Blogs Get with the Times

The New York Times is undoubtedly one of the best - if not the best - news publications made available to us today. For many other sources distributing the news, it is a force to be reckoned with, to say the least. One of the things that makes the New York Times so successful is that its staff has managed to capture the writing trends of today, while still producing news that confirms and appeals to a more antiquated and traditional style. This has especially been made possible through their use of two mediums - an online news hub and a printed newspaper. Obviously, the online site is the more popular, or societally-smart, medium. It is updated continuously and has articles written with a quick, easy-to-understand, and easy-to-read tone. All of these traits, which harness immediacy and efficiency, appeal to the masses. On the other hand, its news stories focus more on facts and less on opinions and are also published in a newspaper. These are, of course, traits that make the NYT seem more refined and acceptable by the more traditional sense of news reporting.

I, personally, have been reading the online publication of the New York Times, as well as a couple of other blogs to receive my news. While the NYT and blogs are fundamentally different, I think many similarities can be drawn between the two. For example, The Daily Dish - one of the blogs I am following - which is written by Andrew Sullivan, covers much of the same news that the NYT covers - like the healthcare debate, for example. While of course his blog presents the news with a slight bias and demands reader involvement, it achieves the same tasks of the NYT. Both sources of news are just that - sources of news. They have something to say or some information to share and so, they say it. Both the NYT and The Daily Dish are educating me and keeping me informed. The only real difference is that when I read The Daily Dish, I not only get to read news presented by Andrew Sullivan, but also the opinions of a variety of people who write in about the issues. When I read the NYT, I read one article and move on to the next. There is no audience participation or sharing of ideas like there is in a blog.

I think the New York Times does a phenomenal job of actually doing its job and providing good and sound news. This is hard to come by today and deserves much credit. I think that blogs, too, also deserve credit, for they do the job of a newspaper, and then do some more.

Teaming Up: Jarvis and Sullivan

One idea found among Jarvis's text and diagrams about the spread of news is that in times passed, the process (of gathering news) lead to the product (the packaged story). Nowadays however, Jarvis says that the process is the product. In other words, news today can no longer be packaged, distributed, and then ingested - at least not just once. After we find the news, or perhaps after it finds us, we don't just forget about it and move on; we continue to circulate the story. We talk about it with our peers, family, and friends, we search for background information, and we read about it from various sources, among other things. All the while, more and more facts and pieces of information are added to the story, making it fuller - or more substantial. Picture making a snowball: as you push your tiny lump of snow across the yard, it will get bigger, denser, and more compact until of course, you stop pushing it. A news story works the same way.

This idea of news being continuous and being found within the actual process of forming/finding news is exactly the idea Sullivan wrote about in his article, "Why I Blog." It is also, coincidentally, a large reason why blogs have become so popular. Blogging, which seems to be Sullivan's forte, is possibly the best example of Jarvis's new press-sphere. A blog contains and allows for the interaction between peers, other sources, government, and the media via online discussion and the incorporation of links. Sullivan directly addresses the continuity of news within a blog by acknowledging that "if it stops moving, it dies." I think it's safe to say that Sullivan and Hedges are arguing the same ideas.

For the most part, I'd say that I agree with the idea of news being in continuous circulation and therefore always growing and changing. This is (or seems) true for big pieces of news, but I will have to argue that it is not so true for the smaller or more trivial pieces of news. For example, I recently read an article from The New York Times website about how humans are built to run. It pointed out many of the anatomical characteristics that make humans, in general, successful runners. While I found this article to be rather interesting, I still haven't heard anyone else talking about it, heard about it on the news, or read any similar articles anywhere else. So, in this case, I ingested the news and its' process ended. Other, much larger stories though, such as the war in Iraq, have been ingested time and time again because everyone has heard and is talking about it, hearing about it, or reading about it.

The Press-Sphere

What does blogger Jeff Jarvis mean when he writes that the press is becoming the press-sphere? Well, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure. After swimming through his sentences and diagrams, I have gathered, more or less, that he believes the press is losing its handle on the control of the news. It is being replaced by, or perhaps, placed at competition with, all of today's numerous news sources. Some of these news sources are the media, the government, large companies, our peers, links to background or various information, work, and search. (I'm assuming he means search engines, but your guess is as good as mine.) As you can see, the press is now only a small piece of the news-circulating puzzle. At the end of his blog, Jarvis sums up the shift in the news world by saying that news today is "bigger. . . It’s more complex. It moves over time. It’s more about process than product. It has no limit of sources and handlers and distributors and curators and perspectives." It seems to me that Jarvis is okay with this adapted style of news. After all, it is exciting (and more fair to the public) to have so many sources of information.

The only downfall I see in this is that news can now almost never be received without also receiving a complementary opinion. The news, it seems, is almost always biased. Whether written, spoken, or visually presented, we can pick up the attached undertone of a piece of news. We can know by some one's use of language, their facial expressions, the tone of their voice, etc just what they think about the subject they're relaying to us. So, to me, the new press-sphere Jarvis describes makes it difficult for anyone to think for themselves or form their own, immediate opinions. On the other hand though, the new press-sphere's wide variety of sources ensures, as I mentioned before, that we will receive more than just one opinion of the news. So, while we may initially be thinking in the terms of another and borrowing the ideas of our peers, I think in the end we will have formed a more educated opinion and be sure of our own, final stance. (I really just talked myself in circles there. Sorry about that. Hopefully it made some sense.)

One minor note I'd like to make in regards to Jarvis' post is that I think it would have been helpful for the reader if he had defined what the 'press' was, or who it comprised. That would have helped me, at least. That's all I have to say about that.

My Take on The Times

I have to admit, I could probably stand to spend some more time reading and researching the New York Times (as well as both of my other blogs). I read them (almost every day), but just scroll through the headlines and read whatever is interesting to me. Now that I've just re-read that last sentence, I think that's probably the whole idea of this assignment, but I feel like I could be doing more. I've read in some of my other classmates' blogs that they're finding specific categories of news within The New York Times that they're in to. I haven't poked around the site enough to do so, as I'm slightly ashamed to say, but I hope to find something to keep coming back to. It would be cool to read something religiously every day. (And of course, by 'religiously,' I don't mean reading to find Jesus or words by which to live my life. I just mean reading to fill a need. Maybe 'regularly' would have been the better word there?)

So far, some particular stories that have caught my eye have been those concerning child development issues and parenting styles. (I'm a babysitter and a psychology major, if you couldn't tell.) I read one article about how Baby Einstein products, which are an overwhelming retail item in the baby department, have (surprisingly) not actually made babies into geniuses. What's more, Walt Disney, which owns Baby Einstein is offering $15 refunds for every Baby Einstein product that is returned before March 10. There is a limit to returning only four items, but still, that's an easy $60 and you don't even need a receipt. Another particular article that I found interesting was about the future increase in the world's population and the concern of whether or not we'll be able to produce enough food to feed everyone. Some scientists are predicting we'll need to increase our food production by 50% over the next twenty years in order to feed everyone. While the details of this issue are difficult to know for sure, it is a topic that is receiving more and more attention, and rightly so I think. So, I'm in to news about kids and larger, world-scare stories? What does that say about me?

In addition to spending more time reading The New York Times in general, I could also spend more time reading political and/or economical articles covered in The New York Times. I tend to avoid the articles about healthcare, and I get annoyed with news on the Swine Flu, but those are the big issues of today, which I should probably know more about. I guess that's something I can focus on for this next week of news.

Blog Analysis

In my last post, I listed the two blogs I was planning on following - The Daily Dish and Regret the Error. Today however, I changed my mind about what I will be reading. While I will continue to follow The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan, I will no longer be keeping up with Regret the Error. While this blog is entertaining, it is not regularly updated and loses its' charm rather quickly. In its place, I have decided to read Consuming Louisville - a blog about restaurants, shops, events, and happenings in Louisville.

This blog is written by one woman and one woman only - Michelle Jones. Jones is a writer, photographer, and self-proclaimed web geek who LOVES Louisville. Naturally, this blog is biased. If you're someone who hates Louisville (if such a person exists) and are looking for a place to complain, this is not the blog for you. I bet you saw that coming though, right? This blog is written (presumably) for people who live in Louisville - particularly the Highlands, although other areas are covered - and are looking to connect with their city and enjoy all it has to offer. Jones offers daily updates about events around town. Recently, for example, she has provided information about a few Halloween parties, Midnights at the Baxter, cooking lessons at the Brown Hotel, and the bestowed #1 Hotel rating of 21C (it was voted the #1 hotel in the United States by Conde Nast Traveler Magazine's Readers). Everything written is inspired by the people of Louisville - what we're in to, what we're looking for - and ultimately what is applicable to us. In short, this blog manageable, easy to read and operate, and perfect for all those Louisville lovers looking for something to do. I'm pleased I found it.

Blogs I'm Following

The first blog I've chosen to follow is the The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan because I enjoy his writing style and appreciate his ideas (at least all that I've seen so far). The second blog I'll be following is Regret the Error, which points out any mistakes made in the press. I like that this blog's purpose is to keep the press honest and accurate. It's also good for a laugh every now and again.

Passive vs. Active

Reading through my classmates' blog posts about where they get their news was both reassuring and worrisome for me. It makes me feel better about myself to know that I'm not the only one who could improve her knowledge of current events, but also slightly worried that the general concensus is more or less the mindset of: "I'm busy. If something is important, I'll hear about it eventually." Don't get me wrong, mine would probably be the first name on the list of such thinkers, but I wish that it weren't, and as I noticed, many of my classmates wish the same thing. So why do we still carry this mentality? Why don't we do something to change it? I don't have an answer, but I think it's due in part to the fact that our culture, particularly Internet access within our culture, allows it, or at least makes it easy, to think this way. We have so much access to information that it can be difficult to filter through news and separate the important from the trivial, especially when society seems to value the more trivial end of the spectrum. But, what's interesting, is that this mentality is valid. The news will eventually find us. This is almost inevitable as every corner of the earth is filled with something to look at or to learn about or to listen to. Billboards, posters, televisions, radios, passerbys, friends, family, magazine covers, newspapers, and the internet are just a few of the constant sources of background noise (or news) that we get each day. So, while partaking in a more passive style of news-gathering may not be the most responsible or commendable method, it does seem to be the most logical. And how can anyone argue against logic? Hmmm . . . this seems like a bit of a catch 22 . . .

I think it'd be interesting to learn where and how people like Sullivan, Hedges, and Carr get their news and what they think about the passive/active approaches to new-gathering. I'm almost certain Hedges would condemn our generation (myself included) for being lazy and uninformed citizens. Sullivan would probably argue for the beautiful ambiguity that stems from our freedom to search the world (re: the web) and learn about what interests us as it is happening. Carr then, - always the level-head in this trio - would most likely express sentiments similar to my classmates' and mine. That is, he'd argue the idea of convenience, but long for news that is either decisively satisfying or else underwelming, just so he'd have a clear take on the issues.

Where Do I Get My News?

"I get the news I need from the weather report."
Sorry, that Simon & Garfunkel reference was just too perfect to pass up.

In all seriousness though, the weather really is a big part of my daily news intake. I wake up every morning, tune to the “local on the 8’s” weather update, and plan my day accordingly. How else am I supposed to know whether to wear a parka or a raincoat, to go for a run in the morning or wait until the afternoon, or to pack an umbrella or sunglasses for later? I know what you’re thinking, but no, stepping outside is not an option. For one thing, I’m too sleepy to move that much in the morning, and for another, stepping outside in the morning says nothing about what the weather will be like later in the day. Especially when you live in Louisville.

As for other news - like current local, national, and global events – I get the bulk of my information from the Courier Journal, which I read (or, more accurately, skim) every morning. My strategy is to read the front page of each section (usually skipping the Sports section) and then, if any articles particularly spark my interest, find and read the entire article. This seems to work fairly well for me; although I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt to look more in depth at a wider range of articles. I also use my parents as a source of news. They are always aware of what’s going on in the world, so if I have questions about anything, I ask them and usually get the answers I’m looking for. Every now and then I’ll watch one of the local news channels, but that rarely happens.

(By the way, if anyone's interested in hearing the full Simon & Garfunkel song I mentioned, here it is. It's one of my favorites.)

Continued Revising

Hello again. Here is my paper. I keep editing this link rather than making new blog posts.
Hopefully you're still reading it...

I'm still open to comments/corrections/suggestions if anyone has any.