Kosovo's Woes Continue

CNN reported that eggs and stones at Kosovo's prime minister in response to the upcoming elections in the former Serbian province. This will be Kosovo's first elections since declaring independence. The bit of unrest, though mild, has been an unfortunate departure from the largely peaceful lead-up to the elections. These ethnic tension's surfacing is not altogether surprising when considering Kosovo's road to independence, which was really nothing short of groundbreaking. The nation essentially created new definitions of sovereignty when it declared independence the day in 2008 after electing a moderate leader, and deciding that they had met all of the "standards before status" conditions set out in the UN's Resolution 1244. Immediately afterward a handful of EU countries and the U.S. recognized them as a sovereign nation, while the rest of the world refused. Though many other nations came on the Kosovo bandwagon slowly but surely, this way of going about declaring statehood truly changed the traditional process. New definitions of what makes a state a state were tested for the first time, as in the early days 44 out of 150 nations. So inevitably this shaky beginning is adding fuel to the resentment fire of ethnic Serb's currently living in the province. Only time will tell whether the testy Balkans which once ignited World War I have really simmered down.

Surprisingly Similar

Controversy in Brazil over a student wearing a short red dress to her college class echoed the recent controversy in France surrounding France's parliament's reluctance to allow women to wear the Burqa. Though at face value, these incidents couldn't seem more opposite (the extremely modest Burqa versus the red dress that managed to scandalize the nation with nude beaches) actually share almost everything important in common. They both push people's buttons, albeit opposite buttons in people who hold opposite viewpoints. The Burqa was opposed in France on the grounds that it prevented women's free expression, and served as a symbol of subordination. The red dress greatly offended the Catholic majority in Brazil who hold traditional viewpoints on student's dress in college, which is still extremely modest. However, the overriding question is: why, exactly, do legislators and university administrator's feel that what student's wear in private universities is in their sphere of influence? When did the lines blur between private high schools with a dress code (seems reasonable) to public schools which prohibit certain revealing items and gang attire (seems a bit murkier) to universities (seems outrageous)? This seems to to be edging closer and closer to dangerous ground, with restrictions of individual freedom being infringed upon in what have traditionally been seen as nations supporting public freedom.

Fort Hood Tragedy: 'Horrifying' Indeed

The events at Fort Hood are extremely upsetting, and it seems the entire country took in a collective gasp of shock and horror as details about the largest shooting at a U.S. army base are revealed. What are we to make of this? The shy psychiatrist suddenly snaps after hearing horror stories from soldiers based in Iraq and Afghanistan and finding out he is being deployed? A religious extremist suddenly shows his true colors? There is much speculation, and little answers at this time. Muslim groups fear backlash that evokes memories of post 9/11 trauma.We hope that U.S. citizens will understand that the actions of one cannot be used to generalize the behavior of an entire religion of people, and CNN made a disappointing and unnecessary reference in one of their headlines describing the suspect's demeanor as "cool, calm and religious." The idea of our own soldiers being unsafe on a U.S. base is disturbing in the utmost, and some are questioning if the military missed key signs that would have tipped them off about Hasan. Obama gave a characteristically thoughtful address, and referred to the attacks as horrifying. Horrifying it is.

Is War with Afghanistan the Best Approach?

The first question is: can we win? The evidence seems to suggest that we won't. The FATA (the mountainous border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan) are largely ungovernable, and answer not to Kabul or Islamabad but only to their local warlords. Historically and currently, this area has been a haven for members of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These areas contain the largest illegal arms market in the world, and are inhabited by the men who have been living by tribal customs for centuries, who can make guns with their bare hands in caves. These areas are barren, and some of the poorest in the world in terms of both money and natural resources. It is questionable whether or not the U.S. and Pakistani forces being sent in to combat them are up to the task. The Soviets learned the hard war back in the 1980s that it is virtually impossible to beat them, and we may make the same mistake. It seems that the main thing that can change in this area is our response to it, not the area itself. It seems wiser to work with them, not against them. Negotiations with local tribal leaders will probably be more effective than outright war and bombing with the entire nation. Though the U.S. did achieve some success in ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, it seems they have simply migrated into Pakistan, where they are regrouping and becoming stronger than ever. The Pakistani army is having some success in combating them, but there is still disturbing evidence of the Taliban taking over more and more chunks of Pakistani territory, and inching ever closer to Islamabad. As A.Q. Kahn nuclearized the Pakistani central government, it is truly terrifying to consider the consequences of Pakistan's falling to the Taliban. A "nuclear Jihad" would be likely. Also, the U.S. would have no base/support from which to attack Afghanistan: only a small base in Uzbekistan. We need a policy that takes all of this into account: simply bombing large chunks of Afghanistan is not gonna cut it. We need a comprehensive policy that includes Pakistan, and India as well as Afghanistan that emphasizes negotiation as opposed to combat. It is essential to keep in mind that Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups (Taliban included) are not loyal to any state: they operate as stateless networks, and they answer to no one. They cross borders with ease, as evidenced by the Pakistan situation. If our goal is to eliminate the Taliban, then we must think about the issue in this way. War with Afghanistan may weaken the Taliban, but it is not a permanent solution. We need to work with other nations, not against them, and come together with multilateral action if we have any hope of success.

We Need Global Police Action for Globalized Crime

There are new types of crime, and the very nature of criminal activity is changing right before our eyes. It is clear that old ways of monitoring criminals, etc are simply not going to cut it in this new world of globalized crime. In Foreign Policy, Moisés Naím points to five "wars on crime" that cross international borders, and will render traditional crime fighting styles virtually worthless: drugs, illegal arms trade, intellectual property, human trafficking, and money. These decentralized, stateless networks filled with individuals motivated by either religious extremism or money are pitted against governments who are bound by traditional notions of sovereignty, which severely limits their ability to fight these well-financed, worldwide networks. The author writes, "In one form or another, governments have been fighting these five wars for centuries. And losing them." We need more police forces like Interpol, and we need to put more resources into improving Interpol itself. This applies equally to terror, as it does to the five wars motivated by greed mentioned above. International connections have made distance a non-factor in criminals working together. We need teams of good guys to rival these forces, or we risk losing the "war" for good.

Yes, global warming should be at the TOP of the political agenda

Someone in one of my classes commented that "we shouldn't worry about global warming until we get the economy back on track." I beg to differ. Though everyone has started to jump on the "green" bandwagon, we need to step up our efforts to prevent this devastating climate crash. It is affecting animals in the arctic. It is already affecting nations on the coast that are going to be the earliest of the nations hit (like Vietnam). It will soon be affecting all of us. If we are facing floods, fires and other almost-Apocalyptic and dramatic climate changes like the ones moderate scientists are predicting, the economy will be the last thing on our minds. Trust me. I'm not a sentimental person, but this picture really gets to me. .

Customized News Content: Too Much of a Good Thing?

I know that I'm probably going to sound like an old fogie for pontificating on the "dangers" of new media, and customized news content especially. However, with lots of experience in the field I have seen just how great the differences are between the old and new, and I am unconvinced that we have gotten to the point where all of the hallowed news values and steadfast ethics from the old medium are transferred to the new. We may get there at some point, but we are not there yet. It just seems like a lot of the supervision and fact-checking that goes on in traditional publications gets lost in the mix, not that there is not a whole lot of innovative stuff on the web, as well as some excellent reporting. Another concern is more directly related to audience consumption, and relates to this idea of "customized news content." Through new media tools such as RSS feeds and blogs, among other things, audiences can pick and choose exactly the content they they consume, what some media scholars have referred to as the phenomenon "prosumers."Though such content provides the advantage of providing audiences with content that suites their interests, it has the downfall of limiting too much content, and actually making audiences less informed, not more. By allowing audiences such ease in "controlling" their content, they not only have the danger of filtering out too much vital information, but also of filtering their information through either as strictly Conservative or Liberal lens, depending on their prior politics by only following Liberal blogs such as Huffpost, Conservative blogs, or even mainstream sites with a political bias such as Fox News.

How Does One Negotiate with Irrationality: The North Korea Problem

Kim Jong Il's reign over terror over North Korea was only brought into the spotlight once Il started to threaten the world with the country's nuclear arsenal, built behind the scenes and completely missed by UN nuclear inspectors and cultivated despite promises from Il to stick to his promise of obeying the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Il's tendency to break promises is one example of the extreme difficulty we face in attempting diplomatic negotiations with North Korea. It goes without saying that it is frustrating for U.S. leaders to spend endless effort in negotiations only to have these agreements broken. Il not only poses a problem on the world stage, but also in his own country. His brutalization of the people of North Korea is something that mainstream media seem to be missing out on in favor of covering the nuclear issues, but the atrocities Il has committed against his people are many and downright terrifying. Il is in essence starving the population, all industry and trade has been shut down in the nation: companies stand completely empty, and the only real trade going on involves either illegal drugs (opium mostly) or counterfeit currency. Anyone who dares speak out against the regime is herded into "camps" where they are then stoned to death, hung or killed in other horrifying ways. Joe Layburn's documentary, "Children of the Secret State" offers superb coverage of the North Korea situation.

What year is this, 1955?

Apparently, an interracial couple was denied a marriage license in Louisiana. I know that there is still a lot of "covert" racism nowadays, but this type of blatant and institutionalized racism is not necessarily more damaging but certainly more shocking. In this day and age, it is just unacceptable. See the link at CNN, I'd love to hear comments on this one. .

Underestimating Russia's Importance Could be a Fatal Mistake

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently landed in Moscow to meet with Kremlin leaders in order to get beyond a cold war mentality with the Soviet powerhouse. The U.S. and Russia have had notoriously bad dealings as of late in the area of nuclear arms control, but can it be blamed on a lingering "Cold War Effect? In my opinion, this seriously over simplifies the issue. I think the true issue lies in Russia's perception that they are no longer a world power to be reckoned with. I believe that Russia's leaders have been both surprised and dismayed by increasing U.S. dominance in the foreign sector since the cold war's end, and have noted the increased rise in power and influence of nations like China in the U.N. security council, as their star grows increasingly dimmer. Russia is also facing a slew of domestic issues right now, including severe under-population and an AIDs epidemic, all the more distracting from their larger policy foreign policy issues. However, underestimating Russia's importance in the world landscape is a huge mistake. For one thing, Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation is absolutely essential: there are still many unsecured Soviet-era nukes throughout Russia and the Stans that will obviously have devastating consequences if they fall into the wrong hands. By surrounding Russia with nuclear weapons of our own in an attempt to target our "critical areas of concern" like North Korea and middle eastern targets, Russia is increasingly alarmed, as they see they are in range (though our intent may be far from Russia, the unfortunate and potentially devastating perception remains). Also, with its huge land mass Russia's assistance in the area of climate control is also essential. It is worth noting that Russia's reports of grave human rights incidence must not be ignored. We should consider implementing bilateral pressure strategies involving more of a voice for Russia if and only if they work to improve these conditions considerably. We must let go of these ancient relics and confusions about our issues with the cold war, and focus on giving Russia the respect they deserve in the here and now. If we don't, potential consequences are lethal.

Obama: Finally, Some Hope in the Political Arena

Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize seems to demonstrate just how much hope we're putting in him. Though I wouldn't go so far as some by claiming "God-like" characteristics, and I agree that the whole Messiah concept that the right mocked is somewhat appropriate, I will say thank God for the fact that we now have a leader who seems more interested in healing the earth than conquering it. As Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria discusses in "Obama's Big Gamble: Working with the world, not against it" Obama's policy seems obvious to me, but is actually quite a drastic change from leaders who seem to think that bullying the rest of the world is the only way to maintain our status as 'greatest nation." First of all, I think this greatest nation business is debatable. However, more importantly Obama truly captures the spirit of our age by emphasizing cooperation and inclusiveness in regards to other nations, especially nations we previously had hostile relationships with. If we have any hope of combating great "world" issues, like global warming, human trafficking, nuclear proliferation etc then we have to work with each other, not against each other. Traditional notions of "sovereignty" need not be completely abandoned, but in my opinion need to be greatly revised.

When in Rome. .

Lady Gaga's controversial performance at MTV's video music awards got me thinking about just where our culture is headed. The performance, where dancers used convincingly real wheel chairs and polio crutches, among other medical props, climaxed with Lady Gaga having fake blood spilling all over her stomach, as she ended the song hanging by her neck in a noose. Now I know MTV is at the forefront of youth culture, and thus tends to be a little edgy. And I also know that artists have the tendency to express themselves in all sorts of ways. But this really disturbed me, and I don't think of myself as overly sensitive. It also just seems to show broader patterns of just how accepted this blatant violence is becoming in our entertainment culture. Some have been commenting that our society is on the verge of decay, as decadence spreads, mirroring ancient Rome's tragic legacy. They may not be so far off.

So Where Does the Blame Lie for the Economic Meltdown, Anyway?

Lots of answers have been given to this very question over the past few months, and the blame-game never seems to stop. Corrupt Wall Street firms have been accused of greed of the highest order, banks have been accused for their part in the easy loans which led to the massive foreclosures and some have even gone so far as to state that ordinary citizens are to blame in their endless quest for easy money through loans, and endless appetite for consumer goods that they could not truly afford.

And unfortunately, some predict that the economy is still losing more jobs than we've seen for years, in sharp contrast to the sunny predictions we've been hearing from others. All the more reason to figure out who is really to blame, and quickly. . or more likely, which percentage of the above contributors is responsible for which percentage of the damage.

Media Advertising Revenues: It's not Craig's Fault

So was it or was it not Craig Newmark's fault that advertising revenues went down the drain for the entire media industry? In addition to being extreme, this is also simply untrue according to Columbia Journalism Review's Steven S. Ross. In "Craigslist=Straw Man," Ross states that newspapers actually have been keeping up perfectly fine, and it is primarily economic downturns that are causing problems. He also points out that web readers seem to be keeping papers out of the red, despite the drastic fall in print readership. "Craigslist is a straw man. It is the ups and downs of the economy that truly affect advertising, and so far they've been resiliant," he states. So why all the glom and doom predictions if this is the case? One concern lies in the fact that though online publications maintain substantial readership, it is still unclear just how the advertising procedure will function for online publication. Will companies pay significant enough sums for banner ads, etc to keep the entire industry afloat when we subtract out the enormous chunk of the print end of things? Also, online "news packages" require a whole lot more manpower and reporters to put together (think not just writer and photographer, but also video person, audio person, "data guru" and design people for interactive graphs and page layout). Though backpack journalists are giving it the old college try, it seems crazy to think one person can truly put together such a package by oneself, especially at the faster-than-lightning speeds the internet now demands of news output. Only time will tell what becomes of journalism as we know it as the entire advertising structure gets rebuilt from the ground up.

We Don't Wanna War No More

There has been a hidden war going on. Yes, we've been hearing about the "war on terror," in the media, the wars in Iraq and now Afghanistan, and the potential for war with Iran. I would argue that we are in fact in war with the entire middle east as a region, which Wyclef reflects on in his playful yet extremely powerful "War No More." Not only are we at war with the "middle east," but the middle east is at war with its members. Hostile rivalries such as the one between Iran and Saudi Arabia add to the tension, as well as the Palestine issue, and Pakistan's issues with India and neighboring Afghanistan certainly add fuel to the fire.

Wyclef is begging for peace in this region, "The streets packed for heat in the Middle East. . When will the violence cease?" he questions. The song later calls the U.S. to political action when he urges, "let me hear the USA say peace." This is another issue of how now more than ever it is important to take on all sorts of causes, and cross cultures in order to promote what is right. Instead of just tackling racism, for instance, Wyclef takes on Arab issues. All of us should take a lesson from this: those who are not black should fight racism with just as much force, those who are straight should fight against LGBT discrimination with a vengeance, and men should fight for women's rights. Imagine how much further we would get with these issues if we started to stop acting as small fringe grassroots activist-style groups and actually worked to promote the common good, with peace and equal treatment (not just rights) being the common goal.

The Lessons Learned from International Students

I went to orientation for the conversation partners with the OPIE (Ohio Program of Intensive English) Program this evening, and it was quite an experience. The OU program pairs one or two international students with one OU student to meet once a week to talk about their cultures, and help non-native speakers perfect their English. The number of different countries represented was dizzying: anyone who was there met handsome Arab students from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and beautiful Chinese girls dressed up in heels for a night on the town. These students were all so incredibly friendly: all walking around introducing themselves with open faces and hearts, so unlike the comparative reserve of most students in the U.S. To its credit, much of the orientation, besides simply praising its ability to foster cross-cultural friendships (which it certainly did in plenty) but it also emphasized the fact that when dealing with such diverse groups, much misunderstanding and offense can and will take place. It gave strategies for working out these issues as they come up, and encouraged students to keep lines of communication open. At such big multicultural gatherings, the array of languages, clothes and cultures can seem a bit overwhelming. It can at times even feel like a sort of "tower of babble" effect, where everyone seems to be talking across and not to each other. It is interesting to note that this small OPIE group really does reflect larger trends of globalization and cross-national relationships. It is actually an incredible opportunity to meet so many different types of people: what a richer life we will all lead, and what a lot there is to learn from each other. It is just important to remember that with every great opportunity, there will also be challenges that we should soldier through to reap the rewards, and not expect all 'melting pots' to be some sort of euphoric and seamless "blending of cultures."

New Media's effects in Egypt

We've seen it time and time again: blogs are allowing citizens in nation's whose government's traditionally control the press with an iron first to come forward and experience real press freedom, with blogs and other online reporting. In Egypt this movement has been especially widespread. Yet unfortunately, the authorities are getting more sophisticated in their attempts to track down bloggers, including those who use pseudonyms (such as the notable case of Sandmonkey). The young bloggers who are craving real journalistic credibility are being blasted by those looking to preserve the image of Islam. Journalists such as Stephen Franklin are working to thwart the regime's efforts, and all journalists who care about press freedom should support efforts such as his.

Questioning Communism

I have been attempting some very detailed research on Vietnam, along with the rest of my GLC class, and have discovered that Vietnam operates as a Communist nation. This was intriguing to me, as I had ignorantly thought that all traces of communism had disappeared after the Cold War ceased. This all raises the question, how is this Communism different from and or the same as McCarthy's "red scare" version? More research will lead to greater insight, yet it seems clear right off the bat that Vietnam has citizens which prefer a strong leader in the name of sacrificing some freedoms which we would consider essential in the U.S. (the press is all under government control there). To me, communism always sounded like a nice idea on paper, yet history has shown that it is certainly a dangerous weapon in the hands of power-hungry and fallible leaders.

Do hallowed notions of church and state need to be revised?

In my opinion, in some ways yes, in some ways no. In the United States, that line has always been very, very sacred and not to be crossed. In other nations, the theocracy is the state. And of all 200 some nations worldwide, there is every variation in between. The pope recently released an encyclical straight from the vatican addressing many contemporary social issues which intersect with politics. Most notably, the encyclical contained a call to arms to address the problem of global warming. Do these desperate environmental times call for desperate measures? This will undoubtedly cause much debate and be answered in different ways by different people, but I would tend to say yes, bearing in mind some caveats. It is also interesting to note how conservatives across all cultures, East and West, seem to try to intervene in what are essentially PRIVATE matters (reproductive rights, human sexuality) and force these rights to conform to their ideas of morality. Like many people, I strongly disagree with this attempt to legislate morality. It is equally dangerous here and there. From the middle east, to India, to the United States the dangerous trend of fundamentalists attempting to infringe on individual sovereignty seems to keep popping up. No, the great and free United States is not immune (just look at the continual attacks on abortion and even contraception by right wing groups). And recently in India, in response to the growing gay communities' attempts to receive legality and respect fundamentalist Hindu and Muslim leaders attacked with a vengeance and claimed that legalizing homosexuality would be unacceptable. All very interesting food for thought. . .

Adding my two cents to the MJ mania

The fervor with which Michael Jackson's death has received is undeniable. The media's coverage is constant, and people can't stop talking about how though they may have made fun of him when he was alive, they always respected his music. I've always found the case of Michael Jackson interesting on a deeper level. When he changed his skin color over the years, from black to white to whiter, most people (most, but not all) viewed this as just one more personality quirk, one more sign of his mental illness and eccentricity. I always viewed it differently. He certainly had a self-abasing streak, and accusations of pedophilia do cast a cloud of suspicion over his image. However, I blame our society for this man's downfall into madness. Though I am the last person to erase the personal responsibility of the individual, in this case it seems startling clear to me that it is a racist society which brought him down this path of madness. The man felt that white was better, so much better in fact that going through painful, crazy surgery was a reasonable idea to him. No, I don't buy the idea that this was some sort of 'artistic statement.' That lets us, our society, off the hook. The fact is, Michael Jackson felt so god-awful in his own original skin, that he had to take matters into his own hands. Has any prominent white man or woman in our society ever tried to become black? I don't think so. It seems that Michael Jackson's last recording, "They Don't Care About Us," is also his redemption. The song is good, so good in fact it gave me chills the first time I listened to it. Jackson has become the outspoken, wild and unlikely champion of the black people living in Africa. The gist of the song is that the West (as a whole) does not care about these people. The colonization of Africa, and our meddling in African political affairs over the years to assist our own greed proves that point. I believe this last song of his was his redemption. He reclaimed his forgotten skin color, his forgotten history, and made a ballad that will inspire some and sicken others in its truth:

"What if I like the Middle East?"

"What if I like the Middle East?" Indeed. Such a question was posed in the film Body of Lies, which in addition to being a great thriller refreshingly seems to shy away from Orientalist portraits of this mysterious and largely despised land. The world-weary CIA head finds it hard to believe any Westerner would actually want to live in the "god-forsaken" (his words, not mine) land, filled with stone caves and fiery fundamentalists. What if I like the Middle East? DiCaprio calmly replies. "No one likes the Middle East" responds the CIA president, with a knowing smirk. The film avoids the unfortunate tendency of Western media to portray all Arabs as terrorists, and for that matter all terrorists as Muslims. It was interesting watching Arab foreign intelligence in this film combat terrorists effectively and passionately, while the US CIA bungled operations and acted with impatience. Portrayals like this should be the standard, not the exception. It's odd to me that this even stuck out to me as being different: am I wrong, or is 90% of the coverage of those in the middle east, or even Muslims wordwide just showing that same portrayal of warlords in caves, or fundamentalists who despise the West and burn American flags? This is ridiculous. It is the equivalent of equating all Christians with the tiny percentage of Evangelicals who bomb abortion clinics--really, these percentages are not that different. The vast, vast majority of Muslims are moderate and share religious and cultural ideas and values with the rest of us.

Talkin' Bout My Generation

I got to thinking the other day about how, as naive as I'm sure it sounds, the most important thing to me is to do some good in this world. It seems that this sentiment is not echoed by as many of my peers as one might expect--my professors who spent the prime of their youth in the sixties lament that we just aren't as idealistic as they were. I just refuse to believe this. But then, what is it? The media loves to paint us as either decadent and overly absorbed with our own petty problems, total losers, or spoiled rich brats. In my experience though I've encountered many, many individuals who are motivated, intelligent and completely not self-centered. I've heard it said that the apathy among many of us is due to the fact that the problems we are facing--global warming, nuclear issues, a new kind of war and polarization between East and West, daily racism that is almost wearying, an ever-growing and more and more ghastly discrepancy between the rich and the poor not only in our country but worldwide, violence that just seems more raw than it ever did--is due to the fact that these problems are so huge, far-reaching and institutionalized that it is impossible to even know where to begin to solve them. We feel cynicism when we see the efforts of do-gooders fail, or when it turns out that something that should be sacred and pure like religion is continually and routinely corrupted, or when a well-known charity turns out to be misusing funds. All I can say is that as tempting as it is to give up, we've gotta stop whining and start innovating. Think outside the box, find new ways to solve problems, use new ideas and strategies, think globally. Call me an idealistic fool, but remember Ghandi's words: "I submit to you that if a man hasn't found something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." Even if I get nowhere, I will pour my energy and my life's work into at least trying to make a change, a real change. What do I have to lose? What do any of us really have to lose?

Interesting link between GDP and global warming

Reading CJR, came across an article by Jonathan Rowe, called "False Readings: How the Gross Domestic Product leads us astray." The author points out the flawed logic behind the hallowed concept of GDP that reporter's emphasize, ie as a positive and purely positive force, or the idea that an increase in GDP for a nation necessarily implies an increase in the well-being of the members of a nation. This is clearly mistaken, as an increase in consumption does not necessarily imply the well-being of a person. How about an increase in fraud, or obesity medication? the author points out. However, this leads to an interesting link to environmental as well as consumer issues. If reporter's continue to paint an increase in GDP as the omen of all things good, it will have the side consequence of causing reader's to believe that more consumption is in fact good (which it is, arguably, for the economy.) However, with a global warming situation that seems increasingly stark and frightening with each new report that comes out from scientists, it seems essential that reporters across all beats, from science, to health, to economics to culture, consider our impending disasters in their coverage.

Musings on Media Industry Transformations

So we're hearing a lot of talk about all the ways "The Industry" has been changing--reporters are forced to create an "image" and market themselves, market their "product" or news story similar to the way that musicians are being forced to through free online access, and how you can forget about finding a job at a newspaper if you aren't schooled in online basics so you can act as a backpack journalist.

This is certainly sounding the alarm bells for many--what is going to become of objectivity with all of this going on? they muse, as they see traditional journalism fly out the window. I've heard there are more opportunities for foreign correspondence in this changing feild--many newspapers are looking to pay for work from freelancers, as opposed to hiring their own correspondents. Kojo Nnamdi also pointed out that it is more dangerous for foreign correspondents now. Without an entire news team backing them up, journalists working out of "backpacks," by themselves without the presence of a news team are placed in a more vulnerable position in regards to kidnapping in areas of the world where journalists may not be popular.

All of this is, in my opinion, cause for some concern. It seems that at just the time when the world is facing problems of a new scope than ever seen before--terrorism, nuclear proliferation, global warming etc. etc. etc.--it is now when journalists, journalists who at least attempt to be unbiased, who have training and credentials, are most needed to help society sort through the myriad dilemmas we are now facing, and will certainly continue to face in the future.

It is interesting for me as well, as I can already sense the changes the industry is going through with my internship at the Washington Post Express. Though I know that interns generally perform smaller duties than employees, I still notice just how short, condensed and the work I'm doing has to be. With the squeeze on newspapers, it becomes more and more about "just the facts" and less about analysis and speculation.