Enterprise Story

Healthcare Reform was a major topic of debate in 2009 and, while, the public faces a growing threat from diseases in general, there is an ongoing STD and unplanned pregnancy epidemic that continues to worsen.

Although reporting on these topics tends to be less frequent and less sensational than other health concerns, like Swine Flu, the consequences of ignoring these threats are just as serious.

“One main trend is that people are still getting infected,” said Nicole Adelman, Vice President of Education and Outreach at Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. “The CDC came out with a statistic about a year ago that 1-in-4 teen girls has an STD. This is a lot!”

Also, according to Planned Parenthood’s website, “More than half of us get a sexually transmitted infection at some point in our lives.”

Fortunately low-income women age 19-44, who are Michigan residents and are not pregnant, may be eligible for Plan First!, a Medicaid program that provides reproductive health procedures and family planning to uninsured women.

Plan First! covers a variety of supplies and exams, including birth control, condoms, annual check ups, pap tests, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, lab fees and prescriptions, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) website, www.michigan.gov/mdch.

“Many college students are teens. And lots of people who have STDs don't know they have them. They may have no current symptoms. People should be encouraged to be tested,” Adelman said.

Aside from STD prevention, communities also benefit from Plan First! because family planning saves tax-payers dollars. “Family planning programs certainly save tax-payers money by preventing unwanted pregnancies,” said Ashleigh Lipsey, a Waiver Analyst in the Actuarial Division of the MDCH.

“A Medicaid funded birth and health care for the child’s first year of life cost over $9,500,” Lipsey said. “While it’s difficult to quantify the exact savings from preventing unplanned pregnancies, as there is no way to predict how many women enrolled in Plan First! would have otherwise become pregnant, it’s easy to see the savings.”

Furthermore, there are additional advantages to family planning besides just saving money, Lipsey said. “Women who are able to plan the number and timing of their pregnancies enjoy improved health and have more educational and employment opportunities,” she said. “This enhances their social and economic status and improves the well-being of their families.”

Programs like Plan First! need support and enrollment in order to survive, Adelman said. “Plan First! was not affected directly by state budget cuts, but the
state needs applicants to sign up to make it work, and also to show it's needed,” Adelman said.

According to the to the MDCH website, nearly 200,000 women may be eligible for Plan First! Around 47,000 women are currently enrolled in the Plan First! Program, Lipsey said.

There are plenty of people who need the services that Plan First! provides, but it is difficult to get them enrolled, Adelman said. “More people need to learn about it, and there’s stigma associated with Medicaid, so sometimes people don’t want to sign up for it,” she said.

Opposition to family planning is usually based on religious beliefs, Adelman said. “Oddly, it seems those most strongly opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control,” she said.

“Others, I would say, aren’t necessarily opposed to family planning, but don’t understand how important it is in prevention and how much money it saves,” Adelman continued. “If money has to be cut from budgets, they often don’t see the cost-saving, investing in family planning brings.”

Family planning saves money that would otherwise be spent on maternal and infant mortality, HIV and other environmental impacts, Adelman said. “It is estimated that every $1 spent on family planning saves approximately $6.50,” she said.

The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees state Medicaid programs, approved Plan First! in 2006, and the program is up for re-approval in 2010, Lipsey said. “The state is currently preparing documents to submit to the CMS seeking approval to continue operating the program,” she said.

The state must be able to prove that Plan First! is budget neutral, which means it cannot cost Medicaid more money to operate the program, than to not operate it, Lipsey said. “The cost savings of preventing unplanned pregnancies, which would be paid for by the Medicaid program, make this program budget neutral,” she said.

“Plan First! has been a very successful program and the State is confident the federal government will re-authorize it,” Lipsey said.

Although the State expects to renew Plan First!, the program struggles to enroll more people because there is not enough surplus to pay for advertising and other outreach tools. “Due to the scope of the budget cuts, the ripple effects can be seen in virtually every program,” Lipsey said. “Though Plan First! did not see funding cut directly, payments to Medicaid providers experienced deep cuts, which may limit access for individuals seeking services.”

One of the most difficult aspects of using Plan First! is finding a healthcare provider. “A Plan First! beneficiary may receive services from any provider who accepts Medicaid payment,” Lipsey said. Providers include physician practices, federally qualified health centers (FQHC) and local health departments.

There are three planned parenthood health centers in Washtenaw County, including one in Ypsilanti, which is open Monday through Friday, and has extended hours until 7 p.m. on Wednesdays. Patients can request an appointment on the Planned Parenthood website, or call 734-485-0144.

Planned Parenthood is a primary provider for women who have Plan First! coverage. “We do have a significant number of patients on Plan First!, but we would like to enroll more. It's a great program for free health care for women who really need it and can't afford it,” Adelman said.

Tracy, 24, is one of thousands of women in Michigan who qualifies for Plan First!. She has been covered by the insurance since 2006, but by then it was too late. Tracy had an abortion in 2005. “I would have been on birth control a lot sooner if I was able to get it for free. If I had been on birth control at that time, I could have saved myself the physical and emotional pain of having an abortion at age 19,” she said.

Like many people in Michigan, Tracy is struggling just to make ends meet, she said. “You know it’s just hard when you move into your first apartment and you have rent, utilities, food and gas to pay for, so $50 a month for birth control doesn’t really make the priority list, especially when you make minimum wage,” she said.

“They should be handing birth control out,” Tracy said. “I think a lot more girls would be willing to be on it if it was affordable.”

As the unemployment rate continues to grow in Michigan, more people will be affected by the loss of healthcare coverage. This could have a serious affect on college students who may lose their parents’ healthcare or cannot find employment that provides insurance. “There is definitely a correlation between the state of the economy and
the demand on our services,” Adelman said.

Also, many young women avoid having examinations because of the office visit and lab fees. HPV is a major threat to sexually active women. “Some forms of HPV can cause cervical cancer. That is pretty scary and even more so, is the fact there is no testing for men,” Tracy said. “So us ladies need to be responsible and take care of our bodies to protect ourselves and each other,” she said.

Tracy experienced a two-year period where she had to visit a doctor nearly every-other month because of common female infections. “I am very grateful to have had Plan First! during that time. There would have been no way I could have afforded my doctor visits, and these are issues you can’t just ignore,” Tracy said.

According to the MDCH website, “This program enables the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) to provide family planning services to women who otherwise would not have medical coverage for these services.”

Plan First! is a Medicaid waiver that extends benefits to groups of people who would, otherwise, not be eligible for Medicaid, Lipsey said. Women who meet the age requirements for Plan First! would not be eligible for traditional Medicaid, she said.

“The Plan First! waiver extends family planning benefits -- services not related to family planning are not covered -- to women 19 – 44 years of age whose incomes are at or below 185% of the federal poverty level,” Lipsey said.

The federal government and state government jointly fund Medicaid, Lipsey said. The federal funding for Medicaid programs is based on a federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), she said.

“The federal government places a great deal of importance on family planning services. The FMAP for all family planning services, through Medicaid or a Medicaid-funded waiver, is 90/10,” Lipsey said. “This means the federal government pays 90% of the total costs of all family planning-related services provided to Medicaid and Plan First! beneficiaries.”

Jessica, 25, is another Plan First! beneficiary who relies on the program to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to keep herself healthy. “I have to be responsible to be on birth control. If I was not on birth control I can only imagine how many more problems I would have,” Jessica said. “I was going to have to pay for it out of pocket but I ended up getting Plan First!.”

The program is easy to apply for, Jessica said. Women who are interested in the program can fill out an application at the MDCH website, or paper applications are available at Planned Parenthoods, across the state. “The program is doing it's best to make enrolling more simple -- online applications, simplified rules for Michigan born residents, etc,” Adelman said.

Jessica said she was grateful for Plan First! because she tried to pay for her own insurance in the past, but ran up debt when she could not afford to pay the deductibles. “That’s my only debt. I don’t have any credit card bills, I don’t have outstanding cell phone bills or anything like that. My only debt is primarily from medical bills,” Jessica said.

After a couple of surgeries and a series of exams, Jessica was forced to choose between debt or illness, she said. “They already tried to take me to court for the big one, that was like $2,500. That was for the first operation that didn’t even work, that insurance told me was going to be covered 80 percent.”

Jessica suffers from Interstitial Cystitis, a chronic and painful problem that affects the bladder, and she was also diagnosed with HPV within the past year. “Women are susceptible to so many things at any age, compared to men, and once you start being sexually active you have to get check-ups regularly,” Jessica said.

Jessica has had multiple surgeries, which contributed to her debt, and said she was worried about how to pay for future procedures. “I mean it can turn into cancer so it’s kind of a big deal,” she said.

Plan First! will cover the procedures to help prevent Jessica’s HPV from developing into cervical cancer. Plan First! relieves a lot of stress, and reproductive health is something women cannot afford to ignore, Jessica said.

Gov. Granholm rallies support for the Michigan Promise Scholarship, at EMU

Hundreds of Eastern Michigan University community members rallied to show their concern about the broken Michigan Promise Scholarship when Governor Granholm visited the EMU Student Center on Monday morning.
The Michigan legislature still has time to change their decision to cut funding for the scholarship program, but Michigan students and citizens must demand action, Granholm said.
“It’s not too late to be able to save the Michigan Promise, and I’m really here to ask for your help,” Granholm said. “This promise should be kept, but we can’t do it alone.”
Several students from EMU and the University of Michigan spoke at the rally about how the broken promise of the scholarship will negatively affect their education. All of the students who spoke come from low-income families, and they illustrate a trend that could continue if state and federal aid for education continues to be reduced; only the wealthy will be able to provide higher education for their children.
Up to 2,000 EMU students will be affected by the loss of the scholarship. For some students the scholarship makes a difference in their decision to attend a university. “When I realized that I was going to get the Michigan Promise I was thrilled. I realized that I could follow my dream and go to a top university like Eastern Michigan,” said Kimberly Rose, an EMU freshman who will be losing the scholarship this year.
Granholm compared Michigan’s predicament to President Obama’s approach to national healthcare reform. “He has a strategy of going around the country asking for citizens to raise their voices, and that’s exactly the right strategy,” she said. “It’s you who have the power.”


Video:
Reporting by Courtney Miller and Rachelle Marshall

TIB Essay - EMU

I believe Eastern Michigan University is one of the best higher education institutions in Michigan. I transferred to EMU from Washtenaw Community College in 2007, and I found that both colleges reflect the positive qualities of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti communities, as a whole. One of the greatest aspects of attending EMU is the diversity of the students and staff. Learning to communicate and interact with all different types of people has prepared me for life in ways that textbook reading could not. Even as a commuter, I feel like I belong at EMU and that I am part of a community. I would have liked the opportunity to live on campus, so that I could have participated in more events and activities. The students and staff do a great job of organizing opportunities for people to meet each other. Because the school is smaller, compared to Michigan’s other state universities, networking and building relationships, with professors and other students, is easier. Professors can give attention to individual students because of smaller class sizes, and students help each other out instead of stressing over cut-throat competition, like that which occurs at more expensive institutions.

At EMU, students can focus on learning what they want, without the pressure to have to be the best at something. For the most part, students here are self-motivated and hard-working. EMU students often balance work, school, family and life, and many have overcome personal hardships. EMU students are survivors and pioneers. We are at EMU because we want an education, and a lot of students make sacrifices in order to achieve that. It’s not easy, but that makes it seem more valuable at the end. Many of us will be the first people in our families to graduate from college, including myself. I believe that EMU is an ideal learning environment. The students and staff are friendly and welcoming, and learning really is the primary focus of all who are part of the community. I cherish my experiences at EMU and recommend the college to anyone who is looking for a place to find their own direction.

"The Reconstruction of American Journalism" - Leonard Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his dissenting opinion in 1919, "When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."
The reconstructing of journalism is a difficult task that will take a lot of effort from a variety of sources. American society must consider the importance of journalists, specifically concerning "independent reporting." Try to imagine an America without professional journalists. It's difficult. Journalism is something that people must be trained to do. Like digital photography, just because you have the technology and can take a picture, doesn't mean you are a professional photographer. The public benefits from digital technology greatly, but the transition is bittersweet for journalists.
The public must understand that the best test of truth is to allow it to be consumed in the free-market of ideas, but that journalists can make finding the truth, a much easier task. Ultimately, for the public, more news is good, and the Internet has made gathering information much easier for researchers, including journalists. Downie and Schudson explain that the job of journalism is to tell citizens what they would not otherwise know.
Local news is of particular concern to people studying media because it can be difficult to fund local news organizations. This is ironic because local news is very important to the public, and is the news that impacts the audience the most.
Downie and Schudson write, "There is unlikely to be any single new economic model for supporting news reporting." There will be a long period of experimentation that we are experiencing now, before we have a good grasp on funding news production on the Internet. Downie and Schudson write that the IRS and Congress must allow independent news organizations to be recognized as non-profit or low-profit Limited Liability Corporations. Universities, advertisers, philanthropists, advocacy groups and the government will have a role to play with funding independent reporting. Downie and Schudson write, "The federal government already provides assistance to the arts, humanities, and sciences through independent agencies." Downie and Schudson point out that there will be special mechanisms that must be in place to protect the investigative reporting from censorship, and special interests. They are quick to add that they are not suggesting a government bailout of newspapers. "It may not be essential to save any particular news medium, including printed newspapers," they wrote.
There are examples of alternative business models that America can look to throughout the world. Downie and Schudson write, "Much of newspaper journalism in other democracies is still partisan, subsidized by or closely allied with political parties." They continue, "...various direct subsidies that governments give newspapers in many European countries, although those subsidies have not had a noticeably chilling effect on newspapers' willingness to print criticism of those governments."
Ultimately, there will have to be a collaboration on the part of many people to allow journalism to continue as a profession. If you want to be a journalist, you're probably not going into the field for the money anyway. It has never been considered a lucrative career choice. That said, people are not going to want to put in the effort it takes to do good investigative reporting, if they cannot make a living doing so. As patriotic as I'd like to be, I cannot volunteer time to be a journalist, when I need to have a job that allows me to be self-sufficient. One thing's for sure, investigative reporting is something America needs to continue to support because our democracy will not progress without it, and it is a skill that deserves to be paid for.

"Take a Stand" - Brent Cunningham

American journalism has not always strived to be objective. Some of the most progressive times in American history have been advocated by the media. During the Revolutionary War period and when America was first established as an independent nation, politicians and people in power used the press to promote partisan views. Objectivity didn’t become a characteristic of American journalism until the 20th century, and since then, journalists have occasionally crossed the line of objectivity to lead the country in the right direction. One example of this was Edward R. Murrow’s coverage of Senator McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. American media has played an important role in shaping our history, from abolition to the election of George W. Bush.

As more people tended to get their news from television in the late 20th century, the news became more of an entertainment business than a public service. People basically yell back and forth at each other and progress is never made. In the article, “Take a Stand: How journalism can regain its relevance,” Brent Cunningham writes, “But the hard truth is that the press mostly amplifies the agendas of others –the prominent and the powerful—and tends to aggressively assume its adversarial role only when someone or something –a president, a CEO, a institution—is wounded and vulnerable.” Journalism should be working to set an agenda that fulfills the needs of the public. In order to do this, media outlets must develop a closer bond with their audiences. Digital technology, specifically the Internet, makes it possible for journalists to strengthen their relationship with the public, and at a very important time in history.

Cunningham explains that record keeping is an important part of journalism, but there are several other roles a journalist must perform in order to do justice for the public. Cunningham describes journalists as investigators, explainers, and arbiters of our national conversation. We talked about climate change in class. Cunningham quotes Yale economist Robert Shiller, from the Washington Post, 2008, “Whenever the public endures a crisis, ordinary citizens start to wonder how –and whether—our institutions really work. We no longer take things for granted. It is only then that real change becomes possible.” With something like global warming, the public cannot afford to wait too long to pressure the government to make important changes. It is the responsibility of journalists to educate the public about the importance of the issue. Climate change is scientifically supported fact, and the fact that the media do not report it as such, is worrisome. It makes you wonder about the motives behind the lack of reporting; whether the government is trying to prevent panic, or that global warming is simply bad for corporate business. Cunningham points out that when the public is economically content, they tend to ignore issues that still really matter. “Indeed, once the Dow begins nosing back toward ten thousand, the window of opportunity for fundamental change may close,” he writes. This is important to consider when defining the future role of journalists, because maybe it would be a good thing for people to have to confront these issues, rather than continue to avoid addressing major root problems of society.

Sometimes the public’s need to know outweighs the importance of trying to remain objective. Objectivity doesn’t necessarily mean giving equal time to two sides of an issue. Sometimes the facts support one side more than another. 21st century journalists must validate facts, and put them into the context of the big picture in order to illuminate the reality of situations.

Nobody does a better job of pointing out the problem with American media, than Jon Stewart. Here’s a link to an episode of the Daily Show, which illustrates what is wrong with the current mainstream media: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there ...Hilarious!

Pierre Levy's Collective Intelligence

I found a story on Poynter.org, that demonstrates Levy's "integrated dynamic". The article, written by Craig Kanalley, is called, "Fort Hood Shooting Shows How Twitter, Lists Can be Used for Breaking News Posted."
You can view the article here: www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=173078

Kanalley explains how journalists can benefit from social media, like twitter. In the story, a Texas newspaper called The Austin American-Statesman, used Twitter to link up with various other groups to report on the Fort Hood shooting incident, in real time. No event had ever been covered in this way, because Twitter lists are new to the public. People worked together like never before to break the news of the situation. Levy writes, "But real-time democracy is organized not around the vision of power over a society...but the communication of the community with itself, knowledge of the community's self." In the case of the Fort Hood coverage, the role of the digital journalists was to organize and analyze the information that was streaming on Twitter, and to post new information whenever it was available. Journalists were responsible for evaluating the information and making connections between bits of information. The digital journalists became listeners and collaborated with members of the general public, as well as representatives from other organizations, in order to produce thorough coverage of the incident.

Levy predicts, "New forms of writing will be developed." This was proven true with the coverage of the Fort Hood shootings. Kanalley wrote in his article, about the amount of traffic on the Fort Hood twitter lists, "Quigley wasn't entirely surprised by the rapid growth, citing Twitter's potential as a "viral medium" and its snowball effect once something takes off on retweets." The term "viral medium" is a good description of how information gathering occurs on the Internet. In the book review from Amazon.com, included with Levy's "Collective Intelligence," article, reads, "Levy insists we are in the early moments of an historical paradigm shift of the manitude of the Renaissance." This is really exciting, and I do think that we have just seen the beginning of the potential of online interaction.

In-class Response

One of the greatest aspects of the new hybrid news model is that the relationship between the journalist and the public is evolving, and the interaction between the speaker and the listener allows journalists to do their job more efficiently and productively. One of the major roles of a journalist is to spark debate about issues. An example of how digital technology enhances the new information environment and experience, is exhibited in a story published in The Eastern Echo.

link:

http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2009/11/concealed_weapons_bill_would_allow_guns_in_trunks_on_campus

This story shows how the Internet allows readers to participate in a debate after reading about an issue. With print media, readers could discuss stories they read, but not as effectively as they can using digital technology. People are able to discuss the issue with other people they would never communicate with otherwise. After reading the article, readers can look at the comments below to get further educated with all sides of the debate. When people look at the discussion boards, they see the entire argument and can judge for themselves what they think. This teaches readers to be more responsible and productive news consumers. Really, the news doesn't matter if nobody acts on it, and interaction on the Internet encourages responses from readers. One of the greatest things about the two-way communication on the Internet is that readers can demand that the news organization follow-up on the story to address unresolved issues. Also, a reader might say something that isn't stated in the story, that might need further examination. In this way, the writer becomes a listener, and the traditional roles in the legacy news model are switched. The article I looked at in The Echo, is a prime example of a story that creates a lot of debate because gun control is one of the fundamental issues that people have argued about throughout history. It is only through debate and collaboration that we can find solutions to these issues that have plagued our country for so many years. The Internet makes it easier than ever for people to participate a national, and now international, debate. I think the Internet is a blessing, that may one day help us sort out our issues and finally compromise on solutions to serious problems. Of course, it will be up to journalists to help set that agenda and add credibility to the debate.

Steve Outing: The Layers of Citizen Journalism

Steve Outing explains in his essay, "The Layers of Citizen Journalism," that there is no standard model for citizen journalism at this time. There are varying degrees of citizen participation within any given online publication, and traditional print news sources have options when it comes to how much citizen created content is contributed to online and print publication.
The hybrid news model creates two-way conversation between professional journalists and the public. Most online publications allow for readers comments and responses to some stories. This is a good start, but there are other ways that citizens can contribute, besides just leaving comments to the editor. I like the idea of "citizen add-on contributions," which can act as a side bar to a major story. Add-on contributions can turn an article into an ongoing story, and "Offer the community better and deeper coverage, than is possible with a lone professional reporter," Outing writes. By taking the idea of add-on contributions a step further, citizens can participate in the actual reporting process. I like the idea of asking readers to submit questions prior to doing interviews. This enhances the service journalists provide, and allows journalists to tailor the information to the audience's specific inquiries and needs.
Ultimately, any online news presentation from a print organization, must include some format, for example forums or blogs, that allows the public to communicate with the paper. During this digital revolution, it is important that news organizations re-build their relationship with the public. One way journalists can do that is to create "transparency" blogs. Outing writes, "This involves inviting a reader or readers to blog with public complaints, criticism, or praise for the news organizations' ongoing work." This concept goes along with the Society of Professional Journalist's guideline from their "Code of Ethics," which states, "Journalists should: Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct," and, "Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."
News organizations will have to determine how they want to control citizen journalist content. Editors may want to monitor and edit the submissions, in order to uphold the reputation and legacy of their brand, however, it may be more wise to all citizen contributions to be published unedited to avoid legal issues like libel. The organization can attach a disclaimer to the citizen content portions of the publication, and allow other readers to monitor the material to control obscenity and false information. It is really exciting to think that there could be multiple types of content on a page, and that readers could interact with stories in various ways, adding their own contributions to give depth to a story or issue. I agree with Outing that the most important thing to achieving a balance is to clearly label the type of content that readers are seeing. This has been true of editorial vs. hard news, in the past, and it shouldn't be difficult to provide transparency about where the information is coming from. Professional journalists establish trust with their audience, and are supported by the reputation of legacy news organizations. Information from citizen journalists may be credible and accurate, but readers must learn to be skeptical of the news they consume, and the people who provide it for them.

International Day on Writing

I really enjoyed attending the International Day on Writing event on campus last Tuesday. I didn't know what to expect when I got there, and now I wish I would have come more prepared. I thought it was very interesting to cover the event, and was shocked at how many people participated. It's good to bring people together who share an interest in writing, because it is often such a private talent. The event was a very unique experience. Looking back on it, I wish I would have prepared questions for the participants, and if I could do it over again, I would ask more people to read things that they had written during the activities. The participants were diverse and people inspired each other as they worked at different stations. I think it would have been a nice effect to have people read for the camera, what they created, although, that is easier said than done because people are often self-conscious of what they write. Of course, it's always worth a chance, to ask. I thought Taylor did a really good job recording pieces of what people wrote at one of the stations. I think we could have gotten a lot more material like that. We did manage to capture a lot of different types of information to compile for publishing, including audio, video, and photography.

I also regret not planning for the event better because I would have liked to have done the writing adventure activity, where a small group of students walked to various parts of campus and stopped at specific spots to reflect and write. I think this would have made for very interesting coverage of the event, and the audience could actually experience the event visually as well as through the writing of the students who participated in the walk. Overall, I was enthusiastic about the event and I would have enjoyed participating even if I wasn't covering it for class. I hope the event is continued next year and that students who cover it next year can learn from what our class puts together.

Finding Your Voice: Writing for a Webzine...Philip E. Agre

People have used a public voice in the past, but it must now be adapted in order to be appropriate for the Internet. Successful online writing requires a new etiquette and ethos. The voice you use on the Internet is similar to the voice people have used throughout history, when in serious discussions face-to-face. Writers must be conscious of how their words come off sounding to the audience. Agre writes, "To have a public voice, you must learn to combine two seemingly contradictory goals: being true to your won experience and values while also serving as a consciously designed intervention in an ongoing public debate." Because the visual effects of face-to-face communication are not usually evident in online communication, at this point, the audience can easily misunderstand the tone or connotations behind what the writer is saying. It is important to consider the risk of ambiguity and to anticipate questions or reactions that an audience might have. Agre says, "You may know what you *intended* to say, but you cannot know how much of your intention was actually conveyed by your words." This is important to remember, and it requires that people take a new approach to the way they write.

The most difficult part of writing is to establish an audience, and in order to achieve that, a writer must create a conducive public voice. Journalists still have the same responsibility as previously in history, and that is to simplify complex information so that the common public audience can understand it. Just like learning AP Style, developing a public voice takes practice. Two of the suggestions that Agre makes that I found most helpful were to, "Choose someone you identify with and copy their voice -- not their exact words but their style -- until you get comfortable," and, "Contribute to public discussions by responding to others, rather than by initiating your own topics." By looking at how other people do it, we can identify aspects of our own writing that are worth developing, and we can discover what is unique about our individual voice. And, I agree that commenting on another person's writing is a good way to start because you can build a rapport with other writers and people who read them may like what you have to say and may become interested in hearing more from you. I was also inspired by the end of the article when Agre talks about having to care about something. It is helpful to think of developing a public voice about something specific, as a process that is never-ending. Once you discover what you care about, you can find or create a community to share your ideas with. I find that the hardest part of writing, for me, is deciding what to write about. It is definitely easier to write about something I'm passionate about though, and it is inspiring to think that as a writer I could give a voice to a community's values, as Agre says, and that, "You can provide a public service by learning how to explain your values to people who don't yet share them."

Rescuing the Reporters – Clay Shirky

I think it would be great if journalism moved to the non-profit sector. I never thought about that type of transition, and I actually think it would be good for Americans to receive news from people who aren’t being paid by corporations.

Through a non-profit model, journalists would be responsible to the public again, instead of trying to balance advertising and public interests. This is not to say that the shift to non-profits will not present future challenges, for instance with legal issues of copyright and potential government censorship. However, media organizations such as PBS and NPR have been able to survive and present diverse information, using public money and occasional advertising.

One thing I found shocking was that the Columbia Tribune only employed six news reporters, out 59 people on the staff list, according to Shirky. It is interesting that that publication dedicated 11 people to cover sports, which suggests that news reporting positions are more competitive than sports writing, which inspired me to learn more about writing about sports.

The non-profit model would be good for local news, as Shirky points out, because most of the content in most newspapers is not hard news, and the non-profit entities would be paying at the most a dozen reporters to provide local content. Those reporters would be necessary to fulfill the production of what Alex Jones calls the “iron core of news.” The work of these reporters is “critical to the orderly functioning of that town,” Shirky said.

“What matters in the Tribune, and what’s at risk, is Terry Ganey’s work on a state coverup of elevated levels of E.Coli in Ozark lakes…” Shirky said. I agree. Investigative reporting, on the local level especially, must exist to protect the public. We must find a way to fund this service.

Understanding New Media

“New media” has affected the way we think of news, for both consumers and producers of information.

I found the results of the Pew Internet and American Life Project in 2007, interesting: “72 percent of internet users, or about 108 million American adults obtain news from the Internet.” This statistic suggests two things: even though people are able to get information from a variety of sources on the Internet, they still value credited news organizations, and, even though the Internet allows the public to get involved in the news like never before, there are still millions of American’s who don’t have the Internet, and as the revolution continues, we must find a way to give a voice to those who are not literate with the technology.

Information gathering is easier than ever for consumers of news. Services like aggregators make it convenient for people to collect content from different sources. According to Logan, “Aggregators substantially improve upon the time and effort needed to regularly check websites of interest for updates as well as provide different sides of a story (5.9).” By providing different sides of the same story, these Internet services encourage people to think critically, which is something that the mainstream media has failed to promote over the past few decades.

For news producers, it is much easier to present the complete story on the Internet because there is no limit on publication space, and stories can be given depth by the addition of links, which can provide further background information, statistics, ect. News producers also face some challenges though. First, the new media must be able to generate income in order to pay writers and staff. The solution to this will probably involve a variety of strategies, including advertising and subscriptions to archives. Of course, there are also legal issues that come along with the changing news environment. Logan says, “Because newspapers were generating revenue from their archives a dispute arose between them and their freelancers over residuals. The newspaper owners tried to force their free lancers to give up their residual rights.”

One of the greatest changes with the Internet is that, as Logan writes, “a hypertexted news story can bring together newspaper, radio and television.” This is amazing and incredibly efficient for consumers. With New Media, producers of news are forming a different relationship with consumers. As Logan says, the gap between them is closing.

In-Class Response to Blogging

There are so many issues to address in the digital media revolution that it becomes overwhelming to try to envision the future of journalism. One issue that is constantly under scrutiny is the concept of ownership. Digital technology makes it possible to easily plagiarize ideas or sample other people's creations. Information can be copied and shared very quickly and easily. Creative commons allows people to share their work and a new genre of art has been created, called interactive art, where several people can contribute to one creation. As far as journalism is concerned, publications have always taken ideas from other publications. Pretty much as soon as one organization breaks a story, the other organizations follow their lead and write about the same topic, occasionally from a different angle. On the Internet it is even more difficult to be the first to break the story, but it is easier to find a good idea and give your own take on it. Basically, I don't think there's a lot of original ideas that exist anymore anyway. Isn't the point of news journalism to take what someone else says and report it, while giving them credit, of course. It is our job to write what someone else says to us. Of course we still need copyrights, but as long as I get paid, I don't care so much about the ownership of the idea. Of course, I wouldn't want someone to take something I wrote and say they wrote it, either. The open source of the internet is somewhat intimidating and scary, but I don't know enough about regulations to comprehend a solution to the problem.
Which brings me to Jeff Jarvis' blog. His post, "FTC regulates our speech," was very interesting. I agree that most people who use the internet do not think of themselves as writers, responsible for the things they endorse or critique. There is a very difficult conflict between protection of ownership rights and freedom of speech. I don't know what an answer is to the balance of that, but I don't think there should be government regulation. It seems to me that this is why journalism students study ethics. Trained writers understand the dilemma of disclosure, and learn to consider all sides of a situation before making an ethical decision. I thought it was interesting when Jarvis mentioned taking freebies for writing about things like food. Overall, I think this is a cloudy area that will only be solved when journalism organizations come up with an effective business model.

Lecture Notes: Structural Characteristics of the New News Environment

One of the greatest advantages for our communities is that the newspaper business is becoming more democratic, due to technological advancement. People can demand to know about stories that were once left out of the paper due to space constraints. People can judge for themselves what is important and can shape the content of online publications. Also, instead of just being told about problems or circumstances, the public can discuss possible solutions or changes. As Professor Tracy writes, “By questioning traditional news judgment, audiences can set an alternative agenda.” No longer do a handful of people decide for the public what is important for the public to know. Now, the public has the opportunity to tell journalists what it wants to know about. “It requires the audience to question, and it sheds a different light on the traditional concept of news judgment,” Tracy wrote.

The internet forces journalists to reevaluate whom they work for. We are supposed to be providing a service to the public, not just distributing content in order to make profit. The motives for writing may change and journalists should welcome feedback from the audience they are serving. “When viewed as an ecology, news is not a product to be consumed but a conscious act to engage and produce shared information that has value in a community: this is how cultures and societies create their histories. Thus news is not an economic transaction but a social and cultural practice” If anything, this new model of journalism takes journalists back to their roots, when they wrote for bettering society instead of just competing to sell the most sensational stories. The internet brings the community together and gives a voice to everyone who wants to participate.

Overall, I think Citizen Journalism is a good thing, especially when it is in response to actual reporting done by a publication. This shows that the public is civically involved. Right now our country is facing a lot of difficult problems and we need to come up with several innovative solutions. The type of discussion about current events and local news that takes place on the Internet is greatly beneficial to society on the whole because one idea can inspire another, and can have a snowball effect.

AnnArbor.com and the Hybrid Model

I think AnnArbor.com is a decent example of the hybrid model of news that we discussed in class. I like the simplicity of the layout of the website. The page can be intuitively navigated and the content is not so busy that it becomes distracting. I like the quick links at the top that highlight some of the biggest news of the day and serves as a front page of the paper would. There is also a link to the most popular news, so if you can see what others have been reading about, and think is important. Instead of someone deciding for you what is important news, you have the ability to go through the site and look at what you want. There’s no hierarchy of information as in the traditional paper, which selected news to put on the front page in the hopes of attracting readers.

It is interesting that the news is delivered chronologically on AnnArbor.com, and I think this is a good model because there are also links to the right of the page which allow the viewer to search for content based on the type of information they are looking for. The only downfall to this is that I have noticed that at times there is almost no visual art on the page, depending on what stories have been recently submitted, as some stories do not have pictures to go along with them. Even in traditional print, front page photography was often used to persuade readers into buying the publication. It might be a good thing for AnnArbor.com to post a photo album on the opening page, which could highlight the photographs of the day. Also, with the new hybrid model, print publications can move their content online and add something that was never available in print format; video. With the addition of video, online newspapers can compete with television news, in a way that was never possible before internet.

I like the advertising layout on the page. The ads are not loud and do not distract from the news content. There’s nothing flashing in your face or popping up while you’re trying to navigate the site. I also think it’s a very good idea to have the “Your Voice” section at the bottom of the page. This allows readers to contribute to the paper, similarly to letters to the editor in traditional print, except readers can interact much more quickly with the publication than they could with print. Because this section is set up like a forum, people can comment back and forth about each other’s statements, which opens up discussion about news content, like never before possible. By adding a “Your Voice” section to different stories, the publication encourages the public to participate, which I think is a very important and revolutionary concept. Here is an example: http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/yes-plastic-bags-are-a-bane-but-an-ann-arbor-only-ban-on-them-isnt-the-answer/index.php#comment-17082 . These types of forums are just one example of the benefits of moving print news to internet.

Response: The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future

Although the field of journalism is changing because of innovations in technology, journalists still play a necessary role in democratic society. Because there is so much information available to the public now, journalists have a greater amount of responsibility in presenting factual, objective information. With the internet, people are quick to find information which aligns with their established views, and the greatest new publishers of the future will probably be those organizations who build a reputation on sifting through the infinite amount of information and presenting an objective big picture to the audience. Sure, anyone can report news, but journalists are trained to report facts, not just opinionated observations.

I think it is a good thing that everyday people are producers, as well as consumers, of news. The more people who participate and communicate with one another, the more productive society can be. Also, sometimes the best ideas come from individuals, and ideas can now be more easily shared. Much more can be published on the internet, and stories that would otherwise go unpublished because of space issues, are now able to be reported. Also, when the public is contributing to the news, it is more difficult for those in power to try to cover things up, and we may finally be able to work around corporate interests, which have plagued the mainstream media for nearly a century. Also, the internet has made it possible for a greater diversity of people to communicate with one another. Social media has created almost a universal language, where people from all different places and backgrounds can communicate with one another through basic and concise text. In this way, people all over the world can communicate like never before, and Marshall McLuhan’s prediction of a “global village” is becoming a reality.

A journalist’s goal is to get people talking. The best result of a good story is that someone reads it and tells other people about it. The internet and other media make it easier for consumers of news to pass the news on. Also, people can digest a greater amount of news in a shorter time by searching the web. In “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future”, Lapham writes, “As the appropriate next step on an evolutionary continuum, CMC can return to language (the word) the immediacy lost in writing and give it a real-time presence.” With modern technology, people can communicate over great distances in a way that was once only possible face-to-face or over the telephone.

As discussed in “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future”, the hybrid model is allowing the public to have more power. As Howard Rheingold writes, “‘The technology enabled the power shift, but the power shift was created by the people who used the tool to educate themselves.’ (127)” It will be up to the public to decide how they want to use the internet. The scary thing about this technology is that at one time television was a revolutionary communication technology and unfortunately, although it has the ability to teach, for the most part, the device has become a tool only for entertainment. That is why journalists must remain in place in order to give people a place to go to get information they really need.

Through the internet, journalists are actually able to reach a greater amount of people, and a younger generation which does not generally get its news from a paper anyway. And besides, if someone misses reading the paper in the morning, they can print out the paper from their computer. It might be wise for companies to provide a printable version of their daily content and charge customers to print using this format. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a solution for how to maintain journalism as a paid profession. However, because the internet and digital technology are making it easier for people to communicate and they are changing the actual language we use to communicate, there will be a demand for people with traditional writing skills to produce clear and effective writing, quickly. Business models of journalism have changed throughout its history, from strictly subscription fees to advertising revenues, journalism has faced and withstood challenges before.

Intelligent and influential people, like philosopher Plato, were quick to dismiss writing, when the technology of written language was developed thousands of years ago. Since that time, many great works of writing have proven the worth of that technology. Today, we are experiencing similar prophecies of doubt about the value of digital technology and social media. Throughout history humanity has experienced similar revolutions. The printing press did not completely eliminate the role of priests in interpreting and sharing information from the Bible, for example, the role simply evolved. The same should be true of journalists, with the internet. The job of the journalist is as important as ever because even though people can find information about anything they want on the internet, the public will still rely on journalists to deliver facts from credible sources, to do analysis, to research correlations between data and to investigate situations that impact the community.

One thing is for sure, and Jon Katz said it well in “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future,” the purpose of printed news still remains, and “That's the point of a newspaper. . .to filter the worthwhile information, then print it.” Something I never thought about is the ability to add different layers to stories, on the internet, by including links that would allow the reader to do more research for themselves. How often do we read a story in the paper and have a question about something but cannot immediately find an answer because paper is not interactive like internet. In “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future,” Lapham writes, “For example, a story about a poll on the performance of a government official could include color-highlighted links that readers simply click on to get more in depth information about his or her voting record, recent speeches, or a news story about campaign promises."

Overall, this evolution of news is actually a more efficient way of doing business, even if it creates less profit for the news conglomerates. Just think of the environmental effects; less paper, less gas, less electricity. There are many benefits for society by having digital news as opposed to traditional print.