White noise

We have so many things fighting for our attention nowadays. Prior to starting this entry, I was multitasking: importing a CD to mp3s; listening to new music; browser tabs tracking New York Times articles, friends' blogs and online profiles, and best-of lists. In a time of information overload, it's a struggle to discern what sources of information are important and vital from that of ephemera.

Bree Nordenson's article in the latest issue of the Columbia Journalism Review presents a convincing case for how journalists and newspapers can adapt in our age of informational white noise. She argues that journalists and newspapers need to become guides through the information jungle we find online, rather the gatekeepers of the news. They are in a unique position to gather and disseminate a story from multiple angles.

Journalists need to become synthesizers on behalf of the public. One prime example of this role Nordenson cites is the subprime mortgage crisis and NPR. Listeners and even fellow journalists were confused by the complexity of the situation, so NPR News and This American Life devoted an hour-long episode to the topic titled, "The Giant Pool of Money." It became the program's most popular episode in its 13-year history. They followed up the episode with another episode and a blog called Planet Money.

We are in a position where, thanks to the Internet, access to multiple news sources are readily available with almost no monetary cost (unless you consider creating a user account costly). We should be able to discern the truth of the matter due to the multiple sources of information we have on hand. One website I use frequently is Metacritic. It compiles reviews from several sources and tries to calculate an average review score for the movie, DVD, TV show, video game, or music album. (They used to include book reviews, but unfortunately it has since been dropped from their site.) I stick to a handful of reviewers for my entertainment/cultural intake, and the website accomodates that most of the time. I can choose to read about the newest Amadou & Miriam album and find what my favorite critics are saying. It is so useful to have all of that information in one site. And that's what journalists and newspapers need to do now.

That isn't to say that there's no place for a straight news story. There's always a need for nothing-but-the-facts approach to an event. But with everything that's out there on the Internet—news sites, online magazines, personal websites, blogs, discussion forums, article comments, email lists, chatrooms, and so on—it is difficult to stay on top of the news. To stay informed nowadays can be considered a Herculean task, probably akin to cleaning the Augean stables with nothing more than a hand trowel.

I consider myself to be well informed on most subjects, but I sometimes find myself beleaguered by the array of online resources. What's NPR's take on the story? NYT's? Washington Post's? How about The Guardian or The Globe & Mail? What does The AV Club think of this album? Pitchfork? Village Voice? Phoenix New Times? What about that team blog? What is their opinion?

Then there are issues that go a little deeper. How do I handle the underlying biases? Should I be looking for a differing opinion in order to get a balanced view of a story? Is this critic/journalist/writer missing something I should know? All of these are questions I ask myself whenever I approach a topic, and it can be daunting to address them.

When confronted by this white noise of information, what can a reader do? Trying to convert pure information into knowledge and wisdom seems to be the challenge now. Granted, it's not necessarily a new challenge, but the scale of it makes it novel. I'll try to outline my process for dealing with this glut next time.

Tags: news, life, journalism

Powered by Qumana

Sounds of Silence and Ice Packs for Tired Eyes

I finally have a break in my schedule to post something here.

So I've been busy. The Arizona Daily Wildcat was following the election and accidentally found itself in the middle of a controversy concerning a cartoon from Keith Knight, creator of The K Chronicles. We accidentally printed a two-week-old cartoon that contained a racial slur. Not the complete word, mind you, but it had enough that you can tell what it is.

For some people, this confirmed their suspicions of the Daily Wildcat as being racist, on top of being libertarian, right-wing, radically liberal, Republican, and an agent of censorship. Oh, and I can't forget the misogyny and misanthropy that seep into our articles. But that's a whole matter altogether. [Peruse the Opinions section and search for "libertarian," "liberal," "right-wing"...]

No, what happened was a production error and for that reason, the Daily Wildcat accepts full responsibility. The content was never up for discussion for print, so for anyone who believes otherwise, the paper has never made a stance of condoning or condemning the cartoon.

To me, the content of the cartoon points out the fact that issues of race and politics in the U.S. are never as black and white (uh, right) as some people may want to believe. Then again, I don't believe that we, as a nation, are in a "post-racial" state, especially when I consider the vehement reaction people in Arizona and around the nation have toward the issue of immigration.

Anyway, the controversy launched a storm of letters and articles and people were shouting without thinking clearly while multiple sides were drawn around the paper. Two local TV stations (NBC and Fox) covered the controversy, both of whom presented their own biases in their reportage.

As for me, it meant I had to double my efforts as copy chief in making sure that the people who wrote to the paper, often for the first time, and their message were presented in the best light possible. This meant taking out spelling errors, making sure their grammar and syntax were smoothed out, and modifying the letters to adhere to AP and Wildcat style. In the end, after all the readings and re-readings and edits, I'm certain I read approximately 12,000-16,000 words in the Opinions section every weeknight after the election. That comes out to be 36,000-48,000 words for Opinions, never mind the rest of the paper with the election coverage and a spectacular football season and the separate, weekly section for WildLife (i.e. Arts).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the equivalent of a paperback a sliver under 200 pages (based on 250 words per page).

Whenever my copy editors (or anyone else, actually) ask me how and why I do my job after telling them the above anecdotes and facts, I tell them, "I don't know. I just do it."

Tags: journalism, life, reading, writing, news, not-dead, comics

Powered by Qumana