If you're being audited, congratulations, you've been blessed with a few extra days.
Last night, congress stomped it's angry little feet and went home. They will be eating sympathy ice-cream and catching up on Breaking Bad for the next week, at least.
The floor of America's legislative branch has been ripe with tension for
the past 8 years, and finally, those legislators decided that it was
time to take a break.
"It's not you it's me," they said, "I just need my space."
According to an article on nbcpolitics.com, all services that effect
normal people will continue despite the awkward split between House
Republicans and Democrats. Medicade, medicare and, of course, military
salaries, shall continue to flow from the resourceful hire-ups.
Essentially, the shutdown won't have much effect on most Americans,
because congress will accomplish about as much on Netflix as it does at
work.
Democrats and Republicans, despite their best efforts, are not handling the split amicably.
"This is not about me," said House Speaker John Boehner, according to the article from NBC. "This is not about Republicans here
in Congress."
Sen. Jeff Flake, R- Ariz., seemed to be in denial, this morning, on MSNBC's Morning Joe, “I
can’t believe it will go for very long,” he said. Continuing to be the
host of the pity-party, he added, "“I think we all share the same
goal....But it’s no secret that I haven’t agreed with the tactic or the
strategy here." In this reporters opinion, it's time to move on, Flake.
Go find a re-bound (Associate Justice Scalia?)
Boehner, however, insisted that a break was the only way for congress to
resolve it's relationship differences. He told NBC that the split
wasn't about either party, but "fairness."
President Obama, as always, seems to be wearing the pants during this
time of crisis between Democrats and the GOP. When prompted as to what
he, as president, could bring to the table in order to stabilize the
relationship, Obama responded, "I shouldn't have to offer
anything...They're
not doing me a favor by paying for things that they have already
approved for the government to do. That's part of their basic function
of government, that's not doing me a favor."
As Americans, we hope that Congress can see past it's differences and
remember that what they had was special. Someone needs to be the bigger
person. Congress must tell each-other how they truly feel, or risk
losing that which holds this country together: a country we love, a
country we care about. This is more devastating than Richard Geer's
split with Carey Lowell.
Shake hands and make up, Congress. America misses you.
"I've had the time of my life/ No I've never felt this way before/ and I swear it's the truth / and I owe it all to you."
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Speculating on Speculations about things that havn't (and may never) Happen
Such is life.
THE INITIAL SPECULATION:
< http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/09/the-newsononics-of-jeff-bezos-and-warren-buffetts-runway/ >
According to the article above, Jeff Beezos of Amazon.com and, as of recently, The Washington Post, has announced step one in his 'Save-The-Dying-Newspaper-Industry' master plan. Namely: to create runway.
'What is runway?' you so astutely ask. It is the most American fix of all: Beezos is going to throw money at the problem. The analogy of an airport runway is not a good one. Think of Beezos as a momma kangaroo and The Washinton Post as his little, infant offspring. Until the offspring is strong enough to stand on it's own two feet, Beezos has been kind enough to offer it support in his deep pockets/marsupial pouch.
Facetiousness aside, this is good news for The Post. Beezos has given The Post a cushion, made of $100 bills, as insurance against too great a fall. The Post is free to experiment. They can afford a few failed business ventures, and, with Beezos as their captain, may even find themselves pulling in a profit.
At the end of the article, the writer posts 4 possibilities, based on observations of the News Industry and Beezos' work history, that Beezos may try in an effort to save The Post. In doing so, Beezos hopes to create a viable business plan for the rest of the journalistic community.
The first idea suggested by the writer is a practice that (apparently) was lucrative for Beezos during his Amazon years. However, it will not transition well to the newspaper industry (as I'm sure Beezos is already aware). The writer proposed that Beezos drop the price of subscription in an effort to enhance the quantity of subscriptions demanded by the public. In the case of Amazon Prime, this strategy proved very effective.
A newspaper, however, cannot afford such a gamble. It will never be able to lower the price of a subscription to be competitive with alternate goods in the same market. In other words, the price of getting news on the internet will always be cheaper, if not free, than The Post's subscription service. Therefore, while lowering the price may increase the quantity of demand, it does not make Print News competition for alternative News soruces, and thus only delays the inevitable. Eventually, the competition will win.
The second idea, one for a kindle-edition of the post, is a very good one and, I believe, highly likely to become a reality in the near future. Beezos has already secured a large consumer population on The Kindle, so it only makes sense to use that readily-available marketing pool for The Post. Even if most users hate The Post, exposure to a different, Kindle-kindle using demographic would be good for The Post.
Beezos is planning something. Whatever it is, the rest of the News world is anxiously fidgeting and speculating, hoping that from the great mind which gave us Amazon.com, can come the answer Journalism is looking for. Again, speaking economically, it might be better to diversify our investment, not place all our eggs in the same basket. Just a thought, not an omen. Good luck, Beezos, wherever you are.
THE INITIAL SPECULATION:
< http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/09/the-newsononics-of-jeff-bezos-and-warren-buffetts-runway/ >
According to the article above, Jeff Beezos of Amazon.com and, as of recently, The Washington Post, has announced step one in his 'Save-The-Dying-Newspaper-Industry' master plan. Namely: to create runway.
'What is runway?' you so astutely ask. It is the most American fix of all: Beezos is going to throw money at the problem. The analogy of an airport runway is not a good one. Think of Beezos as a momma kangaroo and The Washinton Post as his little, infant offspring. Until the offspring is strong enough to stand on it's own two feet, Beezos has been kind enough to offer it support in his deep pockets/marsupial pouch.
Facetiousness aside, this is good news for The Post. Beezos has given The Post a cushion, made of $100 bills, as insurance against too great a fall. The Post is free to experiment. They can afford a few failed business ventures, and, with Beezos as their captain, may even find themselves pulling in a profit.
At the end of the article, the writer posts 4 possibilities, based on observations of the News Industry and Beezos' work history, that Beezos may try in an effort to save The Post. In doing so, Beezos hopes to create a viable business plan for the rest of the journalistic community.
The first idea suggested by the writer is a practice that (apparently) was lucrative for Beezos during his Amazon years. However, it will not transition well to the newspaper industry (as I'm sure Beezos is already aware). The writer proposed that Beezos drop the price of subscription in an effort to enhance the quantity of subscriptions demanded by the public. In the case of Amazon Prime, this strategy proved very effective.
A newspaper, however, cannot afford such a gamble. It will never be able to lower the price of a subscription to be competitive with alternate goods in the same market. In other words, the price of getting news on the internet will always be cheaper, if not free, than The Post's subscription service. Therefore, while lowering the price may increase the quantity of demand, it does not make Print News competition for alternative News soruces, and thus only delays the inevitable. Eventually, the competition will win.
The second idea, one for a kindle-edition of the post, is a very good one and, I believe, highly likely to become a reality in the near future. Beezos has already secured a large consumer population on The Kindle, so it only makes sense to use that readily-available marketing pool for The Post. Even if most users hate The Post, exposure to a different, Kindle-kindle using demographic would be good for The Post.
Beezos is planning something. Whatever it is, the rest of the News world is anxiously fidgeting and speculating, hoping that from the great mind which gave us Amazon.com, can come the answer Journalism is looking for. Again, speaking economically, it might be better to diversify our investment, not place all our eggs in the same basket. Just a thought, not an omen. Good luck, Beezos, wherever you are.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Everyone Fancies Themselves an Entrepreneur
Research conducted by Millenail Branding, a group dedicated to studying Generation Y like the frozen caveman, in collaboration with Identified.com, which specializes in social media trends, found that "owner" is the fifth most popular job listing on facebook among Generation Y.
Generation Y is the group of kids born between 1985-2000. Our parents are the Baby Boomers and our successors are the Millennial babies. Generation Y has recently become the subject of intensive study because our youngest are entering the work force. Today, Gen-Y-ers are either in college or working full time. We're almost real people, and we're about to have our time in the spotlight.
Millenial Branding found that the biggest employer of Generation Y was the U.S. Army. The second and third were the hospitality and food service industries, respectively. The study hypothesizes that this is because jobs are scarce and landing an internship is like spotting a four-leaf clover. Therefore, our generation is turning to jobs as hostesses and fry cooks. Consumer products (retail\sales) are fourth most popular for the same reason, they suspect.
"Owner," however, suggests that the fifth most popular job-title among the emerging work force is that of young entrepreneur. We are an entrepreneurial generation.
This high a rate of free-lance entrepreneurship is unprecedented. It goes against most of what studies have shown about Gen-Y. We know that Gen-Y is dependent upon a pack-mentality. Trends such as the prevalence of social media, and nuances in early childhood development (There's no 'I' in Team), suggest that we prefer a group. We trust in the higher institution. Whereas the baby boomers were decidedly anti-authoritarian, many of those rebels-without-causes have raised children who believe in the establishment.
We are second only to the G.I. generation in our willingness to participate in group activities and government programs (including the army). We have high financial expectations for ourselves, and strive to climb the corporate ladder.
We love our parents -- to an almost creepy extent. Many have termed Gen-Y the 'boomerang' generation because we have a habit of returning home after college\grad school and before entering the work force. We turn to mom and dad for advice before anyone else.
So why, then, are we so fiercely independent when it comes to entrepreneurship? Another defining characteristic of Gen-Y is our delusions of grandeur. Such delusions are not our fault: they were instilled in us at a very young age: "You are special....You can be anything you want to be!" It is common, for individuals in Generation Y, to believe that they stand out from the pack. Of course, if everyone stands out from the pack, then no one does, the pack simply takes a few steps forward.
It might be this mentality that makes Gen-Y believe that they are so qualified to be entrepreneurs. The belief, however, is timely.
Start-up companies have been more and more prevalent since the tech-boom of the 1990's. Around '95, select members of early Gen-Y began to find wealth on the internet by patenting cyberware, software, and code functions. This led to the "digital bubble," of the late 90's, which popped just before the millennium.
Though the first few certainty reaped the largest rewards, start-ups are still made cheep and easy by the internet. The net has also made crowd-sourcing possible through sites such as kickstarter. The corporate world is catching on. Every year, more venture capital is offered to small start-up companies that do most (if not all) of their networking and advertising on the internet.
As aspiring Entrepreneurs and members of Generation Y, we should be cautious that, though entrepreneurship is easier than it has been in the past, everyone fancies themselves an entrepreneur. Therefore, we should expect a large pool of competition from which only a fighting few will be selected for success.
According to Millennial Building, Generation Y will make up 75%of the workforce by 2025.
Generation Y is the group of kids born between 1985-2000. Our parents are the Baby Boomers and our successors are the Millennial babies. Generation Y has recently become the subject of intensive study because our youngest are entering the work force. Today, Gen-Y-ers are either in college or working full time. We're almost real people, and we're about to have our time in the spotlight.
Millenial Branding found that the biggest employer of Generation Y was the U.S. Army. The second and third were the hospitality and food service industries, respectively. The study hypothesizes that this is because jobs are scarce and landing an internship is like spotting a four-leaf clover. Therefore, our generation is turning to jobs as hostesses and fry cooks. Consumer products (retail\sales) are fourth most popular for the same reason, they suspect.
"Owner," however, suggests that the fifth most popular job-title among the emerging work force is that of young entrepreneur. We are an entrepreneurial generation.
This high a rate of free-lance entrepreneurship is unprecedented. It goes against most of what studies have shown about Gen-Y. We know that Gen-Y is dependent upon a pack-mentality. Trends such as the prevalence of social media, and nuances in early childhood development (There's no 'I' in Team), suggest that we prefer a group. We trust in the higher institution. Whereas the baby boomers were decidedly anti-authoritarian, many of those rebels-without-causes have raised children who believe in the establishment.
We are second only to the G.I. generation in our willingness to participate in group activities and government programs (including the army). We have high financial expectations for ourselves, and strive to climb the corporate ladder.
We love our parents -- to an almost creepy extent. Many have termed Gen-Y the 'boomerang' generation because we have a habit of returning home after college\grad school and before entering the work force. We turn to mom and dad for advice before anyone else.
So why, then, are we so fiercely independent when it comes to entrepreneurship? Another defining characteristic of Gen-Y is our delusions of grandeur. Such delusions are not our fault: they were instilled in us at a very young age: "You are special....You can be anything you want to be!" It is common, for individuals in Generation Y, to believe that they stand out from the pack. Of course, if everyone stands out from the pack, then no one does, the pack simply takes a few steps forward.
It might be this mentality that makes Gen-Y believe that they are so qualified to be entrepreneurs. The belief, however, is timely.
Start-up companies have been more and more prevalent since the tech-boom of the 1990's. Around '95, select members of early Gen-Y began to find wealth on the internet by patenting cyberware, software, and code functions. This led to the "digital bubble," of the late 90's, which popped just before the millennium.
Though the first few certainty reaped the largest rewards, start-ups are still made cheep and easy by the internet. The net has also made crowd-sourcing possible through sites such as kickstarter. The corporate world is catching on. Every year, more venture capital is offered to small start-up companies that do most (if not all) of their networking and advertising on the internet.
As aspiring Entrepreneurs and members of Generation Y, we should be cautious that, though entrepreneurship is easier than it has been in the past, everyone fancies themselves an entrepreneur. Therefore, we should expect a large pool of competition from which only a fighting few will be selected for success.
According to Millennial Building, Generation Y will make up 75%of the workforce by 2025.
Monday, September 16, 2013
The First Step to Being a Good Entrepreneur is Being a Good Person
As a general practice, I think the sentiment expressed in the header of this post is true for the layman. I'm a layman. No silver spoon here. By technical definition, any Entrepreneur is a layman, as a layman is one who does not belong to any sophisticated profession: unprofessional. As entrepreneur's, we are cultivating only the skills with which we have been born (ability to network, exact planning, etc.) and can offer no special skills besides the product we push on a consumer.
Therefore, the entrepreneur is very much a layman, and it is good advice for the layman to be either very nice or very smart (I think Jimmy Stuart said that in Harvey?) If you're an entrepreneur who is very smart, it may be wise to play the game in a cut-throat manor. However, it is important to keep in mind that the great deviates of history have been lucky more than they've been geniuses. To play a game of high risk, such as cut-throat entrepreneurship, is to increase one's chance of downfall; but also to increase the potential rewards of success.
What might work best for the rest of us, those perhaps more cautious, is a safer approach. By being kind, and extending a service by which all partners benefit from said service, it is more than likely that the party which makes the deals benefits the most. The economic term here is Pareto Efficiency. It means, basically, to limit one's risk by a series of safe decisions. For example, if I help a peer I am more likely to receive help in return. If I help several peers, then several peers will be more likely to reciprocate in helping me. Thus, while multiple parties are benefiting in small amounts from my, individual, help; I benefit in large quantities from the help of all parties. The same logic can be applied to a business deal. If I make mutually beneficial arrangements with multiple organizations, I benefit from all of them at once.
Thus, unless you stepped on a leprechaun, the name of the game might be to play it safe and friendly. Statistically speaking, this approach has a higher chance of success than being cut-throat. Besides, which would sleep easier on your conscious: knowing you made your money helping others or ripping them off?
The big names in history, the Ceasar's, Alexander the Great's and William Randolph Hearst's, got very lucky. Their game was a risky one and yet, by fate or odds, it played out in their favor. It is hard, however, to name those who achieved a comfortable state of living by safer means, as they are often lost to history, which favors excitement. This is a pity, because statistically, they're the smart ones.
Therefore, the entrepreneur is very much a layman, and it is good advice for the layman to be either very nice or very smart (I think Jimmy Stuart said that in Harvey?) If you're an entrepreneur who is very smart, it may be wise to play the game in a cut-throat manor. However, it is important to keep in mind that the great deviates of history have been lucky more than they've been geniuses. To play a game of high risk, such as cut-throat entrepreneurship, is to increase one's chance of downfall; but also to increase the potential rewards of success.
What might work best for the rest of us, those perhaps more cautious, is a safer approach. By being kind, and extending a service by which all partners benefit from said service, it is more than likely that the party which makes the deals benefits the most. The economic term here is Pareto Efficiency. It means, basically, to limit one's risk by a series of safe decisions. For example, if I help a peer I am more likely to receive help in return. If I help several peers, then several peers will be more likely to reciprocate in helping me. Thus, while multiple parties are benefiting in small amounts from my, individual, help; I benefit in large quantities from the help of all parties. The same logic can be applied to a business deal. If I make mutually beneficial arrangements with multiple organizations, I benefit from all of them at once.
Thus, unless you stepped on a leprechaun, the name of the game might be to play it safe and friendly. Statistically speaking, this approach has a higher chance of success than being cut-throat. Besides, which would sleep easier on your conscious: knowing you made your money helping others or ripping them off?
The big names in history, the Ceasar's, Alexander the Great's and William Randolph Hearst's, got very lucky. Their game was a risky one and yet, by fate or odds, it played out in their favor. It is hard, however, to name those who achieved a comfortable state of living by safer means, as they are often lost to history, which favors excitement. This is a pity, because statistically, they're the smart ones.
Jeff Rapsis
In the Summer of 2001, Jeff Rapsis, Jody Reece and Dan Szczesny put the final touches on the first issue of local, Manchester newsletter The Hippo Press.
"I wrote an article about good places to get a drink," recalls Jeff.
After working at the Keene Sentinel for a number of years, Jeff was approached by Reece and Szcensny about the idea of starting new publications for the Southern New Hampshire Area. Since that first issue, Hippo Press now owns subsidiaries in Nashua, Concord, Clairmont, Newport and has even extended its reach into Vermont.
The Hippo began it's life on the internet, created by Reece and Szcensny. "We [Reece and Szensny] met at the Nashua Radio Station, where I was doing some work," recalls Jeff, "They asked me if I wanted to come aboard. I said, 'sure', but we had to think of a business plan".
The original plan was sketched in a napkin at Manchester's Milly's Tavern. "We all agreed that the paper should be free," said Jeff, "we wanted everyone to have access to it. The money came from advertisers".
Robert Baines, then the mayor of Manchester, welcomed the business venture, but insisted that The Hippo change it's name to something more conventional. "We refused," said Jeff, "The Hippo was Jody's idea, but it really separated us from the crowd".
The Nashua edition of The Hippo was launched in 2004. In 2005, the Concord edition was created. The total circulation in 2007 was over 34,000 papers.
"It felt like we had nowhere to go but up," remembers Jeff, "it was all very exciting".
The following years would see more growth for The Hippo. "One of our best accomplishments was getting The York Independent," said Jeff. The York Independent is another New Hampshire paper with an annual circulation of up to 10,000.
"After that, we had enough capital in our reserves to keep expanding," explained Jeff. The Hippo launched its biggest venture in 2009, a brand new paper called The Compass. The Compass covers the area in Eastern, NH made up by Newport, Clairmont, and into Springfield in Western, Vt.
"We had big hopes to break across state lines," said Jeff, "but the recession hurt everybody. We're still on our feet, though, and looking forward to the future".
Jeff spends his free time composing music for Silent Film, his lifelong passion, and teaching Media Writing and Journalism classes at UNH Manchester (this is how I know him).
"I like teaching," he says, "I want kids to be prepared to have the same opportunities I've had".
"I wrote an article about good places to get a drink," recalls Jeff.
After working at the Keene Sentinel for a number of years, Jeff was approached by Reece and Szcensny about the idea of starting new publications for the Southern New Hampshire Area. Since that first issue, Hippo Press now owns subsidiaries in Nashua, Concord, Clairmont, Newport and has even extended its reach into Vermont.
The Hippo began it's life on the internet, created by Reece and Szcensny. "We [Reece and Szensny] met at the Nashua Radio Station, where I was doing some work," recalls Jeff, "They asked me if I wanted to come aboard. I said, 'sure', but we had to think of a business plan".
The original plan was sketched in a napkin at Manchester's Milly's Tavern. "We all agreed that the paper should be free," said Jeff, "we wanted everyone to have access to it. The money came from advertisers".
Robert Baines, then the mayor of Manchester, welcomed the business venture, but insisted that The Hippo change it's name to something more conventional. "We refused," said Jeff, "The Hippo was Jody's idea, but it really separated us from the crowd".
The Nashua edition of The Hippo was launched in 2004. In 2005, the Concord edition was created. The total circulation in 2007 was over 34,000 papers.
"It felt like we had nowhere to go but up," remembers Jeff, "it was all very exciting".
The following years would see more growth for The Hippo. "One of our best accomplishments was getting The York Independent," said Jeff. The York Independent is another New Hampshire paper with an annual circulation of up to 10,000.
"After that, we had enough capital in our reserves to keep expanding," explained Jeff. The Hippo launched its biggest venture in 2009, a brand new paper called The Compass. The Compass covers the area in Eastern, NH made up by Newport, Clairmont, and into Springfield in Western, Vt.
"We had big hopes to break across state lines," said Jeff, "but the recession hurt everybody. We're still on our feet, though, and looking forward to the future".
Jeff spends his free time composing music for Silent Film, his lifelong passion, and teaching Media Writing and Journalism classes at UNH Manchester (this is how I know him).
"I like teaching," he says, "I want kids to be prepared to have the same opportunities I've had".
Sunday, September 15, 2013
My First Venture In Entrepreneurship
It's mid-August. I'm sitting in my living room, thinking of all the things I'll need to bring with me upon my return to college. My phone buzzes, it's Brandon, a friend from High School. He's mad at me.
"you should have re-posted the add by now. you've had plenty of time."
I hate when Brandon gets all self-righteous like this. I founded the damn company. I found all our clients. All he had to do was wait for my phone calls.
"We posted too many times. Craigslist thinks we're spam. Besides, you're making 12/hour landscaping. What are you complaining about?"
It was true that Craigslist blocked my IP, but Brandon knew this was a very easy obstacle to work around. He's heard me make many excuses, and he doesn't stand for them.
"It could have been sick", he sends back. I don't reply. He's right. I fucked up.
Cut back to the beginning of the summer. The whole crew is back in town for the first time in over a year: Tyma, Matt, Burdzy, other Matt, Brandon and myself. I'm in my room, looking at my life compartmentalized into boxes and bags (I never really unpacked). Brandon texts me, "bonfire tonight".
That night felt like high school. Everyone was sitting around the campfire, telling jokes and stories from college. Burdzy has been fixing planes in Ohio since graduation. He's wearing nice clothes. Everyone told me that a degree was the way you make money in this world. I felt naive.
The next morning, Brandon is driving me back to my house. We've been talking about college and the eminent threat posed by student loans six months after graduation. Between the two of us we don't have a lot of money. I wanted a car, Brandon wants a new phone.
"We should just throw up an add on Craigslist," says Brandon, "like, we'll do anything. House work, painting, garden, stuff like that."
I'm mulling this over in the passenger seat. We would need equipment, and an unlicensed 'we do it all' project seems sketchy, especially on Craigslist.
"What if we just do one thing, something we have all the tools for".
"I could get paint from my work."
"But we have lawnmowers. I have a weed whacker. You have a truck. We have shears, saws and all that stuff just chilling in our family's garage".
"Okay, Landscaping then. Throw up an add tonight".
It would be two more days before I finally got around to posting the add. By that time, Matt had found his way into the scheme. We called it "3 Broke College Kids". We posted a picture of Brandon pushing a lawnmower. The add read, basically, like this:
"3 Broke College Kids
We are 3 college students with construction and landscaping experience, willing to do your yard work for cheap! Services include:
-mulching
-mowing
-planting
-weeding
-hedges
-edging
-and much more!!!
Call now for service in the Southern New Hampshire area!"
We got our first two clients that afternoon. We charged 30 dollars an hour for all three of us. 10 dollars an hour was more than Brandon was making doing construction, more than Matt was making painting Saint A's and a lot more than I was making at D'angelos.
After Matt quit on us, Brandon and I were more than happy to split the extra cut.
The first job was rough. Matt and Brandon couldn't show up, so I had to call on some friends from the neighborhood. Matty Mccue and I brought along a kid named Chris, he had a pickup truck. The call made the job seem easy, "cut our grass and trim our hedges". What they neglected to tell us was that they had done zero maintenance on their lawn for what must have been a number of years. The grass was a foot high. It had rained the night before. Chris broke his lawnmower. There was an ingrown vine in the hedges, which were about 11 feet tall. I spent two days crawling around the bush with a weed whacker, trying to cut out the vine at it's many routes. I cut down a small tree with a hand saw. Matty McCue held my feet as I dangled over the hedges, so I wouldn't plummet to the sidewalk bellow. Chris's lawnmower did a terrible job. The final product was patchy and uneven. But, we made $150 per day, split up between three people. At the end of the job, I explained that this was our first and that I wasn't working with our regular crew. They never called us back.
The second job went no smoother. Brandon and I drove out to Atkinson, NH to trim a lawn that was even more overgrown than the first. Brandon's lawnmower kept snagging on the grass. I was out of oil, so I took his truck to a nearby convenience store to buy some more. When I returned, Brandon was sitting on the edge of our client's property, head down, looking hopeless and defeated. "What happened?" I asked.
Brandon is very strong. Apparently, when he was upset at the frequent stalls of his lawnmower, he gave the starter rope a good yank, snapping the very thing in half. I wasn't there. Brandon went to talk to the owner. The man gave us $30 for our trouble and sent us on our way. We spent half of it on tacos.
Then, out of nowhere, came a godsend. His name was Patrick Smith. He lived down the street from me and needed his whole lawn redone. He had ordered a pile of dirt, about 5 ft. high and long, which was sitting on his front lawn. We were to smooth the dirt in an even layer across everything: front, back and side yards. There were obstacles in the way of his dream yard, such as a large boulder that had to be cleared from the ground. Brandon and I did the job well and it took weeks. In that time, we made some other clients, including one other sustaining client (an old lady needed her lawn mowed every week). By July, it felt like we were rolling in dough. We even talked about hiring my little brother at 9 dollars an hour.
Then, as it is prone to do, reality set in. I was on the phone with a guidance councilor from school who informed me that, due to my transfer, I was not actually a Jr. Instead, I was floating between Sophomore and Junior and not on track to graduate on time. I had to take summer classes. Logic and Spanish ate up all of my time. I had no time to schedule appointments, or even hang out with my friends.
At the beginning of August, Smith called back. I scheduled an appointment for that Sunday. The next week was hell. I struggled to complete the final tests and assignments for logic. I learned the entire last chapter of Spanish in a day and took the final test (Got a B. Not Bad). Sunday morning I woke up to a call from Steve, a friend from school and my superior at work, "Can you come in today? Derek boned us".
"Yeah, I'm on my way".
My dad gave me a ride. As we were driving, we went right past the Smith house. I saw Patrick mowing his lawn. We made eye contact. I remembered my previous engagement. We were done for.
I called Patrick from work, he didn't answer. I called him after work, no answer. He paid us 300 dollars a week and now that fountain had run dry. Due to the time I had been putting into my school work, our other clients began to fall through. I was missing calls left and right. We needed new clientele.
It was then that I first realized Craigslits was no longer letting us re-post our add. Brandon had posted the same add under various company names, due to an argument about which name would be the best, Dependable Landscaping, 3 Broke College Kids, or Dirt Poor. After our add appeared under all three names, our IP's were booted from the server.
Then, I gave up. An anticlimactic ending, I know, but it is the truth. I stopped posting and stopped calling. I focused on my school work. When that was done, I went to my two minimum wage jobs and didn't do much else. I was defeated.
We made a lot or rookie mistakes, but for about a month, it really seemed like it was going to pay off. Brandon's a little less mad at me now. Hopefully he's not opposed to trying again next summer.
"you should have re-posted the add by now. you've had plenty of time."
I hate when Brandon gets all self-righteous like this. I founded the damn company. I found all our clients. All he had to do was wait for my phone calls.
"We posted too many times. Craigslist thinks we're spam. Besides, you're making 12/hour landscaping. What are you complaining about?"
It was true that Craigslist blocked my IP, but Brandon knew this was a very easy obstacle to work around. He's heard me make many excuses, and he doesn't stand for them.
"It could have been sick", he sends back. I don't reply. He's right. I fucked up.
Cut back to the beginning of the summer. The whole crew is back in town for the first time in over a year: Tyma, Matt, Burdzy, other Matt, Brandon and myself. I'm in my room, looking at my life compartmentalized into boxes and bags (I never really unpacked). Brandon texts me, "bonfire tonight".
That night felt like high school. Everyone was sitting around the campfire, telling jokes and stories from college. Burdzy has been fixing planes in Ohio since graduation. He's wearing nice clothes. Everyone told me that a degree was the way you make money in this world. I felt naive.
The next morning, Brandon is driving me back to my house. We've been talking about college and the eminent threat posed by student loans six months after graduation. Between the two of us we don't have a lot of money. I wanted a car, Brandon wants a new phone.
"We should just throw up an add on Craigslist," says Brandon, "like, we'll do anything. House work, painting, garden, stuff like that."
I'm mulling this over in the passenger seat. We would need equipment, and an unlicensed 'we do it all' project seems sketchy, especially on Craigslist.
"What if we just do one thing, something we have all the tools for".
"I could get paint from my work."
"But we have lawnmowers. I have a weed whacker. You have a truck. We have shears, saws and all that stuff just chilling in our family's garage".
"Okay, Landscaping then. Throw up an add tonight".
It would be two more days before I finally got around to posting the add. By that time, Matt had found his way into the scheme. We called it "3 Broke College Kids". We posted a picture of Brandon pushing a lawnmower. The add read, basically, like this:
"3 Broke College Kids
We are 3 college students with construction and landscaping experience, willing to do your yard work for cheap! Services include:
-mulching
-mowing
-planting
-weeding
-hedges
-edging
-and much more!!!
Call now for service in the Southern New Hampshire area!"
We got our first two clients that afternoon. We charged 30 dollars an hour for all three of us. 10 dollars an hour was more than Brandon was making doing construction, more than Matt was making painting Saint A's and a lot more than I was making at D'angelos.
After Matt quit on us, Brandon and I were more than happy to split the extra cut.
The first job was rough. Matt and Brandon couldn't show up, so I had to call on some friends from the neighborhood. Matty Mccue and I brought along a kid named Chris, he had a pickup truck. The call made the job seem easy, "cut our grass and trim our hedges". What they neglected to tell us was that they had done zero maintenance on their lawn for what must have been a number of years. The grass was a foot high. It had rained the night before. Chris broke his lawnmower. There was an ingrown vine in the hedges, which were about 11 feet tall. I spent two days crawling around the bush with a weed whacker, trying to cut out the vine at it's many routes. I cut down a small tree with a hand saw. Matty McCue held my feet as I dangled over the hedges, so I wouldn't plummet to the sidewalk bellow. Chris's lawnmower did a terrible job. The final product was patchy and uneven. But, we made $150 per day, split up between three people. At the end of the job, I explained that this was our first and that I wasn't working with our regular crew. They never called us back.
The second job went no smoother. Brandon and I drove out to Atkinson, NH to trim a lawn that was even more overgrown than the first. Brandon's lawnmower kept snagging on the grass. I was out of oil, so I took his truck to a nearby convenience store to buy some more. When I returned, Brandon was sitting on the edge of our client's property, head down, looking hopeless and defeated. "What happened?" I asked.
Brandon is very strong. Apparently, when he was upset at the frequent stalls of his lawnmower, he gave the starter rope a good yank, snapping the very thing in half. I wasn't there. Brandon went to talk to the owner. The man gave us $30 for our trouble and sent us on our way. We spent half of it on tacos.
Then, out of nowhere, came a godsend. His name was Patrick Smith. He lived down the street from me and needed his whole lawn redone. He had ordered a pile of dirt, about 5 ft. high and long, which was sitting on his front lawn. We were to smooth the dirt in an even layer across everything: front, back and side yards. There were obstacles in the way of his dream yard, such as a large boulder that had to be cleared from the ground. Brandon and I did the job well and it took weeks. In that time, we made some other clients, including one other sustaining client (an old lady needed her lawn mowed every week). By July, it felt like we were rolling in dough. We even talked about hiring my little brother at 9 dollars an hour.
Then, as it is prone to do, reality set in. I was on the phone with a guidance councilor from school who informed me that, due to my transfer, I was not actually a Jr. Instead, I was floating between Sophomore and Junior and not on track to graduate on time. I had to take summer classes. Logic and Spanish ate up all of my time. I had no time to schedule appointments, or even hang out with my friends.
At the beginning of August, Smith called back. I scheduled an appointment for that Sunday. The next week was hell. I struggled to complete the final tests and assignments for logic. I learned the entire last chapter of Spanish in a day and took the final test (Got a B. Not Bad). Sunday morning I woke up to a call from Steve, a friend from school and my superior at work, "Can you come in today? Derek boned us".
"Yeah, I'm on my way".
My dad gave me a ride. As we were driving, we went right past the Smith house. I saw Patrick mowing his lawn. We made eye contact. I remembered my previous engagement. We were done for.
I called Patrick from work, he didn't answer. I called him after work, no answer. He paid us 300 dollars a week and now that fountain had run dry. Due to the time I had been putting into my school work, our other clients began to fall through. I was missing calls left and right. We needed new clientele.
It was then that I first realized Craigslits was no longer letting us re-post our add. Brandon had posted the same add under various company names, due to an argument about which name would be the best, Dependable Landscaping, 3 Broke College Kids, or Dirt Poor. After our add appeared under all three names, our IP's were booted from the server.
Then, I gave up. An anticlimactic ending, I know, but it is the truth. I stopped posting and stopped calling. I focused on my school work. When that was done, I went to my two minimum wage jobs and didn't do much else. I was defeated.
We made a lot or rookie mistakes, but for about a month, it really seemed like it was going to pay off. Brandon's a little less mad at me now. Hopefully he's not opposed to trying again next summer.
Monday, September 9, 2013
The Evolution of Internet News
Journalism, like an awkward teenager, is in a state of adjustment. As it temperamentally battles old habits, it adapts itself to a new (coming of) age. But milestones cannot be reached without failure. Development cannot be achieved without a fair share of mishaps and at the risk of non compos mentis.
As it currently stands, Journalism is most equatable to a middle-schooler; trying on new styles and going through fazes until it finds one that works. Currently, we are stuck in something of an emo-phase -- it just isn't doesn't feel right.
Various institutions are trying different methods to adapt to the digital age, most of which fall short of delivering the same customer satisfaction that was guaranteed by print in the industry's heyday. However, the real problem with internet news is not general reception. More American's are getting their news online every day. The problem, as always, is monetary.
As Ken Doctor writes in his book Newenomics, the economic concept of scarcity is eliminated by the web. Supply is infinite in the virtual world, causing the equilibrium price of the digital advertising market to plummet. Whereas in a print newspapers, advertisements cost dollars, on the internet, advertising costs pennies.
There are ways to increase the price of a digital advertisement, but none of which could levy the same revenues brought in by print advertising. An add at the header of a web page which expands when the user hovers his cursor over it, for example, is worth more than adds in the margins of the page. Of course, at this point the difference is finicky, as we are debating the difference between 80 and 90 cents.
Therefore, our course of action moving forward could take one of two paths, each of which would drastically alter the business side of journalism. As Journalists, we must either (a) shake our dependency on advertising revenue or (b) drastically reduce overheads.
As an internet news source, overheads are already at a minimum. Pushed to max efficiency, such an organization does not require a newsroom, any supplies or even an office. Newsroom meetings can be done through group Skype (a good office would offer a bulk deal on the premium package which allows such a service, however, one could make the employees pay for it themselves. This, however, is not good business). Each employee could reasonably be expected to supply their own computer, as any aspiring journalist should already have one. Distribution and manufacturing costs are obsolete. The only real expenditures would be employee salaries, web design and the measly cost of a domain name.
Shaking journalism's dependency on add revenue would require a drastic re-imagination of business which neither I, nor anyone that I know of in the field, has yet to establish. Perhaps copyright law should be considered.
Insomuch as the format of internet news, some paradigms of the internet thus far must be examined. From the success of organizations such as Wikipedia and Google, it can be inferred that the tendency of internet users is to prefer platforms from which all information can be accessed. Wikipedia has not been monetarily successful because they are open source, non-profit, and morally opposed to adds. Therefore, they have no choice but to survive off of donations, and the cost of hosting all that information is quite large.
Google, on the other hand, presents a very interesting business model. Websites pay large premiums for the right to be on the first page of search results, Wikipedia among them. This platform could be utilized by an enterprise which exists not to create the news, but to bring it to the user in an accessible way, with all possible information in its database, the higher paying source displayed more prevalently. Copyright law could insure a mutually beneficial relationship between the news sources and the provider, with the sources being paid for their rights to display the information on the provider's website. Let it be known, that I copyright my ideas. If anyone steals them, I will hunt and kill -- literally kill -- as I will then have nothing to lose.
Some mediums have already tried a similar approach to News. Google currents, for example, is a freeware format that pays various news sources for the rights to upload their content into an e-reader version. The user can then subscribe to his choice of sources, and view them at his pleasure through the Currents platform. Google receives a cut of whatever advertising appeared in the original print source, as it is displayed again on the Currents platform in digital. This is a good idea, however, I do not know how successful it has been for Google.
The Boston Globe's e-reader version is a good example of what not to do. Instead of the aesthetically pleasing Currents model, The Globe uploads the exact format of it's print paper to the internet. Though, the option exists to switch to a model analogous to the Currents one, the default is looking at a Newspaper on your computer screen. It is not a user friendly platform. Users must zoom in to read specific articles and constantly scroll back and forth while reading as the full article will not fit within the screen of a portable device. This being the default display, it is my belief that it turns more customers away by inconvenience than it attracts by it's inherent usefulness.
The New York Times has tried an incentive based program for their internet edition; offering the first ten articles free of charge before one must subscribe to continue to use the service. My problem with this method is two-fold. Firstly, it is easy to circumnavigate. Say a person owns a smartphone, tablet and computer. If they are careful to visit the Times' internet edition using each device from a different IP address, then their number of free reads has tripled from 10 to 30. Or, if the user is tech-savvy, he could easily download an IP scrambler, or a TOR browser, and have access to as many free reads as he desires.
Secondly, it just doesn't sit right with me. I believe in a free and open source internet. Naturally, some services require a premium, but once information is regulated in any form it is a slippery slope to censorship, and then propaganda. Though I'm sure I sound extremist, I stand by my beliefs. The internet is miraculous because it is accessible to anyone, anywhere, with a computer and a router. It should stay this way. If services start to unanimously become privatized, one cannot be sure that the medium itself will not follow the same route. One should be especially wearisome when considering the federal government's recent attempts to regulate the free-internet via laws such as CISPA and the actions of the NSA.
By a risk of non compus mentis, this is what I mean: now is the time in history in which it makes sense that the government would tighten it's hold on the powerful new invention of the internet. Journalism, which functions best when it is absolutely free, must be wary of this fact, as the future of our industry lies in absolute freedom on the net. We must remember that good guys don't always win, and that civil liberties are not as old as time. Totalitarianism is still a statistical norm, considering the scope of history and the many countries that exist today which have not adapted to the free-world. We are at a turning point at which we may either use the invention of the internet to it's fullest potential, or lose it to the marked insanity of oligarchical oppression.
As it currently stands, Journalism is most equatable to a middle-schooler; trying on new styles and going through fazes until it finds one that works. Currently, we are stuck in something of an emo-phase -- it just isn't doesn't feel right.
Various institutions are trying different methods to adapt to the digital age, most of which fall short of delivering the same customer satisfaction that was guaranteed by print in the industry's heyday. However, the real problem with internet news is not general reception. More American's are getting their news online every day. The problem, as always, is monetary.
As Ken Doctor writes in his book Newenomics, the economic concept of scarcity is eliminated by the web. Supply is infinite in the virtual world, causing the equilibrium price of the digital advertising market to plummet. Whereas in a print newspapers, advertisements cost dollars, on the internet, advertising costs pennies.
There are ways to increase the price of a digital advertisement, but none of which could levy the same revenues brought in by print advertising. An add at the header of a web page which expands when the user hovers his cursor over it, for example, is worth more than adds in the margins of the page. Of course, at this point the difference is finicky, as we are debating the difference between 80 and 90 cents.
Therefore, our course of action moving forward could take one of two paths, each of which would drastically alter the business side of journalism. As Journalists, we must either (a) shake our dependency on advertising revenue or (b) drastically reduce overheads.
As an internet news source, overheads are already at a minimum. Pushed to max efficiency, such an organization does not require a newsroom, any supplies or even an office. Newsroom meetings can be done through group Skype (a good office would offer a bulk deal on the premium package which allows such a service, however, one could make the employees pay for it themselves. This, however, is not good business). Each employee could reasonably be expected to supply their own computer, as any aspiring journalist should already have one. Distribution and manufacturing costs are obsolete. The only real expenditures would be employee salaries, web design and the measly cost of a domain name.
Shaking journalism's dependency on add revenue would require a drastic re-imagination of business which neither I, nor anyone that I know of in the field, has yet to establish. Perhaps copyright law should be considered.
Insomuch as the format of internet news, some paradigms of the internet thus far must be examined. From the success of organizations such as Wikipedia and Google, it can be inferred that the tendency of internet users is to prefer platforms from which all information can be accessed. Wikipedia has not been monetarily successful because they are open source, non-profit, and morally opposed to adds. Therefore, they have no choice but to survive off of donations, and the cost of hosting all that information is quite large.
Google, on the other hand, presents a very interesting business model. Websites pay large premiums for the right to be on the first page of search results, Wikipedia among them. This platform could be utilized by an enterprise which exists not to create the news, but to bring it to the user in an accessible way, with all possible information in its database, the higher paying source displayed more prevalently. Copyright law could insure a mutually beneficial relationship between the news sources and the provider, with the sources being paid for their rights to display the information on the provider's website. Let it be known, that I copyright my ideas. If anyone steals them, I will hunt and kill -- literally kill -- as I will then have nothing to lose.
Some mediums have already tried a similar approach to News. Google currents, for example, is a freeware format that pays various news sources for the rights to upload their content into an e-reader version. The user can then subscribe to his choice of sources, and view them at his pleasure through the Currents platform. Google receives a cut of whatever advertising appeared in the original print source, as it is displayed again on the Currents platform in digital. This is a good idea, however, I do not know how successful it has been for Google.
The Boston Globe's e-reader version is a good example of what not to do. Instead of the aesthetically pleasing Currents model, The Globe uploads the exact format of it's print paper to the internet. Though, the option exists to switch to a model analogous to the Currents one, the default is looking at a Newspaper on your computer screen. It is not a user friendly platform. Users must zoom in to read specific articles and constantly scroll back and forth while reading as the full article will not fit within the screen of a portable device. This being the default display, it is my belief that it turns more customers away by inconvenience than it attracts by it's inherent usefulness.
The New York Times has tried an incentive based program for their internet edition; offering the first ten articles free of charge before one must subscribe to continue to use the service. My problem with this method is two-fold. Firstly, it is easy to circumnavigate. Say a person owns a smartphone, tablet and computer. If they are careful to visit the Times' internet edition using each device from a different IP address, then their number of free reads has tripled from 10 to 30. Or, if the user is tech-savvy, he could easily download an IP scrambler, or a TOR browser, and have access to as many free reads as he desires.
Secondly, it just doesn't sit right with me. I believe in a free and open source internet. Naturally, some services require a premium, but once information is regulated in any form it is a slippery slope to censorship, and then propaganda. Though I'm sure I sound extremist, I stand by my beliefs. The internet is miraculous because it is accessible to anyone, anywhere, with a computer and a router. It should stay this way. If services start to unanimously become privatized, one cannot be sure that the medium itself will not follow the same route. One should be especially wearisome when considering the federal government's recent attempts to regulate the free-internet via laws such as CISPA and the actions of the NSA.
By a risk of non compus mentis, this is what I mean: now is the time in history in which it makes sense that the government would tighten it's hold on the powerful new invention of the internet. Journalism, which functions best when it is absolutely free, must be wary of this fact, as the future of our industry lies in absolute freedom on the net. We must remember that good guys don't always win, and that civil liberties are not as old as time. Totalitarianism is still a statistical norm, considering the scope of history and the many countries that exist today which have not adapted to the free-world. We are at a turning point at which we may either use the invention of the internet to it's fullest potential, or lose it to the marked insanity of oligarchical oppression.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
How Woodward and Bernstein Made Journalism Worse
Settle down. I'm sure the title of this post has landed offensively upon your inner ear. Before we proceed, I should clarify that the actions taken by Woodward and Bernstein in breaking the Watergate scandal were necessary; their reporting was good and the result of that reporting was the finest accomplishment of modern journalism.
Can you imagine the sense of empowerment that accompanied that day in 1973 for every American, not just the journalists? Our first amendment was functioning in full sway. The duties of the free press, defined in the constitution as a regulatory system, had never been so well affirmed. On that day, the citizen must have felt that his will was too strong for the grasp of any tyrant. The people were victorious. Our system was best.
Or maybe not everyone saw it that way. In 1973, applications for Journalism school were at an all time high. But, for the generation that was still young at the time of Watergate, a deep distrust for authority was harbored within their little souls. That generation, the boomers/generation X, grew up to be notoriously anti-authoritarian. They idolized Woodward and Bernstein as rebels -- the omniscient badasses who strayed from the pack, stood up against all odds and triumphed for humanity.
Woodward and Bernstein weren't omniscient. They were men, and as men do, they were bound to make mistakes. Carl Bernstein has written at least 4 books on the Watergate scandal that I know of (dare I say coasting?), while Woodward has moved on with his career, his particular faults shall be discussed later. Before that, however, I must state my empathy for the dynamic duo. In their shoes very few of us would do any differently.
What Woodward and Bernstein did in breaking Watergate, though necessary, was not good reporting. Their style was sloppy and their sources were anonymous. They broke the rules of journalism again and again, against the behest of their editors, but for a very good reason.
Since Watergate, Bob Woodward has published stories and books that use anonymous sources, much like he did in breaking the Watergate scandal. However, these methods are no longer necessary. Never again in his career has he broke a story with the social import of Watergate. This method of reporting is irresponsible and lazy in any other context.
Due to the piety they achieved after Watergate and their continuation of practices used in breaking Watergate, their style has become more and more prevalent within the world of Journalism. The credibility of a source has gradually lost value, degrading to where it stands today. Whereas most news today will abstain from the use of anonymous sources, it is not uncommon to see news credited to rumor, speculation or twitter (CNN, looking at you). All of these things are equally untrustworthy as a news source, and should be avoided as a general rule of thumb.
But, thanks to the success of Woodward and Bernstein, the focus of Journalism has switched from credibility to controversy. People crave the limelight and often fail to think of consequences. This is a mistake that is as innately human as it was to Woodward and Bernstein. They were Journalism's greatest moment, but they fostered some of it's very worst.
Can you imagine the sense of empowerment that accompanied that day in 1973 for every American, not just the journalists? Our first amendment was functioning in full sway. The duties of the free press, defined in the constitution as a regulatory system, had never been so well affirmed. On that day, the citizen must have felt that his will was too strong for the grasp of any tyrant. The people were victorious. Our system was best.
Or maybe not everyone saw it that way. In 1973, applications for Journalism school were at an all time high. But, for the generation that was still young at the time of Watergate, a deep distrust for authority was harbored within their little souls. That generation, the boomers/generation X, grew up to be notoriously anti-authoritarian. They idolized Woodward and Bernstein as rebels -- the omniscient badasses who strayed from the pack, stood up against all odds and triumphed for humanity.
Woodward and Bernstein weren't omniscient. They were men, and as men do, they were bound to make mistakes. Carl Bernstein has written at least 4 books on the Watergate scandal that I know of (dare I say coasting?), while Woodward has moved on with his career, his particular faults shall be discussed later. Before that, however, I must state my empathy for the dynamic duo. In their shoes very few of us would do any differently.
What Woodward and Bernstein did in breaking Watergate, though necessary, was not good reporting. Their style was sloppy and their sources were anonymous. They broke the rules of journalism again and again, against the behest of their editors, but for a very good reason.
Since Watergate, Bob Woodward has published stories and books that use anonymous sources, much like he did in breaking the Watergate scandal. However, these methods are no longer necessary. Never again in his career has he broke a story with the social import of Watergate. This method of reporting is irresponsible and lazy in any other context.
Due to the piety they achieved after Watergate and their continuation of practices used in breaking Watergate, their style has become more and more prevalent within the world of Journalism. The credibility of a source has gradually lost value, degrading to where it stands today. Whereas most news today will abstain from the use of anonymous sources, it is not uncommon to see news credited to rumor, speculation or twitter (CNN, looking at you). All of these things are equally untrustworthy as a news source, and should be avoided as a general rule of thumb.
But, thanks to the success of Woodward and Bernstein, the focus of Journalism has switched from credibility to controversy. People crave the limelight and often fail to think of consequences. This is a mistake that is as innately human as it was to Woodward and Bernstein. They were Journalism's greatest moment, but they fostered some of it's very worst.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Academia: Spinning and Tearing its Hair Out. What's New?
After reading a few articles on the 'hospital method' of teaching Journalism...
< http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/08/do-journalism-schools-really-need-to-be-teaching-hospitals/ >
< http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/other/open-letter-americas-university-presidents/ >
I'm at a loss. I can see the academicians at Harvard spinning in their chairs and tearing their hair out trying to come up with a way to save Journalism. Unfortunately, this isn't it. Very few new ideas were actually proposed by the Knight Foundation. The core of their proposal seems to be having students get real-world experience by shadowing Journalists in the newsroom. Great. Good Fine. That's stellar but it's called an internship. What separates it from an internship is the fact that not just one outgoing student would be selected from many to be professionally mentored. Instead, the whole flock of them would be allowed to mosey on through the curriculum -- like sheep.
I believe this method of Journalist-rearing would be problematic, though not for any of the reasons presented by the spinning academics on Neimen World (doesn't account for change, yadayada). Ryfe and Mensing were quoted as saying that the true problem with the 'Sacred Heart Method' of education, besides the fact that it's cited to the sitcom Scrubs, is that by giving the students exposure to the dying industry they will be prevented from thinking any differently to their predecessors.
This is 1/2 the actual problem. What educators and future journalists must truly be cautious of is the 'No Child Left Behind Effect' (There, now I've coined a term too). Journalism is being forced to adapt to the digital age and, thus far, doing a right shitty job. Diversity of thought and innovative business plans must be dreamed up by the future Journalists of America, or else, like anything in this dog-eat-dog world which remains stagnant amongst tumult; journalism itself will die.
Okay, it won't die. But it probably will be bought out by corporate interests with the intent of swaying consumer opinion (Prove me wrong, Bezos, Henry, etc).
Journalism needs a little cold-war-era technologies race to get back on its feet. Shepherding everyone and anyone through the program won't help. If anything it will be counter-productive, as such an environment does not foster competition, creativity and innovation.
In essence, we must let the scramble for internships continue. This way, the more capable students will reveal themselves early, and a competitive spirit can be cultivated in future American journalists. Here lies the fundamental difference between myself and the Sacred Heart Method: where they wish to place cushions beneath Journalism's inevitable decline, I say let us fight it out.
< http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/08/do-journalism-schools-really-need-to-be-teaching-hospitals/ >
< http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/other/open-letter-americas-university-presidents/ >
I'm at a loss. I can see the academicians at Harvard spinning in their chairs and tearing their hair out trying to come up with a way to save Journalism. Unfortunately, this isn't it. Very few new ideas were actually proposed by the Knight Foundation. The core of their proposal seems to be having students get real-world experience by shadowing Journalists in the newsroom. Great. Good Fine. That's stellar but it's called an internship. What separates it from an internship is the fact that not just one outgoing student would be selected from many to be professionally mentored. Instead, the whole flock of them would be allowed to mosey on through the curriculum -- like sheep.
I believe this method of Journalist-rearing would be problematic, though not for any of the reasons presented by the spinning academics on Neimen World (doesn't account for change, yadayada). Ryfe and Mensing were quoted as saying that the true problem with the 'Sacred Heart Method' of education, besides the fact that it's cited to the sitcom Scrubs, is that by giving the students exposure to the dying industry they will be prevented from thinking any differently to their predecessors.
This is 1/2 the actual problem. What educators and future journalists must truly be cautious of is the 'No Child Left Behind Effect' (There, now I've coined a term too). Journalism is being forced to adapt to the digital age and, thus far, doing a right shitty job. Diversity of thought and innovative business plans must be dreamed up by the future Journalists of America, or else, like anything in this dog-eat-dog world which remains stagnant amongst tumult; journalism itself will die.
Okay, it won't die. But it probably will be bought out by corporate interests with the intent of swaying consumer opinion (Prove me wrong, Bezos, Henry, etc).
Journalism needs a little cold-war-era technologies race to get back on its feet. Shepherding everyone and anyone through the program won't help. If anything it will be counter-productive, as such an environment does not foster competition, creativity and innovation.
In essence, we must let the scramble for internships continue. This way, the more capable students will reveal themselves early, and a competitive spirit can be cultivated in future American journalists. Here lies the fundamental difference between myself and the Sacred Heart Method: where they wish to place cushions beneath Journalism's inevitable decline, I say let us fight it out.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
If I May be Allowed a Preface....
If I may preface the mild yoke of Professor Marster's inquires, which will be addressed with due time and diligence, in order to describe what Journalism should be, it would lend to a greater understanding of what it is. I do not mean to suggest that within certain circles of the Journalistic community 'pure' Journalism has entirely ceased to exist. Journalism, in its intended form, currently exists with as much integrity and purity as it would have been ubiquitously regarded in an earlier age. However, reverence of good journalism has ebbed from public conscious, though it continuous to exist within exclusionary circles of academia -- a small but obtrusive portion in modern society.
Firstly, allow me to clarify what 'good' Journalism ought to be. From there I will show examples of my idealized, and more than slightly romanticized, idea of Journalism through it's production by great writers of the decade.
Journalism, in my mind, ought to be regarded as a documentation of ongoing history. It should be seen as third-party accountability to clarify details and events for future historical reference. Therefore, well written Journalism must be keen to an event's relevance in society. The Journalist, then, must be of a perspicacious sort.
Good Journalism can be easily identified due to the popular model of Journalistic writing known within it's field as the 'inverted pyramid'. It is a model which, in my mind, exists arbitrarily, as I could not give one damn how the information is presented as long as it is accurate and somewhat pleasant to read. But, in this respect the model is rather useful. All modern Journalism is written, as made dogmatic by the inverted pyramid, with the most general information at the top and the details following thereafter. Therefore, a piece with the correct focus, that on historical import, can be identified within the first few paragraphs.
However, where the scope of modern Journalism and I disagree is in what information should be considered most important. Whereas, in the case of standard reporting as opposed to editorial writing, it is necessary to present hard facts first, it also seems relevant to place conclusions about the event's impact on the narrative of history in the introductory paragraphs. This, in my mind, is a defining feature of 'good' journalism.
The problem here, to ambiguous for most editors, is that as events unfold on a day to day basis, it is difficult, if near impossible, to predict their ultimate resolve and import. Therefore, the journalist is often forced into conjecture; accompanied by a great deal of bias.
Bias is the bane of modern Journalism, and a lack there of is the emblem of integrity for the modern, print News source. Therefore, it makes sense that editors would do all that is in their power to avoid a bias, or else forever be lumped into limiting markets such as "liberal media" or "conservative press".
A well written introduction, with respect to historical relevancy and without a bias, though difficult, is not impossible. It does require a certain proficiency on the part of the Journalist which cannot be reasonably guaranteed. Therein lies the logic behind the editors' choice to omit such details. However, inclusion of accurate historical relevancy is far more beneficial to the reader than it's overall omission.
Of course, many instances of field reporting will not regard anything worldly or, realistically, with much effect on society. Many such articles are necessary contributions to Journalism; such as obituaries, murder reports, minor crime/felonies, news only pertinent to a local community, etc. For these stories, it is best that the general details be summarized in the first paragraph, as is normative, with any sort of big-picture analysis tacked on shortly thereafter. Smaller details, as well as reinforcement of the large-scale claims made early on, can be supplied in the body of the story.
It should be noted that it is the job of the Journalist to document. Any human ongoing is a part of history and, therefore, worthy of documentation.
So far, I've addressed my basic problem with the format of Journalism, however, what truly distinguishes 'good' journalism from the standard mess is an article's content. Good Journalism should be synonymous with insight. Good investigative Journalism ought to reveal the findings of the journalist in a well-constructed manor so as the many small details reveal larger scale truths, paradigms and patterns. Long format journalism and editorials ought to apply insight to preexisting information to the same end. The later allows more room for interpretation, as the writer's assessment of the facts are very much dependent upon his own opinions and biases. Therefore, like in academia, the conclusions of the Journalist, once published, are up for review by his peers and the general public.
For example, I shall now point to specific Journalists whom I believe to be excelling in their executions of the intended purposes of Journalism. Firstly, in the area of investigative Journalism, the late Michael Kelly brought important insight to the First Gulf War, the understanding of which has greatly benefited from his writing. As a writer of long-journalism, he was able to summarize complex foreign policy exchanges into concise language, and always with an eye to how those events effected the wold's stage. His book Martyr's Day, based on his time in Iraq during the Gulf War, is a noteworthy example.
Mark Greif, a writer for the New York Times, founded his own publication n + 1 Magazine with the intent of "creating a long print archive in the world of the soundbite". Here, he has touched upon another problem with Journalism. That problem being, where people prefer quantity over quality, we have recently seen major news outlets shift their sources from tough-investigative Journalism to twitter and youtube. This is not okay, as the information on these platforms is not vetted and often posted by people who are not professional journalists. In short, the internet is a medium that carters to rumors.*
Greif published many articles in n + 1 during the early days of the millennium which called into question American's ability to practice rational thought amidst the post - 9/11 panic. His opinions sometimes boarder on the sadistic, but his clairvoyance analyzing world issues is striking. in 2009, he published a piece in The Times entitled 'What was the Hipster?' which analyzed the most recent American subculture with regard to post-modern technology and development.
Another influential figure in Journalism, though many would rather deny him, is the late Hunter S. Thompson. Thompson's contribution to Journalism, like that of Woodward and Berstein, came from the dearest of hearts but was misinterpreted by the jaded ears of a free people. That contribution was his ability to bring the reader the 'essence' of a story. What he lacked in factual information he made up for in his uncanny ability to give the reader a feel for the characters and events, like a natural intuition. The intuitions were, of course, his own. But, his perceptions were so accurate, and his ability to transfer those perceptions to the reader equally as tuned, that many people trusted his 'gonzo' style.
Thompson became a superstar in Journalism, one of the few to have existed in the modern world. However, his contribution has been taken out of context by media such as Vice, which trades good reporting in exchange for gonzo-style. It is not enough for informed citizens to have a 'feel' for an issue and some minor details in their arsenal of facts. A truly informed citizen must be presented with all the facts first, so as to draw their own conclusion. If the job of the Journalist has been done well, the opinion of the reader will not differ from the writer's, as the information should have been presented in a manor so objective, and conclusions drawn so logically, that the actual nature of the events is indisputable. Done poorly, the writer and reader's opinions may still not differ, as the reader has been ill-informed and the writer has not properly done his research. It is a similar end to a different mean, though the later has the comfort of ignorance.
A good journalist is not a celebrity, like Woodward, Bernstein or Thompson. Their job is, by definition, the very opposite. The Journalist is a silent watcher, a fly on the wall, who's job is to observe and report. Where his individuality can reveal itself is in the form of his writing which, though it can be well-crafted, should, as a rule of thumb, reveal very little as to the Journalist's own intentions.
*And so it should be! Open Source! Free Ware! Freedom of speech to text, and so on.
Firstly, allow me to clarify what 'good' Journalism ought to be. From there I will show examples of my idealized, and more than slightly romanticized, idea of Journalism through it's production by great writers of the decade.
Journalism, in my mind, ought to be regarded as a documentation of ongoing history. It should be seen as third-party accountability to clarify details and events for future historical reference. Therefore, well written Journalism must be keen to an event's relevance in society. The Journalist, then, must be of a perspicacious sort.
Good Journalism can be easily identified due to the popular model of Journalistic writing known within it's field as the 'inverted pyramid'. It is a model which, in my mind, exists arbitrarily, as I could not give one damn how the information is presented as long as it is accurate and somewhat pleasant to read. But, in this respect the model is rather useful. All modern Journalism is written, as made dogmatic by the inverted pyramid, with the most general information at the top and the details following thereafter. Therefore, a piece with the correct focus, that on historical import, can be identified within the first few paragraphs.
However, where the scope of modern Journalism and I disagree is in what information should be considered most important. Whereas, in the case of standard reporting as opposed to editorial writing, it is necessary to present hard facts first, it also seems relevant to place conclusions about the event's impact on the narrative of history in the introductory paragraphs. This, in my mind, is a defining feature of 'good' journalism.
The problem here, to ambiguous for most editors, is that as events unfold on a day to day basis, it is difficult, if near impossible, to predict their ultimate resolve and import. Therefore, the journalist is often forced into conjecture; accompanied by a great deal of bias.
Bias is the bane of modern Journalism, and a lack there of is the emblem of integrity for the modern, print News source. Therefore, it makes sense that editors would do all that is in their power to avoid a bias, or else forever be lumped into limiting markets such as "liberal media" or "conservative press".
A well written introduction, with respect to historical relevancy and without a bias, though difficult, is not impossible. It does require a certain proficiency on the part of the Journalist which cannot be reasonably guaranteed. Therein lies the logic behind the editors' choice to omit such details. However, inclusion of accurate historical relevancy is far more beneficial to the reader than it's overall omission.
Of course, many instances of field reporting will not regard anything worldly or, realistically, with much effect on society. Many such articles are necessary contributions to Journalism; such as obituaries, murder reports, minor crime/felonies, news only pertinent to a local community, etc. For these stories, it is best that the general details be summarized in the first paragraph, as is normative, with any sort of big-picture analysis tacked on shortly thereafter. Smaller details, as well as reinforcement of the large-scale claims made early on, can be supplied in the body of the story.
It should be noted that it is the job of the Journalist to document. Any human ongoing is a part of history and, therefore, worthy of documentation.
So far, I've addressed my basic problem with the format of Journalism, however, what truly distinguishes 'good' journalism from the standard mess is an article's content. Good Journalism should be synonymous with insight. Good investigative Journalism ought to reveal the findings of the journalist in a well-constructed manor so as the many small details reveal larger scale truths, paradigms and patterns. Long format journalism and editorials ought to apply insight to preexisting information to the same end. The later allows more room for interpretation, as the writer's assessment of the facts are very much dependent upon his own opinions and biases. Therefore, like in academia, the conclusions of the Journalist, once published, are up for review by his peers and the general public.
For example, I shall now point to specific Journalists whom I believe to be excelling in their executions of the intended purposes of Journalism. Firstly, in the area of investigative Journalism, the late Michael Kelly brought important insight to the First Gulf War, the understanding of which has greatly benefited from his writing. As a writer of long-journalism, he was able to summarize complex foreign policy exchanges into concise language, and always with an eye to how those events effected the wold's stage. His book Martyr's Day, based on his time in Iraq during the Gulf War, is a noteworthy example.
Mark Greif, a writer for the New York Times, founded his own publication n + 1 Magazine with the intent of "creating a long print archive in the world of the soundbite". Here, he has touched upon another problem with Journalism. That problem being, where people prefer quantity over quality, we have recently seen major news outlets shift their sources from tough-investigative Journalism to twitter and youtube. This is not okay, as the information on these platforms is not vetted and often posted by people who are not professional journalists. In short, the internet is a medium that carters to rumors.*
Greif published many articles in n + 1 during the early days of the millennium which called into question American's ability to practice rational thought amidst the post - 9/11 panic. His opinions sometimes boarder on the sadistic, but his clairvoyance analyzing world issues is striking. in 2009, he published a piece in The Times entitled 'What was the Hipster?' which analyzed the most recent American subculture with regard to post-modern technology and development.
Another influential figure in Journalism, though many would rather deny him, is the late Hunter S. Thompson. Thompson's contribution to Journalism, like that of Woodward and Berstein, came from the dearest of hearts but was misinterpreted by the jaded ears of a free people. That contribution was his ability to bring the reader the 'essence' of a story. What he lacked in factual information he made up for in his uncanny ability to give the reader a feel for the characters and events, like a natural intuition. The intuitions were, of course, his own. But, his perceptions were so accurate, and his ability to transfer those perceptions to the reader equally as tuned, that many people trusted his 'gonzo' style.
Thompson became a superstar in Journalism, one of the few to have existed in the modern world. However, his contribution has been taken out of context by media such as Vice, which trades good reporting in exchange for gonzo-style. It is not enough for informed citizens to have a 'feel' for an issue and some minor details in their arsenal of facts. A truly informed citizen must be presented with all the facts first, so as to draw their own conclusion. If the job of the Journalist has been done well, the opinion of the reader will not differ from the writer's, as the information should have been presented in a manor so objective, and conclusions drawn so logically, that the actual nature of the events is indisputable. Done poorly, the writer and reader's opinions may still not differ, as the reader has been ill-informed and the writer has not properly done his research. It is a similar end to a different mean, though the later has the comfort of ignorance.
A good journalist is not a celebrity, like Woodward, Bernstein or Thompson. Their job is, by definition, the very opposite. The Journalist is a silent watcher, a fly on the wall, who's job is to observe and report. Where his individuality can reveal itself is in the form of his writing which, though it can be well-crafted, should, as a rule of thumb, reveal very little as to the Journalist's own intentions.
*And so it should be! Open Source! Free Ware! Freedom of speech to text, and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)