This post has nothing to do with editing, but rather, being a journalist.

There are some days that I just get so frustrated with journalism. Whether it's the intense deadline pressure, the hours spent waiting for sources to call back or the editing stories from not-so-great reporters, I think journalists need a place to vent to other journalists about the frustrations in the industry.
Enter angryjournalist.com. In the Web site's "About" section, it seems that the creator made the site for up-and-coming journalists to vent about the bleak job market. Here's an excerpt from the section:

"I created this site for several reasons. In private conversations with friends I sensed that there is a growing angst among the upcoming crop of journalists entering the field right now. Journalism-school graduates have the odds stacked against them."

Facebook Sticker Errors

The growing communication device we call Facebook has created yet another application: stickers. While these stickers that one shares with friends or gives to oneself are often witty, cute, or artsy, some of the most popular ones are also grammatically incorrect.

While it probably does not matter to most that others are posting grammatically incorrect stickers on one anothers virtual walls, as a fan of words and an individual taking advanced editing, it really does bother me.

I know I don't always use correct grammar in Facebook conversations or those I have on a daily basis with friends or family, but why thousands of people are willingly participating in the sharing of grammatically incorrect stickers is beyond me.

Here are some examples that are most annoying:

1. Im not your ordinary girl - (672,757 shares) Why didn't the person just add the dang apostrophe?

2. friends is what completes my life - (583,613 shares) I don't even care that 'friends' is not capitalized because the overall sentence is just so incorrect.

3. those with bad grammar should be shooted - (150,357 shares) If one really does want to shoot those with bad grammar, they would definitely not share this sticker.

4. me and you is friends . . . - (129,310 shares) Why do people find this use of grammar acceptable? Please, I really want to know.

5. Well be the old ladies causing trouble in the nursing home - (75,802 shares) Again, add the apostrophe. It's important.

6. Your only as strong as the tables you dance on, the drinks you mix, & the friends you roll with. - (? shares) Why would one use the wrong 'your,' but take the time to insert the period? I just don't know.

NYTimes slide show takes narrative approach

The pictures used in this slideshow were taken in Grand Central Station probably in the 1950s, perhaps 1953. The photographer, a student at the time, never had them printed, only developed from film and put onto contact sheets. Whoever did the cutlines borrowed from the accompanying story and, for the most part, presented a compelling series of blurbs. Unfortunately, that editor needed to take another look or let another editor have a go at it, too. You'll see what I mean.

Dinner with Obama

Facebook has very much become an important way to communicate and at least one of our presidential candidates knows this. Thanks to my brother, who is a freshman at Suny New Paltz, I received a link referring me to a Barack Obama sight, that in conjunction with Facebook, Barack Obama himself says if "you" donate" any amount to his campaign, "you" will be entered into a drawing. From this drawing, four lucky people will be chosen to have dinner with the candidate himself.

The contest lasted one week and in the end, Obama flew the winners to Washington to have dinner with him so they could discuss the issues that were important to the winners.

Though the personal video message from Obama is now no longer accessible, if you go to the link you can watch a few minutes of the dinner he had with the winners.

Overall, I think this was a very successful strategy because he gave every American 16 year and older the opportunity to win a dinner with him. It didn't matter how much the person donated, for $1 they would have had the opportunity to win the contest and eat dinner with a presidential candidate.

Oh. My. God.

I don't know how it happened. Or why they did it. But a week ago today, Sports Illustrated began providing the greatest tool in sports journalism - unyielding access to its archives. That's 54 years of stories and photos that changed the way sports is covered. It's amazing to consider you can read every word that's ever been published in SI since it first issue on Aug. 16, 1954, until you remember that SI isn't the first to take this route. The New York Times a while began allowing complete access to its archives, which leads to looking up things like the first report of Lincoln's assassination:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E0D91F30EE34BC4D52DFB266838E679FDE

What makes me wonder - and all the more grateful - is SI allows this entrance into history for free. Sure, it's going to raise their Internet traffic, but according to the following NY Times business article, it won't necessarily generate a whole lot of money.

"Industry executives say that although old articles attract less interest from advertisers than current ones, any increase matters at a time when many newspapers and magazines are struggling to hold onto print ad revenue."

But hey, who cares when you get to read about the greatest baseball player who never lived, Sidd Finch. See the story by the great George Plimpton: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1119283/index.htm

SI Vault: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/

NY Times business article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/business/media/17mags.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Citizen Journalism

When I, at the request of my friend, went to see Diary of the Dead on Easter Sunday, I hardly expected it to be as much of a comment on citizen journalism as it was on how to survive a zombie apocalypse.

The movie is filmed in hand-cam style and centers on a group of college students whose horror movie turned into a documentary. Throughout the movie, the popular media are portrayed as unreliable. They beat around the bush and give no important information about the supposed “virus.” By contrast, citizen journalists across the world are posting helpful videos online.

One of the students watches a clip on her cell phone of a girl in Tokyo who posted a video urging, “Don’t bury dead; shoot in head.” The film’s main character films the grisly deaths of his friends and finally himself in the hopes that the full truth will reach fellow survivors. After shooting the death of one of their comrades, his girlfriend, also filming, hands off the camera and says, “It’s too easy to use.” The point is that the camera is just as easy to use as the gun that was shot to spare his dead friend from turning into a full zombie. His partial post halfway through the movie receives 72,000 hits after only eight minutes, attesting to the incredible speed at which information travels today. In this era of widespread technology, people can get information from an incredible number of sources.

This movie, though far-fetched, is a testament to the power, influence and importance of raw, unfiltered content from everyday citizens capturing and discussing current events. Citizen journalism, though much of it is biased, plays a valuable role in keeping democracy strong, and is especially important when media outlets are unwilling or unable to put forth such blunt information.

Check out the blog of our own Dan Gillmor, an expert in grassroots journalism.

Denouncing and Renouncing

While perusing the New York Times, I found an opinion piece related to the role of the media in politics. This article details the game of denouncing and renouncing to which journalists subject public figures, exemplified by Obama being asked to comment on the racist remarks made by his pastor. The point is that the media make a circus out of these comments instead of focusing on more important issues.

Writer Stanley Fish says, “This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle…The odd thing is that the press that produces these distractions and the populace that consumes them really believe they are discussing issues and participating in genuine political dialogue.”

Even though candidates aren’t responsible for the remarks others make, sometimes asking for comment brings out elements of their own character and leads to a greater amount of honest discussion, such as in the case of Obama’s response to the issue of race. I heard about his pastor’s comments and was intrigued to listen to Obama’s entire speech. I found it to be an enlightening statement about a critical issue affecting our country.

On the other hand, sometimes media focus on incendiary remarks and their responses can throw more important issues to the wayside. Also, most likely not everyone will be driven to find firsthand information.

“Meanwhile, the things the candidates themselves are saying about really important matters – war, the economy, health care, the environment – are put on the back-burner until the side show is over, though the odds are that a new one will start up immediately,” Fish says.

From keeping up pretty well with the news, I still hardly know McCain’s or Clinton’s stances on most issues. I only know where Obama stands because I make an effort to receive his e-mail updates and go on his Web site. It may take more time than reading a news article, but at least I get the whole picture – what some news outlets aren’t giving me.