Blogging ≠ Journalism

Blogging may be taking away from what you’re trying to do right at this moment: be a journalist (or at least write like one to pass this introductory class).

Don’t get me wrong –blogging is a great way to express yourself as a writer and it’s frankly more fun to write a blog than an academic paper or piece for a newspaper (refer to Erin Harte’s blog).

However, the trouble I have with blogging is that audiences are using them as a journalistic source. Now, I’m sure you know the difference between an objective, journalistic piece and a blog about an opinion on a topic that someone considers “newsworthy” –but does the average internet surfer?

Inaccurate facts; rumors; complete bias –these are only some of the issues that blogs can cause. Anyone can be a blogger but not everyone can be a journalist (and a good one, at that).

Journalism is a refined practice; one that takes literal practice, along with research and objectivity. A blog, more often than not, is not done as carefully. In fact, I’m not basing this blog off of anything other than my opinion whereas if I was publishing this in The Torch, I would probably base my piece off some researched facts about journalism v. blogging. Even then, it wouldn’t be based off of my opinion because it can’t be –precisely because it’s journalism.

Besides, I can go back and edit whatever I'm telling you right now and completely change this blog. However, once I publish a journalistic piece, what's done is done.

To end this, here I have included a NYT article that goes more in depth about blogging v. journalism:

Are All Bloggers Journalists?

Cartoon: 

It's okay to let your Ass hang out - just keep your Elephant in

In my (un)professional opinion, I believe most students at Wittenberg are actually right-leaning but the faculty is left-leaning. However, I think this gets lost in the overall assumption that Wittenberg, as a whole, is a liberal campus.

Just looking around, one observes the liberal propaganda around campus: Obama stickers on water bottles, Democratic bumper stickers on cars, and liberal posters on professors’ doors. I am all for the First Amendment and think it’s great that students are able to voice their political views. Moreover, I think it is even better students take the time to be aware of the issues going on outside of the Witt bubble. But is it okay for professors to show their political bias, whichever way they lean?

You all heard it in class when Mac opened up the Watergate discussion with “Nixon sucks.” (Sorry to pick on you Mac, but I have to use this). Mac teaches us to get to know the facts, disseminate hard news to the audience, and above all, be objective and don’t show bias. However a journalism professor told us Nixon sucks. I’m not saying Nixon didn’t suck, I’m just asking – is this okay in the classroom?

I’m doing my story on the political atmosphere on campus and already got two really good quotes:

“Teaching American National Government should teach about that, not about how Republicans are idiots and Democrats are awesome, “ said junior Rob Metry.

On a similar note, junior poli sci major Ann Ultsch said, “Just because it’s an entry level class doesn’t mean that you can teach/grade it with bias, not matter which way you lean to influence your students. It can deter students from entering the field.”

I think those who identify as liberal, including most professors, are more vocal about it. Maybe we just don’t hear about conservative students and they just aren’t as vocal. After all, it can be quite intimidating to bring up a conservative argument in class if you know the professor is liberal and don’t want your view to be considered “wrong” – or maybe “right” in this case (okay, bad joke).

A bystander may see a few liberal posters and hear a few very liberal arguments in class, but I think it’s mostly the professors that give Wittenberg that more liberal feel. Now, I realize most college campuses are liberal to begin with – but what about its students? I’ll leave you to think about that question. This also will be my effective cliffhanger, for I’m trying to find out that answer myself with my semester-long story.

YOU! I need your help! PLEASE READ ME

Fellow comrades:

For my semester-long story, I am doing a piece on if there is a "silent majority" of right-leaning students.
To find out more, I NEED YOUR HELP!

If you know of any friends and/or acquaintances on campus who feel "silenced," who are right-leaning but don't display it and/or feel they can't/shouldn't, or even those who are vocal about it, etc., can you please give me their name and/or contact information?

You can talk to me in class, or (preferably) email me at: s13.agreiwe@wittenberg.edu

I would be forever grateful to you!

If you have any ideas/suggestions, please feel free to leave me some comments.

THANK YOU!

p.s. I really like this graphic!

Do You Want to Come Up With a Story Idea for Me?

1. Wittenberg College Republicans: have you seen them? Heard of them? I'm a senior and remember them my freshman year, but I can't say I have seen/and or heard them in the past couple of years.

As we talked about in class, this group seems to be MIA. Again, my semester-long story will explore if there is (or isn't) a silent majority on campus. However, I think this topic is a story in itself. Plus, I may be able to use snippets of this story for my main one -- if that's not considered double-dipping. 

I can contact Jon Duraj to see if they have a President and/or talk to the College Democrats' President (and/or members). I also would interview a couple of kids regarding the College Republicans.

2. Another story idea is to explore the Wittenberg Tiger GAME Plan Initiative that "aims to exceed expectations for scholar-athletes and their families." This is the only NCAA D-III program of its kind and was established to ensure Witt student-athletes are set for life-long success. 

I would obviously have to contact the person in charge of this initiative and interview a few student-athletes in the program.  Personally, I think it's very admirable how these students love to play the sports they do but value their education more-so (well, in most cases). 

3. Next, I thought about doing an advance story on Nick Flynn, the Amerian writer, poet and playwright set to visit Wittenberg next week as a part of the Witt series. I thought I could provide some background information on him and this could incentivize other students (besides Engligh majors) to go to this. 

A few other story ideas are in the works in my brain right now, but that's what I've got for now! Until tomorrow. 

Facebook: It Really Is Just the Face of It All

Like any other college student, I use Facebook as a procrastination and stalking tool. Lately, I've come to realize that Facebook is doing me more harm than actual good.

Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is great for staying in touch with friends all over the globe. This is especially the case for me, since I made friends when I went abroad to Ireland and last semester when I interned in Washington, DC. Not many people use their cell phones anymore, and if cell phones are used, it's more likely for a text than a call. I like getting calls still; they're more personal and easier to decipher than text messages.

Back to my main point, though.

Facebook has put a strain on many relationships in my life, and in addition, it can make me be hard on myself. I find myself comparing my life to others' posts on Facebook, via pictures, status updates, city/country check-ins, etc. It's no good to play the "what if" game; how would my life be different had I not gone to Wittenberg, for instance? I sometimes check in (a.k.a. creep) on many people, including ex-boyfriends. And that, frankly, is just not healthy.

So my question to my audience is this: Does Facebook make you play the "what if" game as well? Do you compare yourself to others via Facebook?

Not many people will post what's wrong with their lives on Facebook. In fact, I think the most active users on Facebook (you know, the ones that update their status every five minutes and comment on everything) are often the ones who need the most self-assurance that their life is above average. It's no good competing over whose life is better through bragging rights on Facebook. In fact, this gets quite annoying and makes me think of that user as a surface (or face) person. Hence, Facebook might be just perfect for that type of person.

Have you ever thought about deleting your Facebook? Where would you be without it? I urge you to try to go without Facebook for a week -- just see how you feel.

I met a friend a few weeks ago and we had a great conversation. Naturally, I wanted to find him on Facebook but couldn't find his profile. I asked him about it and he goes, "that's because I don't have one, Allie." After my initial shock, (I mean, after all, who doesn't have Facebook now-a-days? Even my mom has one -- unfortunately) I realized I admired this about him. Here's a good guy who is completely comfortable with himself and doesn't feel he needs to show his life off to others via Facebook. This gives me hope in that people are still realizing the value of in-person contact rather than just social media outlets.

Think about how your life has changed because of social media, for the better or worse. Like I said, there are hundreds of reasons why Facebook is a good thing. But, have you ever thought about going beyond the "face" of Facebook and really thinking about what it's doing to you?

Conservative College Students: Are They The Silent Majority?

In journalism, sometimes the things left unsaid and/or unseen are important as the things that are said/seen. I noticed this was the case with Wittenberg students and their political opinions.

As we talked about in class, many students could not necessarily pinpoint why they felt an aversion to politics; they just knew there was that aversion. Perhaps students just don't like being it shoved in their face and/or they feel they genuinely can't identify with either party.

Moreover, I want to investigate and see if there is perhaps a right or center-right silent majority on campus.

As Champ brought up in his blog, where are the Romney and Ryan supporters? Perhaps they're there but they aren't making themselves visible. A couple weeks ago, at the Student Activities Fair on campus, the College Democrats were making themselves both seen and heard - very much so. Absent were the College Republicans. This begs the question: is this organization even still on campus?

The stereotype is that many college students are liberal and that the faculty is as well. Do students feel pressured to have liberal views because of this stereotype and are afraid to go against status quo?

Like I mentioned in one of my previous blogs, the economy was not brought up among Witt students. This is the number one issue on most Americans' minds. I, for instance, think this is THE most important issue in the election and think that the Republicans have some good things to say in regards to the deficit. But if I admit this I can be accused by fellow students as being "heartless" simply because a few of my Republican views.

I grew up in a household that valued hard work ethic and I'm not ashamed to say my parents raised me with predominantly Republican values. I don't think I'd be where I am today without that upbringing so I can't say I think the Republican party is completely off-kilter. Then I ask myself: why are students ashamed to admit that they are right-leaning? Conversely, I was raised on some Democrat values as well and don't consider myself close-minded when it comes to politics. Throughout college, I started to shape opinions on my own accord and observations/inferences.

This is a very interesting topic to me and I'd like it to be my semester-long story. I hope to create a survey using survey monkey to ask students about their own political views as well as their perceptions on Wittenberg's student body and faculty's political inclinations.
Dr. James Allan, Comparative Politics professor, once gave my Methods class a survey rating our political views. As it turned out, our class was mostly center-right which was a shock to us but not to him. I'd like to interview him and perhaps get him to do this for me in some of his classes this year.

I hope my readers find this as interesting as I do, and I that's saying something since I know there's generally already an aversion to this topic. I think this is a challenge for me as well as my audience; it's bringing forth issues that normally we as students don't necessarily like to talk about.

Does God Belong in the Public School System?

The Democratic Party was confronted by V.P. bid Paul Ryan about the “absence of God from their platform.” This begs the question: where does God fit into the equation in politics? Further, should God be brought up in the public system?

Here’s my take, specifically for the "school" question:

Two prevalent ideas about the origin of life are that of Creationism and Evolution. Creationism is based upon creation science, which uses religion and science to prove the origin of human life by God through a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Evolution uses a strictly scientific basis to describe the origin of human life, and is considered a scientific theory. Evolution proposes that small changes happen in the genes of an organism, and overtime, an accumulation of these changes produces a substantial difference resulting in the emergence of a new species.

The debate here is whether or not Creationism should be taught in the public school system, and if this would violate students’ freedoms explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. The First and Fourteenth Amendments give religious liberty to all, and protect individuals from discrimination based on their privately held religious beliefs. Thus, would teaching Creationism, a fundamentally religious concept, be unconstitutional?

If parents want their children to learn about Creationism, why not send their kids to private, religious schools? Answer: private school tuition. Along with many other factors that Creationists have brought to light.

There are many valid arguments made by Creationists as to why creation science should be taught side-by-side with Evolution in the classroom. Creationists argue that Creationism should be taught in the public school system to maintain objectivity for students and to allow them to come to their own educated conclusions. Both should be presented as valid options, and should be discussed with balanced time. They may claim that since Evolution and Creationism deal with the origins, they are not observable events that can be tested with the scientific method. No humans were there to observe how humans came to be and how matter was created. As a result, both should be regarded as scientific models within which students can predict and coordinate the observed facts. These scientific models cannot be proven or tested true, only compared.

Creationist scientists claim that the public schools can present both [Evolution and Creationism] in a way as to not violate the Constitution’s protection against an establishment of religion, because it would use scientific evidence to make its claim for creation science.

However, when one looks into the true characteristics of science, one can observe that creation science fails by legal and academic standards. A theory is “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.” A hypothesis is “a mere assumption or guess.” In other words, a theory holds more scientific weight than a hypothesis. Evolution therefore is not just a mere guess, but is backed up scientific data that supports it.

The case McLean vs. the Arkansas Board of Education, 1987, dealt in part with the essential characteristics of science, as defined by the scientific community. Science “has to be guided by natural law; has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; is testable against the empirical world; its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and it is falsifiable.”

Creation science is the science used by Creationists to explain the origin of human life, and it fails by these standards. It embraces a concept of creation based on a supernatural intervention, not guided by the natural laws of science. Thus, creation science is not testable and is not falsifiable. Creation science is confident in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and is absolute with this notion and is not subject to revision.

Legal precedent also supports the notion that Creationism is inherently religious. In the case of McLean vs. the Arkansas Board of Education, Federal District Judge William R. Overton ruled that the Arkansas Creation Science law was a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his ruling, Judge Overton said that, “No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of movement, of which the public schools are most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.”

It’s important to note that teachers need not to present Evolution as a way to discredit the notion of a god of any kind; they would present this theory based on scientific fact, not religious fact. If a teacher’s religious views directly conflict with that of creation science, it can have on affect on him or her as well. Some teachers may feel that creation science is academically unsound. If a teacher considered creation science academically unsound, it could dissuade that teacher from ever bringing up Evolution in discussion for fear of giving creation science balanced time (if implemented).

This would in turn have consequences for students; especially those who would plan to further their education in college. Topics in science such carbon-dating in chemistry, the age of the earth in geology, and the relationship among living things in modern biology are based upon the theory of Evolution. Depriving students of this fundamental part of their scientific education in high school is depriving them of their overall education. This would especially have an effect in the pre-professional and pre-health programs in the health sciences.

The general rule currently is for Evolution to only be taught as a scientific fact in the classroom, while Creationism is not to be taught that way. This rule should continue to be implemented. The Supreme Court has ruled it “unconstitutional to restrict an educator’s right to teach Evolution.” Creationism should not be taught in public schools, due to the violation of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.

Evolution is based upon scientific evidence whereas Creationism relies on evidence from the Bible. Evolution is a scientific theory, and creation science has a religious basis. Evolution does not have to offend any religious individual since it uses empirical evidence to make its claims. Creationism may be brought up in the classroom as a comparative method as to how some humans believe life began, but it should not be taught as a theory. This is to protect an individual regardless of his or her religious affiliation. Teaching Creationism would be using U.S. tax dollars and government administrations to foist religion inferences upon students within a public school system.