It's spring break! I couldn't think of a better way to spend it than at my two favorite places: the mountains and the lake.
I spent the first part of spring break in the Rockies, snowboarding with my family. It's hard to describe the feeling of standing on top of a mountain, looking out at the magnificent mountaintops. It's like the world is standing still and you're standing above it all, looking down at the earth below.
Then, strapping a snowboard on your feet and heading down.
It's hard to believe that just two days later, I was sitting on a dock in southern Missouri. I had a glass of lemonade in my hand and my best friend in the lounge chair beside me.
Top it off with a girls night at the Branson Landing!
When I look back at the week of spring break it occurs to me how blessed I am to be able to spend this time with family and friends at some of my favorite places. Now, the questions is: Do I have to go back to school?!
"The JetBlue Pilot Meltdown," "The Disruption in the Sky," "Midair Meltdown."
Throughout the course of this week, the incident that prompted the emergency landing of a JetBlue flight has taken on many names. Since the event on Tuesday, there have been countless stories about the crazed pilot from many different media outlets. As I continue to follow this story, I am beginning to ask the question: How long is a story relevant?
Some of the earlier stories on Tuesday and Wednesday answer very important questions and provide necessary information. Some example of these are from Fox News and CNN.
These stories were both published on Wednesday, the day after the event occurred. In my opinion, these stories are very newsworthy. They are informing readers and viewers about the pilot being charged with interfering with the crew. This is a necessary follow-up to the story. In fact, without this follow-up these news outlets would be lacking in their coverage.
It is a story like this one from CNN, which came out today (Friday), that makes me wonder if the story is still newsworthy.
The story is basically "re-hyping up" the story by asking readers the question: How would you have reacted?
Is it the media's job to inform or to keep a story going as long as possible in order to keep readers coming back for more?
As I assess this coverage, it seems as if some news outlets are simply dragging readers along with an old story. If something new is discovered, by all means, cover it. If not, don't continue to dig at the same story. It's our job to produce news, not hype.
(I think it's worth noting: it's not raining right now)
It's almost the weekend.
And, best of all, my Pandora is getting every song right.
As I surf the web for the latest political stunt to blog about, it occurs to me - I don't care about politics today. Today, I just want to listen to my old-school, 80s and 90s country music and enjoy the nearly 80 degree weather on the 16th of March.
So, I will. I'll crank up my "The Judds" Pandora channel and argue my case, using clear and convincing evidence, that the rest of the world should come to appreciate retro country music.
In 1983 (seven years before I was born), The Judds did a song called "Mama He's Crazy." Here's a little taste:
It takes me back to simpler times. It's calm, it's soothing, it's a work of art.
Then, there's Garth. (Garth Brooks, that is, of all you retro country rookies). This man can make all my worries go away.
This is the kind of music that just puts you in a good mood. It makes me want to jump up and line-dance.
Here's another long lost name to the world of music: Blackhawk.
Maybe it's because I grew up listening to artists like these, but when I listen to this music, all is well in the world. The harmonies, the simply lyrics, the steel guitar - all come together to make magic. I'm probably the only 21 year old in the world who thinks so, but this type of music is way undervalued.
So, give it a try, won't you?! Tune into a retro country music station, close your eyes, and feel your worries melt away.
Since my first journalism class I’ve been taught about the
“factors of newsworthiness,” or things that make a story worth writing. Some of
these things include: timeliness, proximity, exceptional quality, possible
future impact, conflict, and prominence.
I’ve always been critical about the last factor: prominence (AKA: writing about something
simply because it happened to a famous person or writing about something
someone did simply because that person happens to be famous).
Today, every single one of my breaking news apps erupted
with the latest story: George Clooney has been arrested while protesting in a
Sudan Protest in Washington. Check it out:
It almost looks like a joke. Clooney is laughing with his
buddies, smirking slyly at the countless cameras while police calmly escort he
and the others away from the scene. It seems like a publicity stunt to me and
all the top news outlets are falling for it.
My critique of these stories is not rooted in the content of
the protest, and I’m certainly not suggesting
Clooney should not protest. He
has the freedom to protest just like any other American. My concern lies in the
tendency of journalists to jump on every opportunity to publicize the actions
of celebrities.
Here are some other "breaking news" alerts I received today:
It just makes me wonder: Is the Clooney story on-par with the other two? Would reporters have jumped on the Clooney story if it would have been an average citizen who was arrested?
My answer: No.
Journalists are supposed to give a voice to the voiceless, not give a megaphone to the famous. As journalist, I suggest we give a little more thought to why we are covering a story and if it's actually worthy of the front page of the paper, the A- block of a newscast, or the top story on the website.
It's turned into a two-man race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are fighting for the lead as primary elections take place across the country.
Romney won two important states this week: Michigan and Arizona. Now, he has won a total of seven states (including both binding and non-binding elections). That's compared to the four states Santorum has in the bag. By looking at those numbers, it may seem like Romney is the obvious frontrunner. However, we still have a long way to go before such claims can be justified.
Super Tuesday is next week. Until then, voters have a lot to consider. At the top of most voters' lists: Who can beat Obama?
It's obvious the Republican party is having difficulty deciding who to back. Out of four possible candidates (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul), no candidate has an overwhelming amount of support from the party as a whole. This speaks to the idea that voters aren't incredibly excited about any of these candidates. All they care about is who has a change at wining against Obama in a fight to the White House.
The Republican Party has been divided on which candidate to support from the beginning of the race. As the pendulum swings back and forth from Romney to Santorum, I wonder if the Republican party is wasting time with all this indecision. Obviously, this is the point of the primaries: to decide who to nominate through a series of elections. However, it seems the lack of support for one candidate over the other is more evident this year than in years past.
Apparently, Republican voters just haven't made their mind up yet. Many individuals still have not thrown all their support at one candidate. Until people make up their minds individually, the party will be unable to make up its mind as a whole.
So, will this lack of passion be a hinderance even after the Republican candidate is finally decided?
Republicans just want to beat Obama. However, no one can win without passionate support. As of now, all Republicans candidates lack that passionate support. If Republican voters continue to be unsuccessful in building strong, passionate support, it won't matter to whom the nomination goes because a campaign without passion is a lost cause.
In the coming months, the Republican party will have to fight to rally strong supporters for whoever becomes their candidate. Ultimately, the faster the party decides, the faster it can begin to build the passionate support base that will be vital to a competitive election against Obama.
Newspapers are calling it the "Leap Day Tornado," but for my family in Branson and Kimberling City, it was a day that turned their world upside down.
I woke up to a phone call at 2:00 a.m.
"There's a tornado in the Springfield area," my friend said.
My hometown (Crane) is about 30 minutes south of Springfield, but my parents were spending the week at our lake cabin in Kimberling City. My family also owns a small business in Kimberling City and my summer job was in Branson (which is only a 30 minute's drive from Kimberling City). Basically, anything in the "Springfield area" raises a red flag.
"It's hitting Branson now." he said. That raised the flag higher.
"Ok." I responded, "How strong is it?"
Pictures of a demolished Joplin flashed in my mind. Tornados are all too real to me, and everyone else in southwest Missouri. I knew if it could happen there, it could happen anywhere.
"It's taken out houses in Kimberling City," he said.
I jumped out of bed, opened my laptop, and logged on to Twitter. Horrified, I scrolled through the list of constantly multiplying tweets.
I clicked on a tweet from a local television station back home. I hung up the phone as my mind struggled to comprehend what I read, "Houses along Joe Bald Road in Kimberling City have been destroyed in the wake of this storm."
The family lake cabin is barely off of Joe Bald Road - I've driven that road countless times and could envision every turn. What I couldn't imagine was it completely destroyed.
I hit speed dial to call my mom's cell phone. I could tell when she answered that they were okay. I wave of relief rushed over me. I prayed that everyone else in the community could say the same.
I stayed awake that night, following tweets and facebook posts. I read every news update on every local television station's website. I was 4 hours from home, but it felt like I was there. My friends in Branson posted updates from their smartphones: "Everyone in our family is safe," "Pray for Branson," "Anyone in Branson/Kimberling City have power?"
I had never realized how fast news travels on social media. Maybe that's because I had never cared enough to notice. That was before everything that goes along with the word "home" was in changing before my eyes.
Social media is changing the way news is distributed. It's fast, it's constant, it's relevant. With the use of hashtags, readers can instantly filter out everything they don't want to read. As I continue to read about my crumbled community, I can instantly follow everything I need: #branson, #kimberlingcity. For me, it's as close to home as I can get. It's like I'm experiencing this tragedy along with my friends and family back home.
As I analyze the way I followed this story, I realize the impact and importance of this new type of news outlet. Before I needed it, twitter was something I used for fun, for browsing funny quotes and pictures. Now, I fully understand it's place in media today. I'm grateful for the speed in which I was able to follow new developments in this story.
As a journalist, it's important that I not only understand how social media works, but also that I learn to master it as a journalistic skill. I look forward to the future of social media and am excited to be working in an era of instantaneous news.
For now, I'm focused on what's happening at home. Just as I watched it crumble, I'll watch it rebuild.
