The Sunspace

I just spent an hour perusing The Spokesman-Review, of Spokane, Wash., Web site. What a goldmine. I'm impressed by the scope and thoughtfulness of its blogs and other interactive features. Readers are given opportunity to reflect on and respond to news coverage, as well as learn about the personal ticks and beliefs of The S-R news staff. My personal favorites: "Ask the Editors," "Eye on Olympia," and a recent feature that's essentially the diary of a 17-year-old in rehab for meth and pot addiction. Wow. Online publisher Ken Sands has done so much right. It seems to me that he really investigated how online could reinforce traditional news values. I applaud him.

Sands offers a harsh reality check to newspapers editors on the verge of jumping on the online bandwagon at http://www.mediacenterblog.org/2005/04/it_can_be_tough. As he says, it's tough to do what one hasn't done before. His advice - to start small, think specific and focus on topics instead of writers - are practical and useful. And they're bit-sized enough to implement with ease.

I don't know is his closing comment is true: that it's easier to turn a good blogger into a good journalist than vis versa. Transition takes time, and in the way that he and his staff managed to use journalistic principles as guidelines for their blogs, I expect other newspapers will have the inclination to do the same. They may not do it correctly immediately, but new journalists rarely outmatch their more seasoned counterparts. Laziness, insecurity, ignorance: These are everyone's excuses. I'm glad that Sands is so willing to share his knowledge, which I think is another mark of his online training. The Internet is about inclusiveness, and print media has probably been too full of itself for too long. Humility, in every field, every personality and in all teachings, never hurts.

I'm not ready to decide whether blogging is my future. I'm done with it for now, but I'll always be connected to technology and journalism, and I'm certain I'll encounter their latest intersection - blogging - again. Plus, its gurus are promising that blogs will be an imperative part of newsrooms to increasing degrees in years to come, and I'm not about to make myself unemployable.

Overall, I enjoy being a blogger. I connect with many of its virtuous features: it's interactive, it's instant, it's easy, it's inclusive and it's sometimes outstanding journalism. But it's also free, it's often sloppier than print and it's always infused with opinion. My other beefs: Most bloggers use secondary sources for their work. And I feel like some bloggers are trying to subvert print, which quite possibly employs many of the most successful online journalists. My opinion may be a product of old-fashioned defensiveness because I'm afraid that technology will make print, the field of my immediate and probably long-term future, obsolete. And it would be a harsh loss. Newspapers are our most respected informers. They are umbrellas, blankets and gifts, literally. They are our breakfast and often times bathroom companions, and they are the only reading my boyfriend and I do daily, except for e-mail. And, humor aside, they contain some of the most tongue-tying, important, juicy stories of our present and history. I believe news print is just too good to let go. And, did I mention that blogging pays even worse than a reporting job? Seriously, quality will severely pay when a working journalist can’t support him/herself.

Call me naïve, but I don’t believe the sky is falling. What we have is too worth preserving, and I know many people concur. I guess I’m making my working orders to become the best journalist I can be, knowing that to be outstanding, I must ride this technological wave. And I while I won't be resistant to blogging opportunities in the future, I'll likely do it because I'm working for a newspaper.

The loneliest time I’ve had in my life followed my move from Minnesota to Oregon for graduate school. I arrived in June bursting with anticipation; I couldn’t wait to recreate what I had in Minnesota: an active social life, a cache of loving friends…the elements I thought constituted a comfortable, meaningful existence. By the close of July, I was desperate. It wasn’t that I hadn’t meet good people, it was that I didn’t feel the spark, the intimacy, that I’d grown so accustomed to in Minnesota. I began to internalize the lack of relationships I’d formed and decided that the problem was me. I wasn’t outgoing enough, engaging enough, good enough. But after days and days of alone time, starting then and continuing today, I’ve realized good relationships take time, and in this world of 6 billion people, there’s plenty of potential.

I believe in relationships: my relationships with my friends, my family, my partner, Joe, and, perhaps most importantly, myself. These are the loves of my life. They are the people who have supported me through my worst and celebrated with me at my best. The reverse is also true. But relationships aren’t limited to our closest confidants. I form relationships, however fleeting or meaningful, with the customers I serve at my waitressing job, my partner’s coworkers, the homeless man I offer food to and even the stranger I make eye contact with on the street. Even the relationships we create with nonhumans: our cars, books, pets, and more, can elicit a sense of peace at the end of a hard day or cause grief when lost. Relationships are special, and the evolutionary track of human beings has ensured that our survival, physical and psychological, is dependent on the connections we create.

After excessive contemplation, I’ve come to believe the measure of a relationship isn’t always found in its depth, it also lies in its sense of equity and respect. I think this approach is especially vital to my work as a journalist, and previously my work as a political organizer, because of the sheer volume of contacts made daily and, often, the short period of exchange. Ultimately, I want people to feel good around me, to feel welcome and respected, and I believe my treatment of others reflects my belief in myself.

This I Believe Audio

An interesting aspect of journalism is that its only manual is used almost solely for writing mechanics. Every other facet of a journalist’s job is completely discretionary. Consider the fact that we have tabloid publications that choose to fabricate news. And, most magazines showcase the daily happenings of the insanely rich from Hollywood. These are obviously the most dismal of news providers, but they do tell stories and they do inform people...but with nothing useful. So, the question follows: What's useful news? What should people know...or better, what do they need to know? In Spokane, Wash., two news reporters and the editorial staff of The Spokesman-Review deeply struggled with the possibility of completely destroying the mayor of the city by publically outing him. Mayor Jim West was a former Senate Majority Leader and an outspoken conservative, anti-gay politician for more than 30 years. The reporters' source was an 18-year-old local who said that West had come onto him in a chatroom run by the Web site Gay.com. Whoa. It's enough to make your head spin.

The newspaper decided to hire a forensic investigator, “an expert,” who would take an alias and verify whether two usernames, RightByGuy and Cobra86, indeed belonged to West. They were indeed, and it turns out West would often "reward" those who
would agree to meet him. This fact - that West exploited his position for sex - was the basis for their decision to ultimately publish. And many stories later, the paper earned a Payne award, which honors “the journalist of integrity and character who reports with insight and clarity in the face of political or economic pressures and to reward performance that inspires public trust in the media."

It’s a story onto itself. But the question of when, and why, a newspaper should start snooping around is fundamental. In the case above, the paper decided that only an abuse of power legitimized the story. Morlin, in a U of O class Wednesday, said that the hidden sexual orientation of the mayor was not print-worthy; it was his intention to use his position to essentially elicit sex that was important for the people to hear. I agree with their choice, and I believe their reason why. Only people out for blood would choose to out a man who, I believe, had deep issues about his sexuality. It might be a worthless aside, but Karen Dorn-Steele, the reporter who investigated his politicaly history, said that West had sponsored legislation banned gay men and lesbians from seeking employment in public agencies, such as schools. When Dorn-Steele pressed him on his political decision-making, West said, "If I am gay, it's not wrong for a gay person to be a conservative." It's also not nice.

But that's really not the point. The real issue here is that jouralists must be judicious, always. We possess the power of information, and how we use it affects the community at large profoundly. Even the glut of those ridiculous magazines crowding the grocery aisles influence people. I never feel worse about myself more than when I'm leafing through an "In Touch" magazine while I wait for check out.
Bottom line, news that serves solely entertainment purposes will never fill its audience with power. It just creates victims.

It's an unyielding question: Are bloggers journalists? As always, it depends on whom you ask. My intuition tells they are...sometimes. Do I get a prize for being so decisive?

Before I delve further, I'd like to take a step back and ask why this query is so important. It is a matter of professional esteem? In that case, get off your high horse, paid presspeople. I'm an inclusionist at heart, and I don't find any purpose in practicing pretentiousness. There's plenty of room for everyone.

Is the question instead a warning? Three of three articles I read about this topic referred to a case involving three bloggers and Apple Computer Inc. The bloggers (journalists?) were sued for divulging product information, and they've unsuccessfully attempted to protect themselves by inciting California’s Shield Law, which prevents disclosure of journalistic sources. Professor Philip Meyer, in his article, “What is a ‘journalist’?”, argues that bloggers must seek the same legal protections as paid journalists, who enjoy the comfort of corporate legal teams when slapped with lawsuits. I agree with his advice, and it leads me to believe that if a blogger is offering news information, no matter the haste, intent or quality, she is a journalist. As Slate editor Jack Shafer said, what additional mandate does an aspiring journalist, (like me), have to providing news? I can confidently bet that many bloggers have printed stories far superior than mine, stories that I would undoubtedly benefit from reading.

Bottom line, titles carry weight, but ethics provide the real credibility. Anyone can supply news and call herself a journalist, but the mark of good reporting lies in the methods, discipline and values of the newsmaker. I’ve relied on “Elements of Journalism,” written by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, since my start in this field. It's guided me through the tumultuous realities of writing on deadline, wrestling with focus and striving for objectivity. I believe it’s truth, loyalties and priorities that ultimately deserve merit.

No one, bloggers and journalists alike, should accept laziness.

Philip Meyers article can be found at: www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050331/oplede31/art.htm

Despite my reputation as "bleeding heart," ardent Democrat and unabashed liberal, I'm still undecided on Mexican immigration. My boyfriend is a construction worker, and illegal workers affect his employment. Plus, I see Bush's endorsement of guest-worker programs, and the like, as another boost for big business, and I'm seriously sick of watching our federal government continuously buttress America's richest. Yet, I know these incredibly poor, brave, family-focused illegal immigrants are often assets to the United States, and I think many U.S. citizens, upon reflection, would admire their drive and sacrifice to provide for their families. Bush's Oval Office address Monday night proposed a complete overhaul of immigration, with, according to CNN, emphasis on several key aspects: secure borders, a temporary worker program, holding employers accountable, inroads to citizenship for illegal immigrants and comprehensive legislation.

The first involves deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, which, (perhaps with the return of guardsman from Iraq?), Bush would like to increase to 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008. I’m wondering what orders these Border Patrolmen will receive. Detainment? Death in some cases? The Bush Administration is not known for its leniency.

As mentioned, the essence of the guest worker program pains me. Should we allow employers to seek cheap labor? Perhaps this would push forward a pay standard equal to what U.S. citizens receive. I’d appreciate that.

I fully endorse employer accountability; in fact, I’ve been waiting for Bush to address it. Though I’m not for certain, I don’t think stiff penalties are applied to businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants. According to a story by the Charlotte Observer, not a single employer has been fined for hiring illegal immigrants in at least two years. (http://www.alipac.us/article664.html)
This, of course, is a problem. On the flipside, I don’t know if untrained eyes can catch signs of fake documentation. And how hard should business try to verify what they receive?

On the fourth point, I think that immigrants who have lived in the country for more than 5-10 years and have a clean criminal record should be able to earn citizenship. This means completing the same documentation and tests forced on every immigrant seeking naturalization: proficiency in English and a knowledge of U.S. history and government (though a civics lesson may be good for every American, citizen or not).

And the clincher, federal legislation. This will be the toughest nut for Bush to crack, and ironically, he may require more help from his counterparts than his comrades. In December 2005, House Republicans wrote a bill that imposes criminal penalties for people aiding illegal immigrants, builds 700-mile-long fence across the U.S.-Mexican border and makes unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony. It passed easily. Plus, they’ve dubbed any path to citizenship for illegal Mexicans amnesty. Thus, their resolve may as wide as their proposed fence.

The phrase “drug problem” is as ubiquitous as it is vague. America has had drug problems with just about every drug on the market, legal and illegal. The latest decade-long craze is methamphetamine, and like most drug problems, unraveling why it happened, how to track it and how to stop it are society’s lasting conundrums. But journalist Steven Suo found a way. He started with a comparison of rehab entrants state-by-state and, after noticing Oregon ranked number one, embarked on a 2-year investigative journey that has garnered attention and action from the United States Congress, the Mexican government and the United Nations.

Listening to him tell the story, you might think he’s a bit burnt out. In total, he’s written a five-part series for The Oregonian, his employer, traveled the world and analyzed figures regarding emergency room visits, property and identity theft crimes, rehab visits and drug purity. Such a glut of activity would fatigue anyone. His work, however, produced results that makes breathing easier for anyone connected to the meth epidemic (except for users and dealers). He found how to decrease consumption dramatically and keep it low. The solution isn’t novel: simply choke the supply.

Eighty percent of meth is produced in “super labs” located in California. In other words, while stories of small-time producers is true - one of meth’s odious qualities is how “easily” it is to produce from homes - the bulk of manufacturing takes place on the West Coast. Its chief agent is pseudo-ephedrine, an ingredient in common cold medications. Only nine factories in four countries, none being the U.S., produce ephedrine/pseudo-ephedrine, which means that actions that stifle the exportation of the ingredient stifle meth suppliers.

Simple, no? Restrict the supply of ephedrine, and meth dealers close shop. Suo found that when ephedrine was more heavily regulated in the mid-90s, ER rooms saw fewer meth overdoses and accidents, property crimes decreased, rehabilitation centers greeted fewer meth addicts and drug purity decreased. These all indicate a decrease of the drug overall. So why doesn’t Congress impose tight restrictions? Please enter pharmaceutical companies.

Cold medication sales total $3 billion annually, and according to pharmaceutical companies, regulation is a slippery slope that, at its worst, could mean the end of ephedrine in the U.S. Alternatives that don’t include ephedrine have been developed but not marketed because producers say that they don’t surpass what’s already available (in terms of efficacy)? May I scream, please?! Why does private interest so oftern trump public interest?

That’s a rant for another day. Bottom line, Suo found definitive answers through exhaustive research, and governments have answered. While ephedrine supply is restricted, pseudo-ephedrine is not, and drug dealers have persevered for now. But Suo’s work has provided lessons for future journalists: tackle big problems, practice skepticism, don’t relent and don’t be afraid. You may help end someone’s drug problem.