or any other divisive subject brought to light by this case.

All that I want is for the media to stop polarizing our country. Stop dividing us into Republicans and Democrats (of which I am neither). Stop making every issue, like the Vick case, a black or white issue. Not everything is wrong or right. The world is way more complicated than Coke or Pepsi, sunshine or rain, chocolate or vanilla, etc.

This is not the only topic the media uses to polarize society, but it's the one I wanted to rant about tonight. I just wish the news media could be as privy to the nuances of controversial issues as this guy.

What's Citizen Journalism?

What is a "citizen journalist"? Apparently, I'm a citizen journalist, although, I prefer "underground journalist", "guerrilla journalista", " grass-root journalist", or just "blogger". I've been asked to speak on the topic at a conference, discuss the format with a college composition class, and have been mentioned by name (not comoprozac) in meetings at the J-school. Whatever it is, it must be something that people are talking about.

I actually resent being referred to as a "citizen journalist". First of all, aren't all journalists supposed to be citizens? If you're not a citizen, then you're a foreigner or outsider. If you're not part of the community, how can we trust what you're telling us? How can citizens trust that outsiders will keep their government in check? The idea that bloggers are one of the few forms of journalism that come from the community is either naive or disturbing...or a little of both.

What's funny is that real journalists (or even journalists-in-training) are threatened by what bloggers do. We're taking their jobs or at least their audience. I had a J-school student all but spit in my face when she learned what I do in my free time. Don't feel so threatened. Do something about it. Report the perspectives of your readers, not your editor or even your own. This student may hate bloggers, but I hate the corporate-controlled effluence which spews from journalists mouths and is presented as "news". Report the perspectives of your readers and make connections that hold officials and the government accountable.

The second thing that bothers me is being called a "journalist" of any kind. I have never once referred to myself as a "journalist" (except when I was writing record reviews for my high school newspaper). I once toyed with the idea of journalism and attending the J-school at Ohio University, but that dream died a long time ago. I decided that I could be a more effective agent of change in classrooms than writing "fair and balanced" stories for a newspaper. Additionally, the Missourian asked me to print my work. I have never submitted a piece for print in any newspaper.

I was trying to figure out what developments in education are similar to "citizen journalism". The only thing I could think of in schooling that purports to provide the same service as teachers is homeschooling. Parents who homeschool, or "citizen teachers", are often disheartened by the incompetence of the public school system in their community, so they take matters into their own hands. I am not entirely against this idea. Like my brother-in-law says, "I think kids should be homeschooled, and they should go to school." As an educator, I am not threatened by homeschooling, but I feel that many journalists are threatened by blogging.

The fact is that many bloggers read and support newspapers. I read the Times every Sunday and check the lead stories online throughout the week. At least one or two of my readers is a journalist. Hell, I play hoops in the basement of the Tribune. I would bet that a higher percentage of bloggers read the newspaper than the average citizen.

Whatever. I will continue my brand of "journalism" and you can continue yours. No one is reading either, because no one reads anymore. There's the real problem...that and Fox "News".

This so-called "citizen journalism" is here to stay. We bloggers are not reporting the news. We just want a record of our perspective. We want to see that what we think or say has some meaning beyond our own homes. So, all you "real" journalists relax. You can hold public figures accountable, and bloggers will hold you accountable.