Undercover hippo...something completely unrelated to class that I had to share.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ECNxBhkS6jw (Embedding was disabled, so I apologize for not having the actual video)
Who is this man, what are his qualifications and is there something SERIOUSLY wrong with him??? For those of you who don't know this, Hippos are among the most dangerous animals on the planet. Even though the Disney channel put them in tutus and made them dance around like ballerinas, they will still rip you into little bits and pieces. They are also absolutely massive, so even if they don't intend on killing you, they can easily do it by accident. So let's think about the intelligence of putting on a hippo suit and going to investigate...

Also, does this call to anyone else's mind that scene in Ace Ventura when he gets "birthed" out of the robot Rhino?

The thing everyone forgets when something happens in politics.

"That thing" being the WAR. With everything so wound up in the primaries, and Romney in the headlines for saying questionable things and McCain lying about Romney lying and Bill Clinton talking smack about Obama and Obama winning South Carolina, the war (or should I say wars, as we are fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan) seems to have been conspicuously absent from most reporting. Bob Schieffer kindly reminded the country this week on Face the Nation. At a time like this, it is essential to not forget this horrible on-going event. And if you really can't remember, look here. I hope their faces will make you remember.


update...
I just checked the New York Times website and they do have a small story. Thank god. They also have on-going coverage that you have to seek out on the website.

Wait...isn't that cheating??

Romney continues to appall me. Maybe it's because I'm a democrat, but I'm starting to think that even conservatives might be a little concerned by his behavior. But the country did manage to elect Bush, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Does everybody remember the Bush wears an earpiece incedent?(also here, and here) Ya know, when he was supposed to be talking about "his" views, but was in fact being fed them during a debate. They never really confirmed that, but it seemed fairly apparent to me. (this is not proof, but hilarious)

So now it looks like Romney is doing the same thing. After some of the questionable things he has said, this isn't really improving things for him.

It's like the Times read my blog...

My first post talked about how the New York Times was changing but maybe not in the best ways. So today I found out that they're going to start using Text messaging. Which is pretty awesome. However, they also apparently don't work. I'll let you read the story, but it's an interesting developement.

Glen Johnson actually confronts a candidate

As discussed in Ethics class, Glen Johnson aggressively questioned Mitt Romney at a press event last Thursday.



Among blogs, there were mixed responses: "Good for you!", "You were completely unprofessional" and somewhere in between (as seen in class). I found everyone's comments in class to be well thought out and convincing. But I have to admit that my first reaction was "YES! Excellent, a reporter who calls out these candidates on their bullshit!" This is not, I repeat NOT, the first time the Mitt Romney has lied on the campaign trail. In fact, after losing the first primaries he told his staff to "Make all the promises you have to". And please let's not forget the whole MLK Jr. debacle (also, Romney's version). Yes, Johnson could have been infinitely more professional. And yes, I think he undermined himself and detracted from his correct argument. But I also believe that something needed to be said. What if Edward R Murrow had sat back and thought "Well, calling out McCarthy on national television is rude. Shouldn't we politely ask him questions instead?" I realize that what Romney is doing may not be quite as horrifying as McCarthy's actions, but what if he becomes president? And what if he continues to fabricate?

Now, I mentioned my mother in my first post, and I will readily admit that I have adopted many of her views over the years. I was discussing this contfrontation with her and was suprised by the vehemency of her reaction when I told her many people were upset that Johnson interrupted (she typed this, exactly as is and unedited):

So what? So he was interrupted. I'm interruped all the time by you
and Adam and Dad and the entire rest of the world, just as you're interrupted by
me and Adam and dad and the entire rest of the world. These people are
supposed to be us, we the people, not kings and queens and aristocrats that
the rest of us have to bow down to. So what if flippin' Mitt Romney was
interrupted. He's supposed to be running for a REPRESENTATIVE
position, and yes the President is a representative of us, carrying out our
will so interrupting him is not impolite, it's essential to find out how the
hell he thinks and what he'll do as the leader of the free world!

While this is much more aggressive than, most likely, most people would react, she does have a point. When did journalism get so touchy? Why are reporters so afraid to step outside the lines? And when did the people who are supposed to be representing us become untouchables? I would also like to respond to Romney's press advisor who told Johnson to back off: "How dare you?"

We're talking about chickens and we're talking about eggs.

Check out this linguistic elasticity

In the spirit of every other blog on the planet...

Seeing as every blog I've looked at recently is talking about the primaries, I figured I'd just jump right on that little bandwagon. I am decidedly liberal and am pleased that I feel as though I have many good options this year, as opposed to the past few elections where it was really the best of the worst. However, having options is more complicated than I thought. I hate to say this, but I would almost rather just wait until the primaries are over, because whoever wins will be just fine with me.
At the same time, all the attacks on Hilary are just kind of pissing me off. She is a very intelligent woman, and while I don't agree with her stance on Iraq I do agree with her on pretty much everything else. Bloggers, journalists and basically the rest of the country keep calling her out on personal issues (she teared up, big friggin deal. They make it sound like she had an all out bawlfest and did a single tear even fall? no.) It doesn't seem to matter what the poor woman does, if she's feminine she gets criticized, if she's too strong then she isn't personable enough. Personally, I think it really is just that she's a woman and too many people are scared of the possibility that a woman could run the country. Maybe what we need is a very strong woman who is a little more moderate and maybe not as "soft" as some people would like. Maybe she just needs to be a transition, to open doors for other women.
I like Obama and Edwards equally at this point, and just as much as Clinton. Edwards has little going for him in terms of blogging as everyone is so focused on Obama and Clinton. Maybe he should have done something crazy a few months ago and gotten a buzz going. Perhaps that would have placed him higher up than the far third he's running now. And if Bill Clinton would just shut his mouth, I think there might even be less of Obama in the blogs as well.
Whether or not Hilary knows what she's doing and planned it this way, everything seems to be working to keep her in people's minds. Nevertheless, I can't say that "Any press is good press" can really apply in this case.

The stupidest man on the planet?

First, watch this:




Then, read this

"Against the Machine"

There is a review of a book called "Against the Machine" in the New York Times today. The book is written by Lee Siegel, an author with whom I'm not familiar, however, from the review, it seems that he and I would not get along. He seems to have a very anti-technology stance and paints and sad portrait of people trapped in an online world to the detriment of actual social interaction. Even so, some of the points he makes in the book (pointed out by the reviewer) seem to be either accurate or eerily similar to class discussions:

"We are being persuaded that information and knowledge are interchangeable, he
claims, when they are not; we would have citizen heart surgeons if information
were all that mattered. And mainstream news outlets, which Mr. Siegel is
otherwise delighted to assail (his love-hate relationship with The New York
Times is particularly intense), suddenly look worthwhile to him by virtue of
their real, earned authority. Better the old press than the new tyranny of
bloggers. Their self-interest, he says, makes them more mainstream than any
standard news source could possibly be.
The vindictiveness and
disproportionate influence of the blogosphere is a particularly sore subject.
Who is it that “rewrote history, made anonymous accusations, hired and elevated
hacks and phonies, ruined reputations at will, and airbrushed suddenly unwanted
associates out of documents and photographs”? Mr. Siegel’s immediate answer is
Stalin. But he alleges that the new power players of the blogosphere have
appropriated similar powers."

While I can't say that I would buy this book, or read it if someone handed it to me it does raise some good points. As noted above, there is a vast difference between information and knowledge. The question raised in Ethics class today regarding whether or not journalism is a profession might also include that thought. Just because you CAN write an article, doesn't mean that you really know HOW to. Plenty of bloggers and "amatuer" journalist write complete garbage, because they have the information on how to do it, but they don't actually have the knowledge.
His statement about heart surgery calls to mind a commercial from a few months back where a man sits at his kitchen table and calls a surgeon and the surgeon begins to walk him through performing heart surgery on himself. I don't remember what the commercial was for, but the general point was: would you really want to do this by yourself?

New York Times online...explain to me why I should pay for anything else?

My mother has been reading the New York Times for, as far as I can tell, her entire life. She may have been born holding that newspaper. However, recently, she reads fewer and fewer articles out of the actual paper. Let's be honest, newspapers are messy and cumbersome and when you can pick up a quick and easy laptop and get the same things, why bother with the paper? Especially, when you have to pay for the paper. And by pay, I mean quite a lot--up to and over $300 a year. According to my mother, the only reason she has continued to pay is that she liked the crossword and the TV listings. About two weeks ago, the Times dropped the TV listings and only bothered to print a notice that they did so sometime in the last few days. Seeing as you can buy the crosswords in giant books at any bookstore, this makes me question the intelligence of the Times publishers.

In a tech heavy world, wouldn't you do everything you possibly could to keep readers buying your paper? Even though my mother may be unique in the things she wants from the newspaper I'm sure that there are other people who look for those similar quirky things that can only be found in print. Now they're taking away things from the print edition and not putting them online. What they may acheive by doing so is both losing subscriptions and chasing away faithful readers.

Many journalism classes talk about that serendipity factor of newspapers, when you might come across articles you wouldn't otherwise have sought out. However, I find that happens to me all the time online. Today I read an article on fortune cookies on the Times site that I never would have searched for. This only makes me repeat my question: Why should I pay?

I feel that this particular occurance is a perfect example of exactly what we've been talking about in class. The New York Times isn't making money off its readers anymore...why should I subscribe when it's all right here, for free. It makes me nervous about the future of this publication. They have been a dependable news source for decades and they don't seem to be helping themselves anymore. Besides their prestigious name, what is attracting new readers to their site? A partial answer to that question may be the simple fact that it is free. I wouldn't read the Times if I had to pay for it because I'm in college, and I'm poor. But I do, because it's free. So what we have here is a never-ending loop of "what do we do now". We get new readers because it's free, but it's free so we don't make any money. What a conundrum, huh?