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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
