Online town hall: A political revolution?

On Thursday, Obama conducted the first ever online town hall in an effort to make good on his promises of government openness.

I have to say that I was impressed when I first heard about the idea. Since this past campaign season, politicians have been wisely using the Internet more and more to reach out to the younger generation. I see these efforts, including the online town hall, as an ingenious way to reach a generation that supposedly is apathetic to politics. (I say supposedly because I don't subscribe to that belief.)

Since initially hearing about the idea, though, I have heard some disturbing aspects. Nicole Ferraro of the Editor's blog on Internet Evolution says that only five of the over 100,000 questions submitted online was used in the town hall meeting even though the meeting was about one hour and twenty minutes.

Plus, people were allowed to vote on the questions, so that the most popular questions would get answered in the meeting. According to Ferraro, one question asked got six votes online. Another only got three. In total, there were over 3 million votes cast for questions. (Insert distinct sarcasm here.) So yes, the question that only got three votes must have been one of the most popular.

Obviously, there were some downsides to the meeting. The online questions did not dominate the meeting, as I was led to believe, and the questions really weren't chosen by the people (instead they must have been chosen by Obama staffers who picked convenient questions for the pres).

Plus, the pres decided to take a jab at my generation's intelligence and concerns. By questioning why three questions about legalizing marijuana were the most popular, he made it sound like everyone was part of the internet audience was a pot head.

As quoted by Ferraro, Obama said, "I don't know what this says about the online audience, but I don't want people to think. ... This was fairly popular question, and the answer is 'no.' I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."

Sorry, Mr. President, not everyone in the online audience was high that night, much like some people who are in the Special Olympics are good at bowling.

So basically, as I have said, there were some faults to the meeting, but I have to say the idea was fairly forward. Politicans should continually try to use the Internet to reach the newer generation, even if we all are supposedly pot smokers.

Love the song, question the morals

F-R-E-E that spells free. Free credit report dot com baby.

I LOVE the freecreditreport.com commercials. The songs are so catchy and witty; I could sing them all day. (Check out a collection of the ads on YouTube.)

After reading a Huffington Post article on the ads, I'm starting to question the morals of the ads, though. The article says that you can get the services of freecreditreport.com for free for seven days. After that, you pay $14.95. Hmmm .... that seems to be 14 dollars and 95 cents more expense than free.

There are some disclaimers with the ad, and consumers probably shouldn't expect someone to monitor their credit for them for free. But then maybe the Web site should not have 'free' as the first word of its domain name. If you call something free, people are going to expect it to have no costs associated with it!

Then again, the Web site name is partly correct. Everyone is entitled to a free annual credit report, but what the domain name doesn't tell you is that you will be charged for other services the site offers. By the way, consumers can find the real FREE credit report at annualcreditreport.com.

So basically, I will continue to sing the freecreditreport.com songs, but if I ever want to see my credit score, I will visit the government's site. I like things that are really free.

Was Jen and John's romance killed by Twitter?

Oh, my obsession with blogging about Twitter. I promised myself I'd stop writing about the social media unit that I haven't quite figured out yet, but this story line is too good to not write about.

According to the Pink is the New Blog, Jennifer Aniston might have dumped John Mayer because he was Twittering too much. He didn't return her phone calls, e-mails, etc., and claimed to be too busy with work. Then, she looked at his Twitter page, which had frequent updates. He would post a new tidbit every couple of hours or even minutes.

If this is true, all I have to say is REALLY? Someone would actually pick Twitter, a non-animate and non-personal site, over Jennifer Aniston, a beautiful and successful woman. Someone needs to check Mayer's head. This could be enough to qualify him for the loony bin.

In Mayer's defense, this probably isn't entirely true. I hear the man does like to Twitter, but I'm guessing the Twitter obsession was just one problem amongst many between the two celebs.

Still, after hearing this report, I'll make sure to contain my tweets. I don't want people to think I'd rather be in a relationship with a Web site.

Photoshop Amy

Apparently, people are all in a tizzy over the revelation that Complex Magazine photoshopped a photo of Kim Kardashian, according to Pop Crunch.

This makes me giggle a little bit because people are acting like this doesn't happen all the time. It wouldn't surprise me if many magazine feature photos of celebs are photoshopped in some way. Even Katie Couric got the photoshop treatment when she took a promo photo for the Evening News.

I'm in no way saying that this is right. I think it is wrong on many levels because for one, it makes girls and women think that those celebs actually look that perfect. In reality, they all have imperfections like us.

So in some ways, I was happy that it came out that Kardashian's photo got photoshopped. Maybe it takes moments like these to show women that those celebs aren't actually perfect after all.

On the other hand, moments like these are also great opportunities to have fun. I decided in response to the photoshop/Complex Magazine revelation, I would photoshop a picture of myself. Now that's a good way to waste an hour or two! Enjoy.

Electric cars for everyone?

I love my car. See, aren't we cute together?















Still, despite my car's and my compatibility, we will always have one problem: gas. (Her gas, not mine.) Experts tell me at some point, there will no longer be gas available for me to fill up my car. Okay, this might not every happen in my lifetime, but that's no excuse to not be forward thinking. Plus, if nothing else, I can definitely attest to the pain I felt this summer as I was filling up each week.

That's why I think electric cars are so cool. They appear to be much better for the environment, and they use a readily available resource for power.

David Pogue seems pretty excited about electric cars, too. This past week in the New York Times, he wrote about Better Place, which he calls "a radical, overarching plan to replace the world's gas cars with electric ones--really, really quickly." (You can also watch a video of David's interview with Better Place's chief executive Shai Agassi.)

According to Pogue's interview, Better Place has set up an electric car system unlike any other before it. Agassi says in the interview that his car model differs in two distinct ways. First, the battery is removable, so you can change out the battery before/during long trips instead of waiting for the car to charge forever. Secondly, the electric car system is supposedly cheaper than a gasoline car. Cheaper? Where do I sign up?

Another interesting component of Agassi's system is that people don't buy the batteries, but they purchase the car and miles, just like you buy minutes from a cell phone provider. Now that's crazy!

Despite the apparent wackiness of the plan, it seems to be catching on. Six countries, including Denmark, Israel, Canada and Australia, and two states, Hawaii and California, have all started building infrastructure for the cars. So who knows, maybe we all will be driving electric cars in five years.

Jacks coverage

With the women making their big tournament debut today, obviously basketball is on my mind. In honor of the Jacks' great accomplishment, I decided to check out the media's, namely ESPN, coverage of the Jacks.

After typing in South Dakota State, here is what I found:

The search includes several photos of the players getting ready for their game against TCU today, commentary on the game and even a video prediction of how far the Jacks will go in the tournament. They say the Jacks could knock off Baylor to reach the Sweet 16. I'll take that.

Charlie Creme expressed the same sentiments in his Raleigh Bracket breakdown. He said, "Seventh-seeded South Dakota State over No. 2 Baylor in the second round. The Jackrabbits are balanced, but still have a go-to player in Jennifer Warkenthien. They play good defense and were tested outside the Summitt early in the season. It will be a tall order beating the Big 12 tournament champs, but the Lady Bears did show some vulnerability in Oklahoma City."

Overall, I think the Jacks have received good press from ESPN, mostly because we're seen as a Cinderella team. But there still have been some slip-ups. They have called us San Diego State on more than one occasion. That's annoying, but I think we Jackrabbits need to understand that we are still an emerging team, and so there will be media slip-ups from time to time. After the Jacks make some noise in the tourney, though, I hope to see the slip-ups happen less and less. It's only a matter of time before the newness of being on ESPN wears off and Jack fans start sending angry letters to the major network.

Oscar Ex-plosion

A couple weeks ago, I announced my dirty little secret: I enjoy watching how the Jennifer Aniston v. Angelina Jolie saga plays out. I admitted that I often read the stories that pop up on Msn.com about the pair and their supposed fight, and I admitted that I might be a little crazy for liking to monitor their "feud."

I think I've only tapped the iceberg of crazy. Instead, the real crazies are the celebrity shows who turned an awards show into the "Oscar Showdown" between John and Jen and Brangelina.

Anyone who doubts that last statement, I dare you to watch "Oscar Ex-plosion" by Sarah Haskins. In her video, she shows clips of many popular celeb shows (and even some serious news channels) rehashing the night's drama. But what drama was there?

Apart from the unfortunate cut from Jen presenting to Angie laughing (which I must admit, I was peeved about), there really was no tension between the two couples. Instead, the celeb shows tried to create some signs of Oscar fighting out of mid-air. They created timelines showing how the movements of both Jen and John and Brad and Angelina were orchestrated so that they wouldn't see each other. And then, they pointed out that Jen was only three feet from her ex when she went onstage to present. Gasp! I bet they even had to breath the same air!

If you think I'm exaggerating on the celeb shows' ridiculousity, then I highly suggest you watch Haskin's video. You will probably be as amazed as I was that the non-confrontation between the two couples was played up to being the jilted lover showdown of the year. And I thought that I needed help!

Reporting on funerals

Maricarrol Kueter, executive editor of the Argus Leader, has it exactly right when she says on her blog, "Photographers and reporters generally dislike being assigned to cover a funeral."

Wow would I feel awkward if I was ever given that assignment. If asked, I know I would do it, but that would be one of the hardest stories of my life. Sometimes it's hard enough to just approach random people in The Union on campus. Think how hard it would be to try to approach someone at a funeral.

Plus, there's always concerns about being sensitive towards the family. I would be terribly concerned that the family would consider me a media hound who was just trying to capitalize on their misfortune. Obviously that would not be my intention, but there would always be the nagging thought in the back of my mind that the family could be offended by my presence.

On the other hand, some families could be extremely flattered that their loved one was being honored by a paper. Not many funerals get covered, so to have a paper come to a funeral signals that whoever died was valuable and important to the community.

This probably is an extremely depressing blog post, but the thought of covering a funeral has been circling in my head ever since I saw the Argus's coverage of the recent funeral of the fallen Turner county deputy. I thought what they did was very tasteful, but as a young journalist, I kept thinking what I would do if I was asked to do a story like that. I have to say that would not be my favorite assignment.

Still, I do think there is a time and place for funeral coverage. Kueter provided the example of Gov. Mickelson's funeral, and I do think funerals for fallen soldiers and police officers can be covered tastefully, as well. Plus, stories like these can play a larger role. As Kueter says, "Photographs and stories help concerned residents understand and honor a person's public service. They also allow the community at large to pay respects and, in a small way, share the personal loss."

Wild Card: Food! Food! Food!

This video assignment was pretty wide open. We could do a video on whatever we wanted, but we had to make sure that we would be able to finish our videos during our studio time (or shortly thereafter). My partner and I decided The Market would be a good topic to cover since we were both starving this morning!

The most difficult part of this project was the audio. The audio for the first speech isn't that good because while I was talking, the camera panned away and so the camera mic slowly got farther and farther away from me. I now know that that is not a good idea. We also had audio troubles with background noise because the workers were getting The Market ready for the noon rush.

Good things were the willingness of The Market staff in allowing us to do a few fun things (i.e. me standing by the Stir Crazy grill waving two spatulas) and my increased competency with transitions. I know I talk about audio and transitions for each assignment, but for me, they are probably the two biggest things I struggle with and they are two of the biggest things that separate a professional video from a blatantly amateur one. By the end of this class, I hope my videos fit in the former category as opposed to the latter.

Open Records in SD

A great stride was taken today in open records legislation in the state. Gov. Rounds signed SB 147 which will great a presumption of openness in South Dakota. The bill will take effect July 1.

With this bill, records in the state will be considered open unless there is an exemption that specifically says they are closed.

There are several exemptions in the bill. Information about ongoing criminal investigations may be kept closed; correspondence, memoranda, calendars or logs of appointments, working papers and records of telephone calls of public officials or employees is exempted; trade secrets do not need to be released; and some private information, like social security and passport numbers, will not be open under the law.

After hearing about all these exemptions, I was worried that the bill really won't do anything to open up records in South Dakota. David Bordewyk of the South Dakota Newspaper Association assured me that isn't the case.

He said that prior to the passing of this bill, when someone would go ask for a record, that person had to prove that they could actually see the record. After the bill takes effect on July 1, the government/public officials will have to prove that someone cannot see the record. This puts the burden of proof on the government if they want to get a record closed, and as the bill says, it creates a presumption of openness of record in South Dakota.

To me, this is really exciting for South Dakota. It creates a government that can be held more accountable by its citizens (and the media), and it puts South Dakota into the middle of the pack in terms of openness of records, Bordewyk said.

After spending years as the state with the worst open government laws, I think it's about time that records be open for public viewing. To me, it's only fitting that we live up to our former state nickname: the Sunshine State.

The Good and Ugly of Twitter

Ever since hearing about Twitter this past fall, I've always wondered why people are so drawn to it. What is the purpose? Do people really want to hear that I ate a Twix bar and some Cheetos today?

A couple weeks ago, the Editor-in-chief of The Collegian began Twittering Students' Association meetings. To me, that was really cool because those of us in the newsroom could receive live updates about the meeting.

Apparently, another good use is asking people for a cure for something. Exhibit 1: David Pogue of the New York Times was showing off Twitter at a conference and decided to do a live demonstration. He said he needed a cure for hiccups and viola, dozens of random people responded with their own personal cures. Sweet!
(Click here for Pogue's full article about the incident and some fall out responses when he told the Twitterers that he asked that question as part of a demonstration.)

So there are some good uses for Twitter, but there are definitely some weird ideas tied to the medium. Prime example: George Stephanopoulos is going to "twitterview" Sen. John McCain. That's right. Stephanopoulos is going to ask McCain the tough questions about these trying times in 140 characters or less. Nothing like limiting the word count while trying to solve the country's (oh sorry, to cut out that last word, I ran out of characters!)

So for me, the live updates and twittering of meetings is the future of news outlets on Twitter. The "twitterview" ... yeah, not so much.

Monologue 1

**You can find more information about the story discussed here at the PC World Web site.

Redheads will live on forever!

Some people tell me that my kind (people blessed with red hair) will be extinct by 2030 or 2100, depending on the source. First, I want to say that I intend to still be living by 2030, and if I have a redheaded baby (which I will ... hopefully), my child will probably still be alive by 2100.

Second, redheads will never be completely extinct because they will live on forever ... in song.

According to the Redheaded Goddess Forums, the following songs mention redheads:
1. Redheaded Woman by Bruce Springsteen
2. Cinnamon Girl by Neil Young
3. Icky Thump by The White Stripes
4. Red Headed Woman by 2000 lbs. of Blues
5. Fire Woman by The Cult
6. Red Headed Stepchild by Golden Smug
7. Tangled Up in Blue by Bob Dylan
8. Keepin' the Faith by Billy Joel
9. Jolene by Dolly Parton
10. Valerie by The Zutons

I also uncovered these songs about redheads:
1. Boot Scootin' Boogie by Brooks and Dunn
2. Ain't Going Down Til the Sun Comes Up by Garth Brooks
3. Red Headed Stranger by Willie Nelson
4. Who's Messin' Up Your Red Hair Tonight by Den Hollinden

So, basically redheads rock, and we will never completely go away!

What a Week!

It has been a good two days for me in the entertainment world. First, Michael; now, Seinfeld!

According to Hollywood.com, this fall, Seinfeld stars Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards will appear on Curb Your Enthusiasm. (I will take that as a direct order since I am definitely excited!)

They will appear in several episodes of the comedy, which stars Seinfeld creator Larry David.

I have to say that I am so happy! My head is just swimming with thoughts of the Soup Nazi, the words "Not that there's anything wrong with that," the old lady that Jerry steals rye bread from and Newman. If Curb Your Enthusiasm includes even one famous Seinfeld moment, I will be hooked forever!

My Life

I have to say this video was a challenge for me. I had no idea what to talk about! I finally decided to talk about The Collegian, and though I promised myself I would not make a video about The Collegian since the professors are sick of those videos, the paper is such a large part of my life that it only seemed natural to do a video about it.

Once I found my topic, the script was extremely easy to write. It probably only took me like 10-15 minutes. Actually remembering the script and not stuttering, on the other hand, was a problem.

As for the video, the editing almost killed me. I couldn't find my sequence for the longest time and was convinced that I had deleted it. Luckily, I had not, but I lost a lot of time freaking out. The transitions and the audio were also tricky for me in this video, and I may need to seek assistance on those topics.

Despite the bads, there were some goods. I had a great Freeplaymusic.com experience, and I did learn more about Final Cut. I have to say the editing took a lot less time overall during this video, so that is an improvement. Like I have said in the past, I think it will take me some time, but I do think I should be able to figure out Final Cut and the overall video-producing process.

I like Mike!

Exciting news: Michael Jackson is back. What a "Thriller!"

According to the AP, Jackson will perform 10 shows in London in July. Tickets are expected to sell quickly for the concerts despite some concerns about Jackson's health and a failed attempt to relaunch his career in November.

My only regret in life is that I don't live in London. Though people think he is "Bad" and should "Beat it" (yes, I will stop with the bad puns), I personally love the King of Pop. I've had his "Number Ones" CD in my car for the last four years, and I always listen to it when I drive home.

If someone told me they did not like any of Michael Jackson's songs, I wouldn't believe them. From "Billie Jean" to "Black or White" to "Man in the Mirror" (or any of the aforementioned songs), Michael has songs that appeal to almost everyone. Plus, his album "Thriller," which was released in 1982, is still the best-selling album of all time. You can't argue with that.

So though he may have had some legal problems and may be a little messed up, I want everyone to realize that Michael Jackson rocks. And I would say to Michael, "I Just Can't Stop Loving You."

Are we giving our readers candy before dinner?

In the news businesses, you are always supposed to put the reader first. You need to present the news in an interesting and understandable way to grab their attention, and you need to try to give them stories that match their interests.

I believe it was for these reasons that the Argus Leader decided to run the story about a cat being put in a bong on its Nation and World Section despite having limited space.

I thought the Argus did a great job with story selection in that case because I know that I was interested in the case. The story talked about animal cruelty and a crime that happened in our region, and it was a weird story. These are all elements that interested me and probably interested a large number of people.

A friend, however, was not so pleased with the Argus's selection. She felt the story took up valuable space that could have been dedicated to other national and international issues. By selecting stories like the cat bong instead of current world issues, she said, papers are actually helping to dumb down the population.

Wait, dumb down the population. That is a serious charge.

She does have some good points. By putting that story in the paper as opposed to something like a Mexican prison riot, editors are calling the cat story more newsworthy. Once a culture is established that cat bong stories are more important than international prison riots than people will naturally read those "wild" stories instead of hard-hitting news. That could lead to an uninformed public that just wants strange stories. So in a way, journalists are responsible for giving people the news they might not find the most interesting but that is important to be informed about the world.

On the other hand, editors want to please readers. If they want to read about strange stories instead of hard news, who are we to say they can't. In the end, its actually the reader's paper, not just the editors or executives.

So I have to say that I'm officially torn on this issue. I think it's good to give readers a dose of weird news every once and a while, but then again, I don't want newspapers or other serious news outlets to become totally devoted to just offbeat news. I think newspapers need to find a balance, and in this case, I think that's exactly what the Argus was trying to do.

I admit I may have a problem

We all have our dirty little secrets. One of mine is that I read every story I find about Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

It's definitely a curse. If I see a headline about the famous feud, I'm sure to click on the story even if it's two in the morning. It's like I can't help myself; the tabloid gods take over my body, and I absorb every nitty gritty detail.

Today's news from Entertainment Tonight: Aniston told ELLE UK magazine that 'there are no sides' in the apparent feud between the actress and Jolie. Yep, it's pretty lame, but I enjoyed every minute detail anyway.

About the "fight,"Aniston said, "There are no villains and there is no heroine in this story." I disagree. I think whoever decided that they needed to flash Angelina and Brad across the screen while Aniston was presenting at the Oscars is definitley evil. Really, this was Jenn's moment. Brangelina can go have another baby if they want more publicity.

Obviously, I'm on the pro-Jennifer side of things. I'll never forgive Brad and Angelina for sneaking around on Jenn during the filming of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I dislike home wreckers. (Even if Aniston has forgotten about it, apparently I never will.)

Then again, I probably should just move on, because I'm trying to decide if Jolie is more pitiful for interfering with a marriage or if I am more pitiful that I'm actually still reading about it three years later.

Whatever, I'll figure that question out later. I've got more pressing matters at hand. I must read Pitt: 'Jolie didn't wreck my marriage.'

You've got to be kidding!

This may not be necessarily media related, but it definitely needs to be reported. An airline wants to charge its passengers for using the toilet!

Company head Michael O’Leary told the BBC that Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using an airplane’s toilet, according to blogger Karen Datko.

What’s more is that O’Leary said the charge could be one British pound, which amounts to about $1.40, per use. Holy cow! Way to exploit people for performing a very basic body function! And the sad thing is that people will actually pay that much if they really have to go.

Though charging people for using in-flight toilets seems like an atrocity at the least, it is just the extreme in a long line of airlines’ hidden fees. For example, fees for checked baggage, in-flight amenities, paper tickets and booking have become very popular in the United States, according to MSN Money.

I have to say my favorite hidden fee, though, is the curb-side baggage check-in fee. I can just see myself being stressed and loaded down with luggage when a nice old airline man comes up to me and asks if I want help. I would most definitely say yes, to which he would reply, “That’s $2 and a tip, please!”

When it comes to airline travel, so much for goodwill and bathrooms for all!

Coffin photos

In the last week, the new administration has decided to lift the ban on photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers returning from war. In the new rule, families will decide if their soldiers' coffin can be photographed.

According to Martin C. Even of Newsday, the previous ban on these photos was put in place in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush.

As a media person, I applaud the administration's effort to make the military more transparent. In the Newsday article, one mother of a fallen soldier said she would have liked to have the media at the airport because that meant that someone was acknowledging the sacrifice her son had made. Other mothers said these photographs could put the war in "human terms" for people who have not been terribly affected by the war.

On the other hand, those on the other side of the issue have valid concerns, too. In an article by Eric Timmons of The Register-Mail, one mother argued that showing these pictures was just hard on the family. The moment when the soldier comes home is personal and private, and she didn't want her son's coffin all over the front page of a paper.

Another concern with the new rule is that more than one coffin may come back to the U.S. at the same time. In this situation, one family could potentially agree to allowing pictures while another does not want anyone to photograph the solider's coffin. That could create problems because the photographer might not know which coffin is okay to photograph and which one is not.

In the end, I am pleased with the new rule. I think the photographing question should be up to the families since they are the ones being the most affected. Many of the families have strong feelings one way or the other so I think giving them a say in how the media will cover their soldier's funeral, etc., is the best way. If nothing else, it will probably give them more respect for the media since someone actually called and asked how they wanted the situation handled.