Turning to the audience

There's been a rash of shootings over the past several weeks, the most recent being at Northern Illinois University (story and video here), where five people were killed.

CNN.com did something interesting. They asked college students whether they thought their campuses were safe, and posted the responses.

It got me thinking about our own campus. I'm most definitely being naive in thinking that something like the NIU shooting won't happen here, but the truth is that it could happen anywhere. The CNN story really shook me. Instead of having a talking head on TV describing the incident, a group of my peers wrote in about not having doors that lock from the inside, and how effective the campus police are.

This is not to say that the story made me paranoid. It hasn't. But it's made me examine the Northeastern campus much more closely. The fact of the matter is, it happened at Virginia Tech. It happened at Northern Illinois. It could happen here.

To Catch a Predator, and other fun things

Over the weekend, I taped a special on MSNBC of the popular Dateline segment, "To Catch a Predator." If you're not familiar with the show, here's how it goes: Perverted Justice, an internet watchdog group, sets up shop somewhere, and the volunteers enter chat rooms as decoys pretending to be young teens. The teens then chat with older men, who usually end up coming over, only to find Chris Hansen waiting for them.

So, I've been a fan of the show for a while. I've also had an ex who was arrested in an online sex sting, so I guess I've been secretly hoping I'd see him on an episode so I could ridicule him. Today I saw that a study has been released rejecting the "stereotypical" online predator. The study, done by the the Crimes Against Children Research Center at UNH, stated that teens are not in any more danger on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

It's funny, because two years ago, this story came out about how such sites actually attracted sexual predators (then again, the story claims that Newton North High School is in Boston, so already its credibility takes a huge hit). I'm sure that such websites have made it infinitely easier for predators to stalk people. Most teens post way too much information about themselves on Facebook, and there are too many teenage girls in their underwear on MySpace. I'm inclined to believe the most recent story, however. If you're smart about what you reveal, social networking sites shouldn't pose any more of a problem than anything else.

Fun with Craigslist

Let me start off by saying I am a huge fan of craigslist. I have sold several items, and also bought some cool stuff.

But then there's the entertainment factor. This was posted today:



Note: sorry for the cruddy screen shot. It needed to be done.

Universal Hub reaction here.

I think maybe I might notice the beloved family pet if I were to come across it. Hopefully animal control comes across it before me.

Patriots? Who are they?

Welcome to Boston, where there's a wind chill of -20 and we're already talking about the Red Sox.

Clay Buchholz and Josh Beckett arrive at spring training; Manny gives up the Big Macs in favor of a new workout routine, and Curt Schilling's season may be over before it even started.

I can't wait for April 1.

The future of freelancing

There's a cool service started by a Berkeley journalism student called Reporterist, where freelancers can pitch stories and connect with editors and various publications. It's a really innovative way to make the process more efficient, although the Online Journalism Review points out a couple problems:

1. Stealing ideas
When you sign up and put your portfolio online and begin to pitch stories, there is nothing stopping the publications from taking your ideas. This probably already happens, to some extent. However, this service would just offer more ideas to take.

2. Bidding wars
Technically, the site is not set up to have this option, and the two people who started Reporterist took issue with the fact that the Online Journalism Review pegged it as an "eBay for news." However, I can see how this could potentially happen. If a piece of writing is good enough, it might go to the highest bidder rather than the first publication who picks it up.

3. Credibility - Anyone can sign up. Freelancers are trying to sell a product, but you never know who's on the receiving end. The one thing that could prevent this is that it's a service you have to pay for.

4. Design gripe
I, personally, hate the way the site is designed. Instead of being able to click through all the portfolios
(and right now they're mostly Berkeley grad students), you have to constantly refresh to get a new one. The layout seemed primitive. Could be that the paid version is better. I'm not willing to find out, at this point.

Good idea? Bad idea? I'm leaning toward good in an innovative way.

First the Patriots, and now this?!?!?!?

This is video I took at the Beanpot today of Northeastern's student section. This is why I love NU:



Note: by this point we were already losing 3-1, and that was the final score. I wasn't lucky enough to see the Huskies take home a Beanpot championship in my time at Northeastern. It's been a disappointing couple of days.

Archiving abuse

The Globe had an interesting article today about an effort by two concerned citizens to archive documents online relating to sexual abuse by priests around the country (the story is here).

The website is called Bishopaccountability.org and so far has 93,000 files online.

It's an interesting project. People around the country are donating documents to the cause. The site could be a useful resource for journalists and others seeking info.

Banning Google

A professor at the University of Brighton banned her students from using Google, Wikipedia, and other online resources (read the story here). Tara Brabazon, the teacher, claims that there is no learning involved by simply typing a query into Google.

The story has spawned a number of blog posts, including one from MediaShift about how Google and other online resources have changed the way we do research. Jennifer Woodard Maderazo agrees that online resources leave her feeling "unchallenged." However, she writes that in order to get immediate answers to questions, you often have to sacrifice some quality of the information.

Jemima Kiss on the Digital Content Blog feels differently. She says that no, Google should not be banned, and that internet research is a skill that all college students will need at some point.

It got me thinking about my own habits. Before I had an internet connection at home, I would go to the library and take out books on the subject I was researching. It usually took hours to go through the books and find the relevant pieces of information. Now, I can go to Google or Wikipedia or Sparknotes and instantly access the exact piece of information I'm looking for, without having to slog through an entire book. I don't even use the phone book anymore: Switchboard has been one of my favorite resources as a reporter.

So, should Google be banned at universities? My opinion is a definitive "NO." As society turns more and more to new media, it's a skill that is just as important as being able to pick out a book by its call number. You can't believe everything you read, but if you do enough searching, I believe you can find the truth.

Law school rant

This has nothing to do with journalism. This is just me ranting about how tedious the law school application process is. This is going somewhere, I promise.

First of all, let me start off with my LSAT prep course. Everything, including the homework, is online. Now this is fine if I'm at home, but considering that I'm rarely home between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., it's becoming a huge inconvenience. I can do the homework in the book and fill in the answers, but then I have to find a computer and fill in the same answers online. It's a gigantic pain, and if the computer isn't equipped with Flash, then I can't do it at all.

Second: the actual applications. Five years ago when I applied to college, every single one of my applications was a paper application, and at certain schools I could check the status online. Now, ALL of the applications are online. I have to electronically attach my personal statement for each school. I have requested paper apps from all of the schools - I've received ONE. It's been 2 months.

Lastly: the LSAT and LSDAS is a gigantic rip-off. If you want to go to law school, you have to take the LSAT. It costs $123. Ok, fine, all admissions tests cost money. In addition to that, you're required to sign up for the LSDAS - Law School Data Assembly Service. There's no way around it. Law schools trust you about as far as they can throw you, and they won't accept your LSAT scores or recommendations unless they come from the LSDAS. The cost? $113 to register for one year.

I understand that schools are trying to make it easier to apply. You can fill out the common form. I just feel more at ease when I can see the applications in front of me, and if I can touch them and put them in an envelope myself. In any case, come March, I will be extremely happy to be done with the process. And extremely broke.

Using social networking as a source

MediaShift had a really interesting article a few days ago about using social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, as a means to either get to sources, or to dig up more information. Like many people my age, I am on Facebook, but I've never really thought of it as a viable resource, especially for serious stories. I can understand how it would be enticing, especially to younger reporters. A lot of people have unlisted telephone numbers, but there's a good chance you can find someone on one of these sites.

Jennifer Woodward Maderazo discusses some of the pitfalls of using these sites as a search tool. For example: you're a reporter, and you're writing a profile on a certain individual. You want to dig up some more dirt on this person, so you look up their Facebook profile. Is it a good idea to use what's in their profile in your story? What if it's a fake profile? Maderazo uses the example of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's son. Several large papers took quotes about Islam directly from his profile. The problem was, it was a fake profile.

Yes, social networking tools can spell danger for journalists. They can also be used as an advantage. Take this example of a journalist who reported on a live protest using only his phone and social networking tools like Twitter.

I, personally, have never used social networking sites as a means to reach people other than friends and family. I would consider using it to find sources only if I was in a major bind. I may be wrong. Who knows?

The next big thing?

Lately I've been hearing a lot about the new Mac laptop just unveiled by Apple. The MacBook Air is supposedly the world's lightest computer, and tech geeks around the country have eagerly been awaiting its arrival.

This new laptop could potentially be the next big thing for reporters. It's so slim and light, you could carry it just about anywhere. However, Slate.com's Paul Boutin disagrees. He says he would rather use his phone for e-mail because it's just easier than having to deal with Wi-Fi.

As someone who doesn't currently own a laptop, I can't say I know much about wireless internet access. I have a wire running through my entire apartment to an ancient router. But the notion that a laptop that's meant to be extremely portable is also lacking in this specific area is amusing. What's the point? Should we all just get iPhones? I think I'll stick to my Nokia and notepad.