Burn? Maybe, but Won't Crash

Mallary Tenore wrote a article this past Monday that is very much related to the article I wrote my blog on last week. Last week I wrote about how it was a journalist's duty to read the newspaper and this week Tenore agrees says she doesn't feel as a journalist it is her duty but it is a "sign of appreciation for the hard work that goes into creating a newspaper."

Tenore admits that she spends at least eight hours a day online keeping up with her various blogs, web pages, and news updates. On the contrary Tenore also admits she wrote the first draft to this article by hand. "As much as I'm logged into the online world, I look forward to the end of the day when I can log off," Tenore says. To Tenore these are moments of peace that she treasures that her countless hours online don't offer.

"Paper," Tenore says. "The product that's been around for 2,000 years and still hasn't lost it's grove."

Tenore feels there is no substitute for paper. When reading articles online there is always some advertisement flashing with a dancing alien that's trying to grab your attention. The 'tailorability' of paper is quite possibly Tenore's favorite part about it. It allows you to follow along with your pen and underline and write notes as you read, something online reading doesn't offer.

The article refers to an essay written by William Powers entitled Hamlet's Blackberry: Why Paper is Eternal, from which Tenore gets her idea of tailorability. Powers states three other ways paper helps us read. The first of the three is tangibility. This is simply how we navigate through books and paper. It's much easier navigation. Secondly, Powers points out spatial flexibility. This simply means the reader is able to spread multiple texts out and have them within an arms reach. The final idea is manipulability, meaning one can easily shuffle through multiple papers.

Tenore finishes her argument explaining that she is a fan of both online and paper. Why can't we just take what each offers over the other and embrace it? Tenore wishes to see a business model that embraces both.

Although it is a source for much controversy it seems that all journalist have one common view: embrace paper.

Your Duty to Read the Paper

Just yesterday Roy Peter Clark of Poynteronline wrote an article in which he expresses his fear of the lost interest in picking up a newspaper and reading it. Clark says "If we believe in a future of journalism, we've got to pitch in." Clark admits that for a while he too lost interest in the newspaper and strayed away for awhile. He says he noticed a problem when he realized that "The first thing I touched in the morning and that last thing I touched at night was the TV remote." This is all coming from a journalist who has a passion about news. What does this mean for the future of journalism?

Clark stresses that "The future of journalism, not just newspapers, depends on such loyalty." He also emphasizes the "paper, not pixels." Clark is well aware you can receive your daily update and news from a news broadcast or online sources, but here lies the dilemma; how will we pay for journalism in the future? Where will salaries for quality journalists or editors come from? Clark hopes we find some new business model that will be able to support the journalism profession, but until then, "we've got to support what we have," Clark says.

If one wants to be an informed citizen in the place where they are living, there is absolutely no substitute for a local daily newspaper, Clark explains. Clark ends his argument by saying, "I have no proof, but a strong feeling, that even journalists, especially young ones working at newspapers, don't read the paper. That feels wrong to me -- and self-defeating."

Moral of the story: Journalist or not, pick up the newspaper. It's now your duty.

Did the Media Taint Bond's achievement?

August 7, 2007 is a date that will forever go down in history. It was on this day that Barry Bonds of the San Fransisco Giants hit career home run #756, breaking the previous record of 755 set by Henry Aaron. Bonds now stands alone as the home-run king. Or does he?

Typically this would be cause for celebration and recognition of one of the baseball greats of our time, but instead it has been more cause for controversy and disgust. It is well known that Bonds has encountered allegations of steroid use, but any proof of this is still nowhere to be found. It is currently still under investigation, but just because he hasn't been proven guilty doesn't mean he hasn't suffered from the allegations. Instead of receiving cheers and a pat on the back for his accomplishments, Bonds was greeted with boos wherever he stepped foot. Could it be possible the media egged this reaction on?

Dante Chinni of PEJ wrote an article, entitled How Did The Media React to Bonds' Blast, in which PEJ did an examination of the coverage in the 43 daily newspapers that were based in cities that are home to major league baseball teams. In this examination Chinni used a special software to look for the most frequently used words in a total field of 106 stories which covered the event. Chinni's findings were certainly interesting.

It was found that the words "steroids" and "performance-enhancing drugs" were the two most common words to appear in the coverage, both appearing 215 times. Positive words were also present in the coverage but appeared much less. This list was lead by "achievement" appearing 140 times and "great" a mere 117 times.

Particular journalists made their opinion of Bonds well known. For example Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote that the fans in San Francisco seem to think he "became the all-time home run king of baseball without the help of enough performance-enhancing drugs to keep a battleship afloat." Another article reads, "A little piece of humankind died Tuesday night," said Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti.

Did all of this opinion making front page influence readers around American on their opinion of Bonds and his achievement? Of course it did. Whoever might argue otherwise would be a fool. Although the allegations are there, and very well may be true for all I know, can't we just let Bonds be for now? In America aren't we "innocent until proven guilty"?