Blog with me

An advocacy organization for equal education opportunities called The Education Trust released a study last week which said that Penn State University was one of seven schools that received an F for minority and low-income access to the school. No institution out of each state's most prestigious public universities ranked higher than a B.

These types of studies pop into newspapers and news shows all the time. We can assume that the studies are based on credible and objective research. Although, it's not the studies that are worrisome, it’s the media attention and how they are framed without any real context.

This story was covered in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, as well as several other state newspapers. The headline for Penn State’s student newspaper was “Report: PSU fails minority access.” The Patriot-News’ headline read “Blue and…mostly white.” Although the minority percentage at University Park is low, comparing them to other schools is unfair.

State College is a small borough located in the middle of the state. It’s surrounded by farms, it is home to a large agriculture college and the largest metropolitan area is Harrisburg, which is over 80 miles away. Schools like Ohio State (located in Columbus, OH) and Minnesota (located in Minneapolis) have big city advantages. The study graded both of these schools with a B. Not only are the cities themselves more diverse, but they have more opportunities that a small borough must to work harder for. The newspapers fail to mention that.

Isn’t it possible that a school like Penn State is naturally not as attractive to minority students as more populated, metropolitan cities? Pennsylvania is blessed with three major institutions, an impressive public university system that includes 13 schools that are sprawled across the state, and numerous public and private colleges. Students have a lot of choices in this state and these are some of the issues that need to be addressed in articles that, on the surface, quickly attack the school with the intention to get readers riled up.

If I were a low-income, minority, prospective student this could be a big turn off to see that Pennsylvania's #1 school doesn't want me there. The fact is, that's not true at all. Sure, Penn State might have some work to do, but it's important that people know that the school is working.

It’s interesting that another study, just three years earlier, said that despite Centre County’s 91.4 percent white population, “State College ranked No. 1 in its tier for diversity.” That article also says that in “2002-03, minority enrollment jumped 6 percent, or by 271 people.” The original article allows Penn State’s spokesperson to get a few words in about the schools successes, but why doesn’t anyone mention the fact that Penn State might not be a low-income or a minority student’s dream come true?

Today, Penn State's minority enrollment has jumped up 3 percent since the 2002-03 school year. The school offers a Web site with information and links about the school's diversity plans. The school is trying and it is pobably succeeding, maybe the students just aren't taking the bait. Is it fair that a few schools look bad when other schools have unfair advantages? It'd be nice to have a newspaper article include some of those facts.

Look out news media.

Blogs are taking up the precious minutes of your readers', listeners’ and viewers' schedules. They are the hip way people of the “iGeneration” get their news. They are quick and accessible with a few clicks of the mouse. They are usually free and offer information that you big, greedy corporate newspapers won’t print. And best of all, they don’t have to answer to anybody.

That’s right. A byline on the Internet isn’t the same as a byline in a newspaper. Blog writers are often completely anonymous. They are untouchable. While reporters must attach their names to their publication and are forced to print their e-mail addresses and phone numbers by their work, blog writers are protected by a username and a hotmail address.


Is this a good thing?

No, not really. It’s one thing to seek out opinions and points-of-view on the Internet, it’s another thing to expect blogs to aggressively take the place of traditional media – even media on the Internet.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 2000, President Bill Clinton said “the thing I worry most about is that people will have all the information in the world, (but) they won't have any way of evaluating whether it's true or false.”

Clinton was right to worry. Since 2000, the popularity of blogs and Internet news have skyrocketed and they have become a major force in news gathering and dissemination. According to vice president of corporate communications and external affairs of the Federated Department Stores Carol Sanger, “news-oriented Web sites now outnumber all the U.S. newspapers, television stations and news radio stations combined.”

This is not a slam on Internet news. This is a slam on people who support the idea of amateur writers blogging traditional media into obscurity. News reporters pride themselves in their credibility, objectivity and professionalism. Our country prides itself in the freedom we give our press and the respectable manner the press uses that freedom. Why would we sacrifice that trust and put it in the hands of faceless writers with agendas and little, if any, journalistic experience?

What’s the big deal?

There are many respectable blogs out there. Many respected writers, editorialists and journalists have their own blogs that provide more information for people who want it. This is a great use of this new, stylish technology. However, there are a couple facts that are a cause for worry. Wonkette.com is a Web site that describes itself as “politics for people with dirty minds.” Wonkette creator Nick Denton said, “I think it's implicit in the way that a Web site is produced that our standards of accuracy are lower. Besides, immediacy is more important than accuracy, and humor is more important than accuracy."

Denton's site won “Best Political Weblog” in the 2005 Bloggies Awards.

Other reasons:

- Bloggers can write about an issue when they feel like it. They are not obligated to do follow-ups or even write ever again. It is a reporter’s job to follow-up and cover an issue completely.

- Anyone can find a blogger that fits his or her point-of-view. This doesn’t expand one’s mind, it only narrows it. Reporters are expected to be objective and present both sides of every story.

- Reporter must admit their mistakes and they are held accountable for their actions. They also make it easy for readers to contact them with complaints or suggestions. Bloggers can avoid any criticism and are not attached to anything they say, unless they provide accurate contact information, which is not always required.

- A reporter has respectability and viable connections. If you were a public official, would you talk to Jonathan McVerry from the New York Times or Joe Shmo from joeshmo.blogger.com?

Blogged down

In the blogosphere, the audience is the writer and editor, democracy is in its truest form and news is free from corporate interests (not self interest though). This is the radical nature of blogs. Let them expand our perspectives, let them promote interactivity, let them invoke public discussion and even let them speculate from time to time, but never let them take the place of your favorite newspaper or news show.

That would be a bad idea.

During a University of Miami (Hurricanes) and Florida International University (Golden Panthers) football game on October 14, 2006, a bench-clearing fight between the two teams escalated into one of the largest brawls in the history of collegiate sports. This blog entry is going to look at fights in sports, how the media portrays them and the effects of their portrayal.



The two schools are only nine miles away from each other. Miami enjoys a rich football tradition that has produced numerous national championships and NFL superstars. The program is also known as "Thug U" and is often plagued by criminal misbehavior, academic dishonesty and booster problems. The young FIU football program is currently in its fifth football season and has been a mainstay in the cellar of the Division 1 football rankings.

The fight was instigated after a Miami player taunted the FIU cheering section. He was hit with a 15-yeard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, but it didn't end there. After an extra point kick by Miami, FIU's Chris Smith wrestled Miami holder Matt Perrelli to the ground and punched him. While Perrelli was still on the ground, FIU's Marshall McDuffie, Jr. kicked Perrelli in the helmet. Miami's Derrick Morse jumped on top of McDuffie.

Some of the more notable incidents in the fight:

-A UM player bodyslammed a FIU player onto the ground.

-A UM player was swinging his helmet and hitting FIU players in the head with it.

-A UM player stomped on FIU players with his cleats.

-An FIU player swung a crutch at a Miami player.


The Media has Brawls

There has always been bench clearing fights in sports. However, the pinnacle of these gruesome brawls was a clash between the NBA’s Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons. ( See it here! ) As the fight escalated, players entered the stands and began fighting with the fans as fans charged onto the court to spar with the players.

It’s interesting to think about the millions of people that rarely watch college football or NBA basketball. These people go about their lives with little to no opinion about these leagues and how they are run. But once something goes wrong, whether it is a steroid scandal, brawl or random assault, these people hear all about it. Opinions slowly grow. First, these “non-sports fans” are primed by the media and then their opinion is completely formed the next day at the water cooler at work.

Don’t get me wrong, the media does take time to commemorate sports greats like Cal Ripken Jr., Larry Bird and Joe Paterno, but when a brawl like the Miami and Detroit fights happens, it saturates all media. Sports breaks media boundaries and becomes breaking news for all media, not just the sports section. The media puts the NBA and NCAA, two organizations that take pride in their public relations, in a major disadvantage. The players don’t just make themselves and their teams look bad, they make their league and their sport look bad too. In fact, the league probably takes more heat than the players themselves, due to cross-media saturation.

Bad Brawls and Bad Calls

One would think college universities and the NCAA would be stricter with their discipline than a league of full grown multimillionaires. Even though the Detroit fight was far worse, Miami players were using their helmets as weapons, stomping on other players and body slamming others. Most of the players involved missed only one game as punishment. I think this led to an audience backlash. Many audience members are aware of Miami’s bad reputation and feel that the team should be banned from its bowl game this year and have many of its players suspended for the season.

I think the university was trying to go the silent route. “We’ll give these kids a little slap on the wrist and we’ll put all this behind us.” The move did not work as sports commentators, fan call-in shows and many sports writers voiced their displeasure with the light disciplining. The outcry was heard, but only one player received a longer suspension.

It's interesting to see how major institutions behave during a public relations crisis. They know that people forget about their university's education rankings and research breakthroughs. Instead they see a group of troubled young men bashing each others' helmets in and immediately associate the university with it.

Overall

It’s a shame that ugly fights become national news. Universities, students, players and the world of sports are publicly embarrassed at a national level. People who would never tune into a sporting event are quickly updated to a sad state of professional and collegiate sports.

It’s also a shame that an All-American linebacker can be the captain of his team for two years, have the record for most tackles in his school’s history, have a clean record for all four of his collegiate years, graduate with a 3.57 GPA in finance and still go fairly unnoticed(SEE: Mr. Paul Posluszny).

It’s not a new phenomenon, but it’s as unfortunate as ever. Luckily, like everything else in the media, the media hype dies down and everyone forgets all about it until the next fight.

Soon sports fans will be making bets on who will win the fight instead of who will win the game.

NOTE: The following is my final reaction essay for class.

Many claim that blogs may end up changing a lot of things, but saying that they will forever change the way we get our information is a stretch.
The Economist, however, doesn’t agree. In a survey entitled “Among the Audience,” a collection of edited selections from the magazine thinks that blogs and podcasts aren’t just the wave of the future, but the wave of today and the norm of the future.

The magazine writers are heavily one-sided on the issue. Pages are dedicated to glorifying the endless possibilities of what blogs can do for people and what they can do to traditional media companies. They call this new untraditional media “personal and participatory” -- a system where citizens are writing, reading, judging and deciding the information that they receive.
Foolishly the Economist is giving not only blogs, but the public way to much credit.

It interviews internet media moguls who say “people no longer passively ‘consume’ media,” instead, they read about it and instantly chime in through their personal blogs. The benefit of this arrangement is that instead of a few media giants competing there will only be small media companies and individuals competing, or as it states, “collaborating.” The writers say this is a good thing.

This is laughable. When there are hundreds of these small firms competing, news is thinned out, credible news is fuzzy and real journalistic reporting is lost. As long as there are a few big companies competing we will be fine. Competition between the best is good; competition between thousands of novices is bad.

The magazine spotlights its bias toward the new media by mocking old media traditionalists, such as Barry Diller, a man who launched FOX broadcasting and runs two Hollywood studios, thinks that participation can never be a proper basis for the media industry and that “self-publishing by someone of average talent is not very interesting.”

After that statement the article quickly labels Diller as an “ignoramus,” quoting Jerry Michalski, who says “there’s tons of great stuff from rank amateurs” and “(Diller) is completely wrong.”
Michalski, who is not credited and could be living on the street for all we know, is the one who is wrong. He says that “not everything in the ‘blogosphere’ is poetry’ and everything on Wikipedia is not 100 percent correct but you could say that about newspapers, radio, television and the Encyclopedia Britannica.” Talk about an ignoramus.

Newspapers and radio stations have a code of ethics to follow, they are responsible for what they report on and serve a public service. Whereas bloggers answer to no one, they are protected by a username and have no ethics. They have no responsibility to a company or the public. They are free to write about anything they want, unedited. Why on earth would any news-gathering citizen want that? I would trust a Dave Thompson/Sun-Gazette before I’d trust Doomy22.
The article states that young people will be happy to decide for themselves what is credible or worthwhile and what is not. I understand this magazine is British, so the British lifestyle must be completely different. The writers foolishly think that young people have the time to decipher good information and bad. They also think that people will volunteer their time to delve into investigative reporting and cover borough meetings. They think the public’s opinion will be strong enough for all to read.

Do we have all the time in the world to put aside our jobs and lives to write decent articles that only a few people may read? This ideal might last a few months, but there is no way it can stick. People have lives. They aren’t going to be willing to take time out of their day to write coherent and credible articles just for the heck of it.

It was interesting to read about Ohmy News, which actually has a system where readers can donate money to the writer if they like their stuff. Unfortunately that is in China and we are in the United States where people like their stuff free, especially if it comes from the Internet. There is no way the American people would fork over cash to read a random news story – or at least not enough to keep these random writers writing.

Some of the most asinine comments come at the end of the blogs section of the paper. The writers think people want to read the opinions of every computer owner. They say that “journalism won’t be a sermon any more, it will be a conversation.”
Yikes. What’s productive about a bunch of uneducated people babbling on about their self-proposed ideals? A lot of people in the U.S. gripe about uneducated voters. Having them read blogs as if they were news isn’t going to help that problem.

I don’t like to be preached to, but I would hope that most people would like to be preached to by a credible source than a litany of partisan morons. You may say that many traditional media outlets have shown their biases, so they’re just as bad. However, I disagree. If a person is going to take their time to write about what they think is important and post it for all to see, they have more of an agenda than someone who enters the professional world to bring people the news.
You don’t have to look farther than this article to see how easy it is to express one’s bias when you have no one to answer to. The writers must have something to gain by promoting this “new media” so heavily.

The writers ridicule traditional media leaders, they predict the year newspapers will be extinct (2040) and they often use quotes like “the more journalism the better; I don’t care who does it.”
They safely leave journalism undefined. What do they expect will be covered? Will people want to cover the township fund raisers, the little league baseball games, police chases, human interest stories, city meetings, court cases and the endless amount of stories that fills the newspaper everyday? I don’t think so. I might be wrong and it could be OK “not to care” who writes it. That is the most irresponsible end journalism can ever come to.

These articles give blogs way too much credit, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of blogging is a bad one. They are good for normal people to express their opinions and ask questions. They can be used to challenge traditional media. If an article on CNN or your local newspaper’s Web site doesn’t give you all the information you want, throw it up on your blog or e-mail the reporter.

The reporter can ignore you but many readers may have the same concern and find your blog. That starts a chain reaction that no reporter will be able to ignore. Surely, a follow up story would end up in the newspaper covering all the previously left out information. To think that those readers could go out and interview the main sources themselves is ridiculous.

This article needs to define what they expect from these novice writers. Realistically, one cannot expect much from about 97 percent of them.
Lastly, the article talks about podcasts. A little different than blogs, you don’t have to sit staring at a computer screen to enjoy music, news and radio-type shows. People can leave their pods connected to their computer and be instantly updated about everything they need to know.
Podcasts seem to be a little less harmful, compared to blogs. Not everyone has a pod and not everyone has recording capabilities or knows how to use recording equipment. Not only that, it is probably more tolerable to read bad writing than it is to listen to bad audio content and quality.

One of the more useless “facts” the article mentions is that the YouTube.com Web site transfers more data each day than the equivalent of an entire Blockbuster video-rental outlet. What an irrelevant fact.

YouTube.com offers an endless amount of movie snippets from TV shows to cell phone videos. The content is free and is usually only a couple minutes long. It is also available to hundreds of billions of people. I wouldn’t be surprised if YouTube.com has more data in its system than a whole Blockbuster store. A store caters to the town it’s in, not the world.

The Discman might have gone the way of the walkman, due to pods, but as far as pods being the primary source for TV shows, news, etc…it's got a long uphill climb to go. Unlike blogs, podcasts are at a disadvantage because they began as a music player and not as a news information gathering tool.

Overall, we will always need to rely on our traditional media for news. We can’t expect Joe Schmo to sit down with the president, a terrorist or murderer to conduct a hard hitting interview. This job is and should be for professionals. The present day media may not be perfect, but it offers us much more than the amateur method this article is suggesting. We shouldn’t stop the conversation, but we need something true and real to talk about.

While poking around the weblogs of my fellow classmates, I dropped in on Kristine's weblog. Her post on April 25 talked about her frustration with the recent hike in gas prices. It turns out she is so frustrated that she said: "honestly it makes me so angry I don't even want to discuss it."

I'm in the same boat, but I think I'll try to write a little about it.

President Bush is doing a similar thing these days. Bush orders gasoline price probe

In short, Dubya's gotta do what he's gotta do. With people groaning at the pumps and his approval ratings hitting record lows, this "probe" is necessary action for him.

I am by no means a political science major, but when you are dealing with multi-billion dollar companies and one of our country's most important imports, shouldn't you have a better idea of what's going on?

Gasoline was $1.19 less than a decade ago. Shouldn't Dubya, or someone in the White House, have some idea if $3 gallons are too much? It seems to me that if there is a need for them to be suspicious, than something rotten is going on.

I was never into the "we're at war because of oil" line, but since Dubya and Dicky C have their very apparent oil ties, why should be beleive them when they say they're are going to hunt down these price gougers? Wouldn't that be screwing their friends? They are going to need jobs in two years, they aren't going to want to do that.

Considering that companies like Exxon-Mobil are making $31 billion profits, the, "well, gas prices are high right now and that's why you want to make sure there's not (market manipulation)" line isn't enough for me. That sounds like, "people are making a stink about it and we've got nothing better to do."

Now there is talk about giving a $100 rebate to tax payers to help. (Can I get a laughing smiley?)

I am a graduate student, I walk to class, I have a job that's less than a half a mile away, I drive to the super market once every two weeks, I drive to State College once a month and I drive home on the holidays. Compared to the average American, I don't drive much.

So, $100 fills up my tank two and a half times. Not bad, that can last me about a month, maybe a little more. You give $100 to the average American SUV-driving commuter and that $100 is spent in less than a day. I'm sure the average driver, like myself, would never turn down $100, but it isn't going to solve any problems.

So the lesson here is: we are too dependent on oil. Everybody knows that and I'd like to think of a solution, but I can't. We just need more from our politicians. One hundred dollars is not going to keep us happy for very long. The job of "solution finder" is in their hands because they should know when the American people are getting screwed.

After nearly six months, Penn State University has finally announced the findings of its investigation against women's basketball coach Rene Portland. University finds Portland in violation of discrimination policy

Judging by Collegian articles from the past several weeks, the climate on the Penn State campus is quite heated. Catch-an-Immigrant Days, Sweat Shops and the foolish Peachy Paterno "issue" are just some of the most recent protests and topics hounding the school.

This week it's Portland and in today's blog I am going to try and explain why the actions committed by the University were useless.

First of all, Portland's punishment will be a $10,000 fine in lieu of a one-game suspension. There was also talk about enrolling Portland in some kind of discrimination education class.

I see two possible underlying statements from this result:

"We think Rene is innocent and we are doing this to keep her and shut people up."

or

"We don't really care and we are doing this to keep Rene and shut people up.


Will it shut people up? Heck no! These people never shut up.


If the allegations are true, I would agree that the punishment is ridiculous. Ten grand and some classes aren''t going to do anything to a 50-year-old woman who doesn't think she did anything wrong. The only cost is humiliation.

The biggest mistake is not releasing any sort of findings or results to the public. This just further separates the supporters from the doubters. Personally, I think Harris is full of it. I went to a lot of women's games when she was on the team and she was visibly a hot head. It was apparent at times that she was not a team player and she rarely hid her displeasure with the calls from officials or the coaching staff.

So regardless of the accusations, when Portland says Harris was a disturbance to the team, I believe it.


There are also a lot of odd holes in the case that I haven't read anything about. Jen Harris was dismissed from the team with two other players. What are their stories? Are they lesbians? What's the deal with that? Harris isn't alone in this, but people continue to think she is.

The only thing I keep reading is that Portland thought Harris should dress more feminine. (Well gosh, that must mean she's a lesbian, right?) If every men's basketball coach had to go through this lawsuit bologna for telling his players to dress more "manly," there'd be a good number of silly lawsuits. I am sure many coaches have told their players to not dress like "thugs", "pansies" or messy.

I need more. I need to hear what the other two players have to say. I think Harris is looking for easy cash and some attention. But if I am wrong and there is some proof (the key word is proof) that Portland clearly discriminated, then her punishment needs to be more harsh.

So overall, a meaningless punishment, an unclear conclusion and further confusing messages to the public have not been very helpful to the public who might be paying for Harris's crazy lawsuit when all is said and done.