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.