My friend Lauren thinks I’m certifiably insane. She’s threatened to have my head checked, my temperature taken, and to take away the remote. Lauren hates politics; I love them. I love the incessant media coverage, the excitement that comes with pushing for causes and candidates you believe in, things that are bigger than your self. Lauren finds the competitive environment disgusting, but above all, finds the whole thing unbelievably boring. She feels that politics have no real relevance to her every day life, and when we discuss it, she actually makes some fair points – all of them reverting back to the main idea that following and getting involved with politics is simply too time-consuming, and has little payoff.
Lauren is definitely not alone – only 51% of eligible voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2008 general election, up from only 47% in the 2004 general election. And that’s not even considering how low turnout is on years where there isn’t a presidential election – in 2006, only 25% of eligible voters 18-29 turned out to vote.
When someone starts out hating something and finding it irrelevant to their daily lives during a period where their opinions are just beginning to shape themselves, they’re likely going to continue thinking that way for the foreseeable future. Just like I will always despise organic chemistry, Lauren will always despise politics and never understand the real meaning of them, and so will millions of other young women just like her. Combine that apathy with the fact that women are typically more hesitant to put themselves in such a position so open to public critique and common, and you have a small percentage of women who are not only interested in politics and the spotlight, but who are ready and eager to get involved – which is a major contributor to the low percentage of women in public office in the U.S.
So the age-old question stands: how do we get the bored young women of today – my friends and peers - to become the elected officials and engaged citizens of tomorrow? There is, of course, taking advantage of programs which organizations like The White House Project offer – ones that encourage women to get involved not only on the national or state level, which could intimidate some, but on a local or community level as well.
But participation in these programs is purely voluntary. How do you get someone involuntarily and subconsciously involved in politics? A simple Google search for “how to get involved in politics” offers ideas for those willing to really put themselves out there. But what about options for women and girls who are too shy or too busy or not quite ready to run for office, volunteer at local party offices, or become an active voice in community meetings?
How do you make politics such a part of the culture to the point where the transition from citizen to politician or engaged political thinker becomes seamless? It’s certainly not easy to inject a love of something into someone who isn’t interested.
Should we just leave things as they are, and acknowledge the fact that some women will simply never be interested in politics? Or should we take action – and if so, what kind of action should we take? President Barack Obama seemed to have a certain degree of success getting people engaged in little ways – donating $5, sending pre-written e-mails to friends, etcetera. Is that the answer – or is a lasting solution it never that simple?
What are your thoughts – can some of us afford to be apathetic, while others are politically involved, or is it every woman and girl’s duty to become as politically active as possible because of how low the percentage of women in elected office are?
*** From my White House Project Blog: 6/4/09 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Who will it be? (TWHP blog from 5/21/09)
Being the politics junkie I am, when I heard there was an opening on the Supreme Court because of Justice David Souter’s decision to retire in June, I had what felt like a million questions – who will it be? Where will they stand on the issues important to not only women but to our whole country? How will they vote? Will they tip the court in another direction? And, most importantly – will it be a woman?
Watching CNN the day Souter announced his retirement, I noticed a few interesting things: first, most of the comments were not speculating who President Obama would choose to appoint, but what gender the choice would be. Most commentators said that they thought it would be a female, and one commentator said that Obama “owed” all women another female Supreme Court Justice. What will be interesting to see is how pro-active Obama will be to make sure the Supreme Court Justice is a woman.
While yes, it is true that Obama has many people who were originally Hillary Clinton supporters to thank for his election to office in November, it is also true that many lists of candidates for positions which aides and assistants come up with are heavy with men. New York Governor David Paterson even openly criticized in December an all-male list of candidates for the Chief Judge of New York State’s Court of Appeals, rejecting it and saying “I don’t accept that there isn’t a woman in this state qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.”
The question is whether, faced with the same predicament, President Obama will make the same move – and it seems that he not only will, but is taking precautions to make sure that he doesn’t have a list with only white males on it. He has hired top communications strategist Stephanie Cutter onto the White House staff on the temporary assignment of assisting Obama through the confirmation process, and CNN reported that of the list of about half a dozen finalists Obama is giving serious scrutiny and consideration to, only one of them is male. Republican strategists are so sure that Obama’s choice will, in fact, be a woman, that they have already launched a website attacking what they believe to be the three most viable candidates to be the next Supreme Court Justice - all of them women.
Some have said that President Obama is morally and ethically obligated to begin choosing a Supreme Court that looks “more like America.” Anita Allen, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said that a nomination of a “qualified African-American, Asian-American, Native American or Hispanic woman would be proof that the era of male and white privilege was truly over.” Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor at Princeton University, has said that “The Supreme Court is a body that does not reflect the body politic” and said that “A truly inclusive democracy must push that understanding to include all citizens as equally capable of full participation” – read, a woman or minority should be appointed to the supreme court.
But others aren’t sure that being a woman or a minority should be a major factor in President Obama’s decision. Diane Ravitch, historian of education at New York University, said that President Obama should “select the person best qualified to become a Supreme Court justice, without regard to race, gender or other irrelevant attributes. If the best person happens to be black, Hispanic and/or female, that’s swell.” Tom Korologos, a Republican Strategist, said, “Appoint the most qualified person they can find. Quit fooling around with all this quota stuff.”
So - what do you think? Is choosing a woman the most important part of this process? Does President Obama owe women, particularly those who were former Hillary Clinton supporters, a female Supreme Court Justice? Should he focus on trying to nominate a minority candidate? Or should he simply focus on nominating the best candidate, regardless of gender or race? What is more important: nominating a woman to the supreme court, or increasing the amount of female elected officials?
*** From my White House Project blog 5/21/2009 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Watching CNN the day Souter announced his retirement, I noticed a few interesting things: first, most of the comments were not speculating who President Obama would choose to appoint, but what gender the choice would be. Most commentators said that they thought it would be a female, and one commentator said that Obama “owed” all women another female Supreme Court Justice. What will be interesting to see is how pro-active Obama will be to make sure the Supreme Court Justice is a woman.
While yes, it is true that Obama has many people who were originally Hillary Clinton supporters to thank for his election to office in November, it is also true that many lists of candidates for positions which aides and assistants come up with are heavy with men. New York Governor David Paterson even openly criticized in December an all-male list of candidates for the Chief Judge of New York State’s Court of Appeals, rejecting it and saying “I don’t accept that there isn’t a woman in this state qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.”
The question is whether, faced with the same predicament, President Obama will make the same move – and it seems that he not only will, but is taking precautions to make sure that he doesn’t have a list with only white males on it. He has hired top communications strategist Stephanie Cutter onto the White House staff on the temporary assignment of assisting Obama through the confirmation process, and CNN reported that of the list of about half a dozen finalists Obama is giving serious scrutiny and consideration to, only one of them is male. Republican strategists are so sure that Obama’s choice will, in fact, be a woman, that they have already launched a website attacking what they believe to be the three most viable candidates to be the next Supreme Court Justice - all of them women.
Some have said that President Obama is morally and ethically obligated to begin choosing a Supreme Court that looks “more like America.” Anita Allen, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, said that a nomination of a “qualified African-American, Asian-American, Native American or Hispanic woman would be proof that the era of male and white privilege was truly over.” Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor at Princeton University, has said that “The Supreme Court is a body that does not reflect the body politic” and said that “A truly inclusive democracy must push that understanding to include all citizens as equally capable of full participation” – read, a woman or minority should be appointed to the supreme court.
But others aren’t sure that being a woman or a minority should be a major factor in President Obama’s decision. Diane Ravitch, historian of education at New York University, said that President Obama should “select the person best qualified to become a Supreme Court justice, without regard to race, gender or other irrelevant attributes. If the best person happens to be black, Hispanic and/or female, that’s swell.” Tom Korologos, a Republican Strategist, said, “Appoint the most qualified person they can find. Quit fooling around with all this quota stuff.”
So - what do you think? Is choosing a woman the most important part of this process? Does President Obama owe women, particularly those who were former Hillary Clinton supporters, a female Supreme Court Justice? Should he focus on trying to nominate a minority candidate? Or should he simply focus on nominating the best candidate, regardless of gender or race? What is more important: nominating a woman to the supreme court, or increasing the amount of female elected officials?
*** From my White House Project blog 5/21/2009 *** http://leaders.thewhitehouseproject.org/profiles/blog/list?user=3jxqpw07qmliz
Happy Summer!
For those of you who know me, you know that this summer I'm an intern at The White House Project, a great non-profit which works to advance women's leadership in all sectors.
As their Development/Communications Intern so far, I've written thank you letters to donors; written briefs for meetings; done scheduling for Tiffany Dufu, the Development Director at TWHP; learned how to work Raiser's Edge (their Donor Database); researched prospective donors out the wazoo; and was just assigned to work on their huge Benchmarks report with Lena, another intern - the two of us are basically responsible for double checking the research experts in the fields the report covers (me) and double checking the writing for grammatical errors (lena). It's been pretty awesome - everyone is so sweet; and they're totally cool with me wearing jeans and a buttondown with flip flops - which I could marry them for, haha.
But the best thing I've been doing is writing a weekly blog for them on their White House Project Leadership Network. It allows me to really develop my own ideas on women's leadership, and tie it directly into my own interests.
SO!!! The main reason for writing this blog post is to inform you all that I'm going to start posting my weekly White House Project blogs on here, for the world to see. look for them!
As their Development/Communications Intern so far, I've written thank you letters to donors; written briefs for meetings; done scheduling for Tiffany Dufu, the Development Director at TWHP; learned how to work Raiser's Edge (their Donor Database); researched prospective donors out the wazoo; and was just assigned to work on their huge Benchmarks report with Lena, another intern - the two of us are basically responsible for double checking the research experts in the fields the report covers (me) and double checking the writing for grammatical errors (lena). It's been pretty awesome - everyone is so sweet; and they're totally cool with me wearing jeans and a buttondown with flip flops - which I could marry them for, haha.
But the best thing I've been doing is writing a weekly blog for them on their White House Project Leadership Network. It allows me to really develop my own ideas on women's leadership, and tie it directly into my own interests.
SO!!! The main reason for writing this blog post is to inform you all that I'm going to start posting my weekly White House Project blogs on here, for the world to see. look for them!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Mayor Fenty promises more Improvements
DCCA Meeting
Rebecca Wall
Mayor Adrian Fenty and Councilman Jack Evans promised to continue working on renewing neighborhoods and improving D.C.’s image at a meeting for the Dupont Circle Citizen’s Association on Monday.
The meeting, held at the Unitarian Universalist Church on 6th Street NW, included speeches by Jack Evans, D.C. Councilman, and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty.
“Even though our nation’s economy continues to struggle, the District of Columbia saw a $191 million surplus for the 2008 fiscal year,” he said. “This shows that we are able to balance and manage a budget well.“ Mayor Fenty’s current challenge, Evans said, lies in the 2010 budget. “Because we had such a surplus we’ll receive much less,” he noted.
Evans encouraged those with tough questions to make sure to ask them of Mayor Fenty. “I always get hit with the hard ones,” he joked. “And all the easy questions are left for the Mayor.”
Fenty emphasized the turnaround in the perception of the city that he has been able to achieve so far in his time as mayor. “We can now keep reaching higher up on the tree,” he said. One of his key initiatives, he said, is one to work to find housing for the homeless and to move more people into affordable housing. Fenty also emphasized economic development and renewal of neighborhoods through bringing more resturaunts in. “They are usually the ones to go into neighborhoods first,” he noted.
“We’ve made a number of achievements so far,” he said, “including the new baseball stadium, its surrounding area, and the new parks opened in D.C.” Fenty said that all issues with the baseball stadium’s rent being paid had worked out. “They will pay their rent,” he said.
Fenty also stressed his efforts to gain more D.C. voting rights in congress. “Obtaining voting members in the house will be able to get a few key things for the District,” he said. “Once we have more momentum, we can then go after getting two senators.”
Residents of D.C. were not allowed to vote for President until 1961, which granted D.C. three votes in the Electoral College. In 1973, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act passed, granting D.C. a local government administered by an elected mayor and a thirteen-member council. However, Congress still has the right to review and overturn laws passed by the council and to intervene in local affairs.
The District has drafted a proposed state constitution, but the necessary authorization from Congress has never been granted. D.C. still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, which lobbies for statehood of D.C. but has no official voting rights.
Nancy Bearg said she was surprised by a few of the things Fenty said. “I didn’t know about the notion of going not only for voting members in the house, but for two senators. “That was definitely a new development,” she said.
Fenty also said he was surprised by a topic brought up by one of the audience members – the chief librarian’s opposition to hiring volunteers to keep the libraries open later. “I will look into that and find out exactly why that is right away,” he said.
Fenty encouraged attendees of the meeting to reach him at any time with questions, comments, or concerns via his e-mail: amf@dc.gov.
Jo Freeman, a member of the DCCA, said she’s been listening to politicians like Fenty and Evans for 60 years – and nothing has changed. “They’ve been saying the same things for that whole time,” she said. “They’re masters at saying something while still saying nothing.”
A special session held after the meeting brought attention to the “Rooftop Robber”, a burglar who lifts up unsecure hatches of row houses, particularly in the Dupont area, and drops into the bathrooms. The hatches are often covered only with a piece of plywood and a brick, and many residents do not even know they have this security risk in their homes.
The first robbery occurred in December, with 20 robberies occurring
since. There was a strong pattern in early December, and then they stopped
abruptly for awhile, only to pick back up in mid-January. In the last two weeks alone, the “rooftop robber” has hit five times successfully and attempted another burglary.
Police Lieutenant Eric Biller said that the MPD is devoting all of its available resources to catching the “rooftop robber”. “We’ve been using helicopters, covert officers and have been positioning ourselves on top of tall buildings to try to view any suspicious activity on top of rooftops.” He asked residents to call 911 with any suspicious sightings or information they may have.
Lt. Biller said that he is trying to get the word out on how to secure hatches. He said that the information he provided residents with was not sanctioned by the MPD, but instead simply some options to consider. “There have been six attempted robberies over the past two weeks, five of them successful,” he said, encouraging residents to be pro-active to protect themselves and their homes.
Some of the suggestions Biller had included finding the any potential hatches in your home and securing them with a lockable hatch or skylight. He recommended installing a security system, or even simply putting a security system sticker over a secured hatch – noting that sometimes, the possibility may be enough to scare someone away.
Fenty said the “Rooftop Robber” was another of his major concerns. “Once we figure this out, it will stop,” he said.
###
Rebecca Wall
Mayor Adrian Fenty and Councilman Jack Evans promised to continue working on renewing neighborhoods and improving D.C.’s image at a meeting for the Dupont Circle Citizen’s Association on Monday.
The meeting, held at the Unitarian Universalist Church on 6th Street NW, included speeches by Jack Evans, D.C. Councilman, and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty.
“Even though our nation’s economy continues to struggle, the District of Columbia saw a $191 million surplus for the 2008 fiscal year,” he said. “This shows that we are able to balance and manage a budget well.“ Mayor Fenty’s current challenge, Evans said, lies in the 2010 budget. “Because we had such a surplus we’ll receive much less,” he noted.
Evans encouraged those with tough questions to make sure to ask them of Mayor Fenty. “I always get hit with the hard ones,” he joked. “And all the easy questions are left for the Mayor.”
Fenty emphasized the turnaround in the perception of the city that he has been able to achieve so far in his time as mayor. “We can now keep reaching higher up on the tree,” he said. One of his key initiatives, he said, is one to work to find housing for the homeless and to move more people into affordable housing. Fenty also emphasized economic development and renewal of neighborhoods through bringing more resturaunts in. “They are usually the ones to go into neighborhoods first,” he noted.
“We’ve made a number of achievements so far,” he said, “including the new baseball stadium, its surrounding area, and the new parks opened in D.C.” Fenty said that all issues with the baseball stadium’s rent being paid had worked out. “They will pay their rent,” he said.
Fenty also stressed his efforts to gain more D.C. voting rights in congress. “Obtaining voting members in the house will be able to get a few key things for the District,” he said. “Once we have more momentum, we can then go after getting two senators.”
Residents of D.C. were not allowed to vote for President until 1961, which granted D.C. three votes in the Electoral College. In 1973, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act passed, granting D.C. a local government administered by an elected mayor and a thirteen-member council. However, Congress still has the right to review and overturn laws passed by the council and to intervene in local affairs.
The District has drafted a proposed state constitution, but the necessary authorization from Congress has never been granted. D.C. still selects members of a shadow congressional delegation, which lobbies for statehood of D.C. but has no official voting rights.
Nancy Bearg said she was surprised by a few of the things Fenty said. “I didn’t know about the notion of going not only for voting members in the house, but for two senators. “That was definitely a new development,” she said.
Fenty also said he was surprised by a topic brought up by one of the audience members – the chief librarian’s opposition to hiring volunteers to keep the libraries open later. “I will look into that and find out exactly why that is right away,” he said.
Fenty encouraged attendees of the meeting to reach him at any time with questions, comments, or concerns via his e-mail: amf@dc.gov.
Jo Freeman, a member of the DCCA, said she’s been listening to politicians like Fenty and Evans for 60 years – and nothing has changed. “They’ve been saying the same things for that whole time,” she said. “They’re masters at saying something while still saying nothing.”
A special session held after the meeting brought attention to the “Rooftop Robber”, a burglar who lifts up unsecure hatches of row houses, particularly in the Dupont area, and drops into the bathrooms. The hatches are often covered only with a piece of plywood and a brick, and many residents do not even know they have this security risk in their homes.
The first robbery occurred in December, with 20 robberies occurring
since. There was a strong pattern in early December, and then they stopped
abruptly for awhile, only to pick back up in mid-January. In the last two weeks alone, the “rooftop robber” has hit five times successfully and attempted another burglary.
Police Lieutenant Eric Biller said that the MPD is devoting all of its available resources to catching the “rooftop robber”. “We’ve been using helicopters, covert officers and have been positioning ourselves on top of tall buildings to try to view any suspicious activity on top of rooftops.” He asked residents to call 911 with any suspicious sightings or information they may have.
Lt. Biller said that he is trying to get the word out on how to secure hatches. He said that the information he provided residents with was not sanctioned by the MPD, but instead simply some options to consider. “There have been six attempted robberies over the past two weeks, five of them successful,” he said, encouraging residents to be pro-active to protect themselves and their homes.
Some of the suggestions Biller had included finding the any potential hatches in your home and securing them with a lockable hatch or skylight. He recommended installing a security system, or even simply putting a security system sticker over a secured hatch – noting that sometimes, the possibility may be enough to scare someone away.
Fenty said the “Rooftop Robber” was another of his major concerns. “Once we figure this out, it will stop,” he said.
###
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
American Forum confirms Students' fears
American Forum
By Rebecca Wall
American University’s American Forum on Feb. 17 revealed that the number of papers with Washington Bureaus has declined by half since 1985, confirming some of Journalism students’ major concerns: the industry is changing rapidly.
The forum, “Washington Watchdogs: An Endangered Species?” was co-sponsored by AU’s School of Communication and WAMU 88.5 FM and was moderated by Wendell Cochran, a School of Communications professor at AU and focused on the decline of journalists covering the Washington, D.C. and government beat today. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and panelist Tyler Marshall revealed three major finds of a new study on the state of these Washington Watchdogs.
He said the study, “The New Washington Press Corps”, found a surprising increase in the size of “niche media”, or magazines newspapers and special interest magazines with a presence in Washington, and also an increase in the number of foreign correspondents registered at the Foreign Press Center in D.C.
Marshall said the study also found a decreased amount of staff in Washington offices for the mainstream media, and a reversal of the migration of bylines.
Originally, journalists started out in “niche” publications and aspired to write for big name papers. “Today, more journalists aspire to join niche publications, not the daily papers,” Marshall said.
Lauren Linhard, a sophomore at AU majoring in Print Journalism, watched the forum on C-Span, where it was broadcast live, and can clearly see the appeal of “niche” media to those just entering the journalism field.. “It gives you the opportunity to write more feature stories about topics you’re interested in,” she said. “In newspapers, you just kind of have to take whatever beat is open and available.” Linhard herself aspires to become part of the niche media . “I want to create my own magazine someday,” she says.
Mark Whitaker, the chief of NBC News, said that “audiences have been declining for news coming out of D.C.,” with the exception of 2008’s much-hyped presidential election. “The use of internet to find that information is up,” adding, “Readers can do some reporting themselves” with sites like Twitter, a micro-blogging site used for social networking.
Suzanne Struglinski, senior editor of Provider magazine, said that a major cause of the decrease in the so-called “watchdogs” was that “individual cities and towns just don’t pay as much attention to D.C. and D.C. news.”
Linhard can see firsthand the lack of attention being paid to D.C. in her hometown local news station, which originates in Baltimore. “It always focuses on local events – especially crimes,” she said. “I rarely hear anything about the day’s happenings in Congress unless it’s something really major.”
Struglinski said a huge reason for the decline in Washington journalists is that states are sending fewer reporters to function as the “Washington Watchdogs” and serve as chaperones.
“We can’t let those people [politicians] run around without a chaperone,” Cochran added jokingly.
Wittstock agreed. “Washington journalists should be that person with a notebook in the hallway,” she said. Struglinski added, “Capturing those moments and asking questions on behalf of those who can’t is what it’s all about. A webcast or phoning in a story is not the same.”
A student questioner from the audience asked if the decline of Washington correspondents could be partially blamed on the rising popularity of internet . “Yes – but we have ourselves to blame,” Marshall responded. “We were giving the information away for free, depending only on ads for revenue. We need other ways for the business to be translated.”
Melinda Wittstock, founder and CEO of Capitol News Connection, said that another key thing is that newspapers are losing money, and needed to find an economic model that suited them. “We started off giving away the information for free,” she said.
Whitaker noted the need to be careful about the content that is out on the internet now, and not to mistake certain prepackaged videos from interest groups as news. “We need to make sure people can tell the difference,” he said.
One student asked whether the fast-paced reporting in “real-time” is changing the integrity of news.
“What’s better- fast or correct?”, Struglinski responded.
Wittstock added, “stories often evolve – there needs to be room for all of it.”
Linhard agrees with Struglinski and Wittstock. “Although the immediacy of digital media and the recent change to fast-paced reporting allows viewers to judge for themselves what is going on,” she says, “investigative journalism and digging beneath the surface is just as, if not more, important.”
To close, panelists expressed their hopes for the future of journalism. “There’s certainly going to be more and more room for entrepreneurship,” Whitaker said.
Journalism students may question their choices in a business that is shrinking, but Wittstock said she loved her job because “every day was different,” and Struglinski added that she enjoys having a “front seat to history.”
###
By Rebecca Wall
American University’s American Forum on Feb. 17 revealed that the number of papers with Washington Bureaus has declined by half since 1985, confirming some of Journalism students’ major concerns: the industry is changing rapidly.
The forum, “Washington Watchdogs: An Endangered Species?” was co-sponsored by AU’s School of Communication and WAMU 88.5 FM and was moderated by Wendell Cochran, a School of Communications professor at AU and focused on the decline of journalists covering the Washington, D.C. and government beat today. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and panelist Tyler Marshall revealed three major finds of a new study on the state of these Washington Watchdogs.
He said the study, “The New Washington Press Corps”, found a surprising increase in the size of “niche media”, or magazines newspapers and special interest magazines with a presence in Washington, and also an increase in the number of foreign correspondents registered at the Foreign Press Center in D.C.
Marshall said the study also found a decreased amount of staff in Washington offices for the mainstream media, and a reversal of the migration of bylines.
Originally, journalists started out in “niche” publications and aspired to write for big name papers. “Today, more journalists aspire to join niche publications, not the daily papers,” Marshall said.
Lauren Linhard, a sophomore at AU majoring in Print Journalism, watched the forum on C-Span, where it was broadcast live, and can clearly see the appeal of “niche” media to those just entering the journalism field.. “It gives you the opportunity to write more feature stories about topics you’re interested in,” she said. “In newspapers, you just kind of have to take whatever beat is open and available.” Linhard herself aspires to become part of the niche media . “I want to create my own magazine someday,” she says.
Mark Whitaker, the chief of NBC News, said that “audiences have been declining for news coming out of D.C.,” with the exception of 2008’s much-hyped presidential election. “The use of internet to find that information is up,” adding, “Readers can do some reporting themselves” with sites like Twitter, a micro-blogging site used for social networking.
Suzanne Struglinski, senior editor of Provider magazine, said that a major cause of the decrease in the so-called “watchdogs” was that “individual cities and towns just don’t pay as much attention to D.C. and D.C. news.”
Linhard can see firsthand the lack of attention being paid to D.C. in her hometown local news station, which originates in Baltimore. “It always focuses on local events – especially crimes,” she said. “I rarely hear anything about the day’s happenings in Congress unless it’s something really major.”
Struglinski said a huge reason for the decline in Washington journalists is that states are sending fewer reporters to function as the “Washington Watchdogs” and serve as chaperones.
“We can’t let those people [politicians] run around without a chaperone,” Cochran added jokingly.
Wittstock agreed. “Washington journalists should be that person with a notebook in the hallway,” she said. Struglinski added, “Capturing those moments and asking questions on behalf of those who can’t is what it’s all about. A webcast or phoning in a story is not the same.”
A student questioner from the audience asked if the decline of Washington correspondents could be partially blamed on the rising popularity of internet . “Yes – but we have ourselves to blame,” Marshall responded. “We were giving the information away for free, depending only on ads for revenue. We need other ways for the business to be translated.”
Melinda Wittstock, founder and CEO of Capitol News Connection, said that another key thing is that newspapers are losing money, and needed to find an economic model that suited them. “We started off giving away the information for free,” she said.
Whitaker noted the need to be careful about the content that is out on the internet now, and not to mistake certain prepackaged videos from interest groups as news. “We need to make sure people can tell the difference,” he said.
One student asked whether the fast-paced reporting in “real-time” is changing the integrity of news.
“What’s better- fast or correct?”, Struglinski responded.
Wittstock added, “stories often evolve – there needs to be room for all of it.”
Linhard agrees with Struglinski and Wittstock. “Although the immediacy of digital media and the recent change to fast-paced reporting allows viewers to judge for themselves what is going on,” she says, “investigative journalism and digging beneath the surface is just as, if not more, important.”
To close, panelists expressed their hopes for the future of journalism. “There’s certainly going to be more and more room for entrepreneurship,” Whitaker said.
Journalism students may question their choices in a business that is shrinking, but Wittstock said she loved her job because “every day was different,” and Struglinski added that she enjoys having a “front seat to history.”
###
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
