An Open Letter to SJSU Curriculum Decision-Makers

(For a background in what's going on, read here, here, and here.)

To Whom it May Concern;

As this is my first semester as a journalism major at SJSU, I don't claim to know a great deal about the objectives of the J&MC program. Yet it seems to me that turning JOUR 163 into a software teaching class would be detrimental to the students, and the department as a whole. While it's true that commercial skills will benefit us in our field, I believe that it is more important for this class to focus on exploring new concepts of media so that we can keep up with the developments in the world of journalism.

Blogging is one such development. This semester, in Lilly Buchwitz's MCOM 72 class, I feel that I have grown immensely as a journalist by creating and maintaining this blog. I believe this is because the focus in class was on how to become a good blogger, not simply how to blog. Sure, a knowledge of how to use blogging tools such as Blogger would have helped me get started, but I'm glad we didn't waste time in class going over those kinds of details. In my experience, we learn best by doing things, not just by being taught about them.

From what I hear, the students in this semester's section of JOUR 163 have been given wonderful opportunities to explore "new media" and emerging forms of journalism, including blogging and podcasting. I believe this is key at a time when "old media" is on a downslide. Professors Steve Sloan and Cynthia McCune have done a revolutionary thing by bringing in top-notch guest speakers and encouraging their students to take part in the cutting edge of media. As SJSU alumni Robert Scoble said, "You can learn InDesign from a book." I'm willing to bet that what the students of JOUR 163 learned this semester was much more valuable that anything a textbook could provide. I hope that you will decide to keep the course curriculum as is.

My Adventures in Online Dating: Part 2

(Read Part 1 Here)

I've now spent a total of three weeks on Match.com, and I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. One one hand, I've talked to some interesting (in a good way) people, and even met one for dinner last week. On the other hand, I've spent hours writing emails back and forth to others I'm still not sure are who they say they are and that I've never talked to in person. It's an investment; one I'm not entirely confident will pay off. Speaking of paying off, $30 a month is a little steep for a college student. That's more than I paid for my mp3 player.

Online dating is also a little overwhelming. I get about 5 emails a day, which may not sound like a lot, but seems like it when I have to go back and recall details about who I'm talking to, and write thoughtful responses. I like to think that online dating could be a fun supplement to regular dating, but for me it's just too much. I'd rather use a service like the one my friend David made, which lets you find a date (or just an activity buddy) for a specific occasion. It's also free.

So back to Match.com. I have to say that my experience has been pretty positive in terms of the people I've talked to. I was surprised to find as many down to earth people that shared my interests (and were close in age) as I did. My one date so far was much less awkward than I imagined it would be, and I now have a Thai food and Billiards buddy who goes to my school!

So am I glad I tried Match.com? Yes. Will I keep paying for it after my group stops footing the bill? Nope. Maybe I'll come back to it in a few years. Besides, in a month, I've made enough connections to look into for now. Did I mention I have 4 dates this weekend?

I've Got a Secret

What are your web vices? We all have them, whether it be Woot, Fark, or any other site we compulsively check for reasons other than work or news. One of mine is PostSecret.

In 2004, a man named Frank Warren started a community art project in which he encouraged strangers to send in decorated postcards detailing their deepest, darkest secrets. Two years later, Warren has received postcards from all over the world, and now posts them on his website, PostSecret.com.

The rules for submission are simple: a secret must be true, and it must be something you've never told anyone before. Submitters are encouraged to make their postcards artistic.

Every Sunday new secrets are posted: some funny, some sad, all thought provoking. Warren gives us a look into the personal lives of strangers, and out of voyeuristic curiosity we cannot help but look. Sometimes we even see ourselves.

I've not yet sent in a secret, but I can see why so many people do. It's a means to catharsis for those who have let their secret(s) eat away at them. By anonymously putting their dirty laundry out for the world to see, they share their burden with the PostSecret community and perhaps feel a little less alone.

The message of PostSecret is simple: everyone has secrets. And maybe if we were a little more honest with each other, we wouldn't feel the need to share our secrets with total strangers, or peep at the secrets of others. PostSecret is a manifestation of our culture, and I'm not ashamed to admit that it's become one of my vices. Check it out and it may become yours.

O.J. Silenced

O.J. Simpson's book, "If I Did It," proves what most people already guessed: he did it. No one but a cold blooded murderer would take advantage of his crimes in this way to make money off his victims' deaths.

The book, which O.J. was to be paid $3.5 million for, details the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman: murders O.J. was acquitted of in 1995. However, Simpson writes as if he were the murderer (as if he wasn't), in a hypothetical depiction of how he would have killed the pair.

The publisher, Judith Regan, claims to have decided to publish the book for personal reasons; as a victim of domestic abuse herself, she wanted the book to stand as O.J.'s confession and perhaps as an apology. But critics have lashed out at Regan, calling her an opportunist and accusing her of helping a murderer profit from his crimes.

Finally, today, the book was cancelled, along with a related interview with O.J. that was to be aired on Fox. Thank goodness. I believe in freedom of speech and all, but I admit I'm quite relieved that this tragic events of 1994 won't be further capitalized on by O.J., and that the families of the victims will not have to endure any more of this cruel publicity stunt.

Harper's: A Review

I recently got my first issue of Harper's, a magazine about politics, literature, culture, and the arts.

The first thing that caught my eye was an article by Daniel Ellsberg, former U.S. Military Analyst, on a possible war with Iran. Only a few weeks ago in my Media Law class, we had talked about Ellsberg's role in leaking the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in 1971, and ultimately helping to end the war in Vietnam. Seeing his name in the byline of a current article intrigued me to read more.

The gist of the article is that Ellsberg believes that there are plans in the works to invade Iran, and that the government officials involved in the plan should leak that information to the press now, before war breaks out. Ellsberg reflects that if he had come forward sooner with the intelligence he had, it might have been possible to avoid Vietnam altogether. While I'm not convinced that Ellsberg alone truly had that much power, I think he makes some very important points about the responsibility of those on the inside, and the consequences of standing by and saying nothing. He should know.

Harper's is not all heavy political talk, however. Interspersed with the longer articles and more serious content are poems, art, and works of fiction. In the current issue, I found an excerpt from a longer novel called Happyland, as well as a bit taken from Allen Ginsburg's diary as a teenager entitled, "Yelp." The humor in Harper's is smart, and the articles truly make you think. I found it to be refreshingly different from any magazine I'd ever read before. And now I can't wait to get my next issue.

My Adventures in Online Dating: Part 1

Our group project for this class is to look at Match.com and its effect on society. Naturally, my group decided that one of us should act as a guinea pig and actually try this thing out. Wary of online dating, but curious nonetheless, I volunteered for the job.

The first step was to enter basic information like my age, gender, and the gender and age range that I was interested in. Check. I created a user name and password, and was taken to a page of matches. After clicking on one, I was asked to complete a profile. One of the first things asked of me on the questionnaire was, "What's your sign?" No, I am not kidding. It is at this point that I start to wonder what I'm getting myself into.

At the end of the second page I'm asked what my best feature is. Included in the drop down list are: neck, bellybutton, and feet. Hmm...maybe I'll use this as a way to screen people. If your feet are your best feature, we've go nothing to talk about.

After completing my profile, I press the button labeled "send for approval." I get an email telling me it might take up to 72 hours to have my profile approved. So I wait. The next day, I receive another email telling me they can't approve my profile. Some of the possible reasons listed are: soliciting, providing identifying information, offensive language, or sexually explicit or violent material. What?!

I change the wording slightly in my description and resend. I go through this process several times before I finally figure out exactly what they’ve taken issue with. Turns out, they won’t let me use the word “petite” in describing myself. Heaven forbid I include any sort of physical description in a dating profile.

After finally getting my profile up, it isn't long before I start getting "winks," a Match.com feature that allows users to show general interest. But that's another story....

Blog Ads, Are They Worth It?

There's a feeling shared by many bloggers and blog readers that to sell ads on your blog is to sell out. The whole business of advertising is associated with sleazy practices and annoying distractions (pop-ups, anyone?), so why would one voluntarily pollute their blog with ads?

Bloggers that sell ads often have to justify making a profit to their readers and other bloggers. It seems in essence that bloggers are not expected to make money off of their work; that their blogs should stand as a sort of art for art's sake. But is it really practical to ask bloggers to live as starving artists to preserve the purity of their work?

Obviously, it's not really worth it to sell ads on your blog if you have very few readers to begin with. One must build up a loyal readership before it's possible to make any sort of profit. Still, for those bloggers who have already created a following and are moving up the ranks in Google, there's a chance that selling ads could make a significant difference in their income. Take for example, Dooce.

For those not familiar with Dooce, it's a blog written by Heather Armstrong, who became famous after being the first person to be fired for what she wrote on her blog. That was two years ago. Now, she supports her family by selling ads on her blog, which is ranked as one of the most popular blogs on Technorati. Obviously, her decision to have ads hasn't hurt her readership too badly.

Recently, tech blogger Robert Scoble questioned whether selling ads on his blog would be a good idea. The response from his readers was mixed, with some encouraging him to make a profit and others expressing concerns that his blog just wouldn't be the same with ads. It seems that Scoble was/is also considering donating part of his profits to charity.

I personally am not opposed to bloggers selling ads, so long as the ads are tasteful and unobtrusive. By unobtrusive, I mean they don't pop up, make noise, or flash repeatedly in a strobe-like manner. Yes, I know that ads are meant to be seen, but that doesn't mean they have to induce seizures.

Millitary Bloggers Face Censorship

I found this article on Wired, which reports that military commanders are cracking down on Miliblogs, or blogs written by military personnel. Officials are concerned that soldiers might inadvertently leak matters of national security, including information on troop movements and locations. Personnel will now be required to submit posts to their commanders for review before publishing them online. The Department of Defense put up an online alert that, "effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites that are readily accessible to the public unless it has been reviewed for security concerns and approved in accordance with Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum web site policies and procedures." The military says that this tightened security is only meant to protect national secrets, but it makes me wonder if the system could be used to censor dissenters against the war who show the uglier side of what's going on overseas.

I hope that this increase in censorship won't have too much of a chilling effect on what soldiers blog about. I think it's extremely important that soldiers in Iraq especially be able to candidly blog about their experiences. With the huge drop in embedded journalists covering the war (only nine left), and with the slanted media coverage that does get through, it's becoming harder to get a perspective on what's really going on at the front lines.

A Lesson in PR

When Lilly said that Tuesday was the one class of the semester we wouldn't want to miss, she wasn't kidding. After all, it's not every day that you get to watch a real press conference unfold in your classroom.

Three San Jose State students, Anna Pogosova, LouLou Quintela, and Kelly Sherman, were chosen as finalists in a national advertising contest to come up with a Superbowl ad idea for Chevy. PR genius that she is, Professor Lilly Buchwitz was on top of the story and arranged a press conference with affiliates of CBS and NBC news...to be filmed in our classroom!

As a Journalism major, it was fascinating to see the process the media went through in creating the story. From watching CBS set up the cameras to observing them doing one-on-one interviews, it was an experience I will never forget. One detail I found interesting was how CBS dealt with a mass release from the class. Instead of filling out paperwork, they simply had us look into the camera and give consent for them to show our images.

I also found it interesting to compare what I observed during the press conference to what was aired by CBS that night. Understandably, they were not able to use a lot of the material that was filmed due to length restrictions. They also jazzed it up with some clips from previously run Superbowl ads. Overall, though, I felt that they did a pretty good job of covering the story. The fact that my face was clearly recognizable in the piece might have biased me in this regard.

This press conference had the benefit of hitting two birds with one stone for SJSU students; it gave us a chance to see the media at work, and it created some great press for our school. Appropriately, the topic for the day was media and public relations. I'd say we got a pretty good lesson. Thanks Lilly!

Small Carrot: A Big Step?

In this age of technological convergence, it seems that there is little left that handheld devices cannot do. Overnight (it seems), cell phones have evolved to the point where they can play music, videos, and more. With this technology has come a demand for a new kind of media. Enter Small Carrot, a sort of YouTube for cell phones. Artists can upload their content, and consumers can download for free.

Among the types of files that Small Carrot currently offers for download are animations, designs, and motion graphics for the "small screens" of iPods, PSPs, and cell phones. There are some short movies that Popgadget says "run the gamut from cute to freaky, surrealistic to stylish." Apparently, some artists have even created mini-series, and Small Carrot now offers a way to update users by email when new installments are uploaded.

Curious as to what these videos might be like, I sampled a few. Some, like the "Office Buddies" series, were worth a laugh. Others, like "Hello Kitty: Gifts of Dance and Trance", were just a little weird. I also previewed a clip called "Underwater Jungle Disco." Yes, it is as trippy as it sounds.

Darwin Goes Digital

The BBC reported today that Darwin's complete works are now being published online. Cambridge University, the force behind this project, plans to make over 500,000 pages of the evolutionary theorist's notes, complete with audio files, available to all.

Hopefully, this effort will promote dialogue about Darwin's theories, which remain controversial today. Though evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution, there is still strong resistance to this theory in some states because of many people's beliefs that it contradicts Christian teachings.

While the U.S. Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in 1987 on the grounds of separation of church and state, conservative educators have managed to work religious views into the curriculum through what they call "intelligent design," which others have taken to calling "creationism lite." In places like Dover, Pennsylvania, there are laws that insist this theory be taught alongside Darwinism. A Gallup poll reported that 37% of Americans favor teaching creationism instead of evolution. It comes as little wonder, then, that despite numerous archaeological findings that suggest otherwise, an astounding 45% also believe that God created man in present form. How depressing.

Besides the actual content of his works, there are other issues that arise with the online publication of Darwin's works. I wonder, how long will it be before all print works are made available online?

"Sirius" Stern: An Oxymoron

Who is Howard Stern? To me, he is the social outcast turned bully: the awkward, self-conscious kid who finds pleasure in verbally tearing others to shreds. His behavior has been reinforced by a society who gets a kick out of people who can get away with saying outrageous things on air. This "shock jock" as he's been so appropriately called, has made a lucrative career for himself simply by saying what's on his mind, however offensive or obscene. Furthermore, it has made him "cool," an image he seems to be stretching for with his dark shades and rock star duds.

For someone who has been called a revolutionary in shaping radio, Stern seems to have little to say that is of real importance. Sometimes it seems as if his sole purpose on his show is to say the most shocking thing he can think of. With a reputation for being the most heavily fined DJ in the history of radio, he is famous for pushing (and frequently crossing) the boundaries of what you can and can't say on air. If only he would put his intelligence and lack of inhibition to better use and ask female guests more relevant questions than, "Are those real breasts?"

To me, Howard Stern is a novelty, nothing more. His shallow rants and degrading attitude toward women wear thin rather quickly, and it was to my amusement to discover that many of his fans are apparently as shallow as he is, and have not stuck with him through his move to Sirius Satellite Radio. I believe his style of broadcasting is a fad that people will eventually get over, but hopefully remember as a lesson on what not to do.

The Three Most Important T.V. Shows Ever Created

1. Will & Grace- Throughout the history of T.V., there have been many shows important to issues of discrimination. Will & Grace's positive portrayal of homosexuals is helping to break down today's stereotypes of gays in the media. Will's character is the complete opposite of what many think of as the typical gay man; he is a masculine lawyer with solid values and a serious demeanor. His friend Jack, on the other hand, represents more of the traditional gay man; an effeminate actor with a tendency toward the dramatic. Yet Jack is so hysterically funny, it's impossible not to love him.

2. Candid Camera- This was one of the first T.V. shows to be unscripted and feature ordinary people rather than actors. Some call it the "granddaddy of the reality TV genre." Candid Camera opened up the door for today's reality T.V. craze: something that I have mixed feeling about, but will admit revolutionized T.V. and has become an important social phenomenon.

3. Oprah- Over the past 20 years that her talk show has been running, Oprah has become more than a person: she is an icon. She has influenced the nation on matters of race, religion, sexuality, poverty, and gender, to name a few. Any book introduced into her book club becomes an instant best-seller. In 1998, Mark Steyn of the National Review wrote that Oprah is "therapist to an entire nation."

A Face to Remember

"Ten thousand miles away from home...and I don't even know my name."
-Lonesome Rhodes

Kazan's 1957 classic, "A Face in the Crowd" will soon turn 50 years old. And I have to say, it's not bad for an old timer. The film has held up remarkably well over the last half century, so much that when I watched it last week I was startled by its relevance to today's society. With outstanding performances all around and a musical score that will give you the shivers, this one is definitely a must-see.

When "country boy" Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes (Andy Griffith) is discovered by the media in a small town jail, it isn't long before his boyish charm and infectious laughter propel him into celebrity on a national scale. The woman who discovered him (Patricia Neal) is soon swept along for the ride, and becomes the one person keeping him from teetering over the edge of reason once he becomes drunk with the power he has gained over the public. Throughout the film, we watch Rhodes' deteriorate, as his once carefree laughter takes on a maniacal tone as megalomania sets in.

We all know a "Lonesome Rhodes": a charismatic, lovable person who can easily win over the common man. These types of personas are everywhere in the media, and are the kind of people we love to love. What we aren't always aware of, and what "A Face in the Crowd" aims to make us aware of, is the power such people wield over our opinions. Kazan carefully weaves into this entertaining story a scathing social commentary on how we as the public allow ourselves to be led around by our noses by media personas we know little about. This is achieved by giving the audience a behind-the-scene look at the "real" Lonesome Rhodes, an egotistical drunk who has nothing but disdain for the "sheep" who watch his show.

Yet Lonesome Rhodes was not always the nasty egoist we see towards the end of the film. "A Face in the Crowd" gives us an inside look at the transformation Rhodes undergoes from an happy-go-lucky incarcerated hobo to a rich, influential, spoiled fake. We are always told that "power corrupts," but this film shows us the gory details of how fame can cause a man to rot from the inside out. And it is indeed with morbid fascination that the audience observes Rhodes' descent.

Rare is the film that can teach us a lesson and still be wildly entertaining. Yet "A Face in the Crowd" does this and more: 50 years later it is still teaching, and still entertaining audiences as much as ever. And I imagine it will for many years to come.

Gourmet Ads

As I looked in the rack for a magazine to analyze today, my stomach was rumbling. It was lunchtime. Unsurprisingly, I ended up with Gourmet, a magazine for food-lovers and chefs. Settling down with my choice, mouth watering, I flipped through the first few pages of ads. And flipped...and flipped. A whopping 26 pages later, I finally hit the editor's letter. It wasn't until page 40 that I found what I would consider another real article.

Is this what magazines have come to these days? A book of ads with a few articles in between? Silly me: I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

Admitting defeat, I decided to abandon my idea of analyzing the articles and analyze the ads instead. After all, they appeared to make up the bulk of the magazine. In fact, by my count, full page ads took up 120 pages of this 246-page magazine, and many of the pages with articles also had partial-page ads. In other words, less than half the magazine was made up of articles.

So who were these ads trying to target? Before looking inside, I imagined the average reader of Gourmet to be chefs and serious food aficionados. I expected to see mostly ads for cookware, and gourmet food products. I did find ads for these things, however, the other products advertised ranged from lipstick, to cars, to paint, even. Seeing everyday items included makes me think that the readership of Gourmet is a little broader than I'd originally thought.

Another interesting thing I noticed about the ads was how they were tailored to fit the theme of food. Bloomingdale's, for example, included in their ad a frosting recipe, complete with pictures of cute, neatly frosted pink cupcakes. I thought that this was an clever way to grab the reader's eye while blending in with the overall theme of the magazine. But damn, it made me hungry.

The Kite Runner: Positive Propaganda

I remember in 2001 when the twin towers were hit and America's view of the Middle East was changed forever. At the time, I went to school with a Muslim girl whose family was from Iran, and I remember wanting to ask her how she felt about what had happened. I never did. Like many Americans, I was ignorant about her culture and her family's homeland. Since 9/11, many of us have developed preconceived notions about how Muslims treat women, socialize, and practice their religion. Now, novels like The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini are helping to break down stereotypes about the Middle East. Many use propaganda, a type of message designed to influence people's opinions and behavior instead of provide impartial information. The Kite Runner in particular uses propaganda to change the reader's opinion about the Afghan people through association, demonization of the enemy, and the "common man" technique.

From the start of the novel, Hosseini uses the propaganda technique of association, which links an emotionally charged person or entity to a separate entity to influence someone's opinion. In The Kite Runner, the reader's perception of Afghanistan is tied to the sympathetic character of Hassan, the narrator's friend and half-brother. A stereotype exists in America that all Middle Easterners are violent; however Hosseini associates Afghanistan with a boy who is lamb-like in nature. The narrator, Amir, states that "...to me, the face of Afghanistan is that of a boy...with a Chinese doll face perpetually lit by a harelipped smile" (25). He is of course referring to Hassan, who was born with a harelip. Amir connects Hassan with his image of Afghanistan throughout the novel, creating an emotional tie for the reader as well. Hassan is the epitome of goodness and self-sacrifice, who allows himself to be brutalized so that Amir can bring home a trophy to his father. Hassan seems to have no faults, and Amir acknowledges that he is one of those "people who mean every word they say" (54). Hosseini truly makes the reader feel for Hassan, and in turn, for Afghanistan.

Another way in which The Kite Runner influences opinions about Afghanistan is by using the propaganda technique of demonizing the enemy, in this case the Taliban. Many Americans falsely believe that all Muslims are as strict in their religion as the Taliban. However, Hosseini makes a clear distinction between the average Afghan and the Taliban, and emphasizes the brutality of the Taliban in contrast with the more prevalent, more liberal Muslim practices in Afghanistan. He does this by creating an image of the Taliban that is almost evil in nature. Assef, the face of the Taliban in the novel, is a bloodthirsty sociopath. Amir recalls that, "I will never forget how Assef's blue eyes glinted with a light not entirely sane" (38). Assef is also the one who rapes Hassan, the kind, sensitive boy whom the reader has already come to associate with Afghanistan as a whole. Hosseini also uses the other Afghan's characters’ responses to the Taliban to reveal the gap between the average Afghan and the Taliban. Amir's mentor, Rahim Khan says, "They don't let you be human" (198). This portrayal of the Taliban is blatantly one-sided and seems to damn all of its members. Demonizing the Taliban in this way causes the reader to dissociate them from the rest of the Afghans in the novel who are portrayed in a more positive light.

At the same time that he creates distance between most Afghans and the Taliban, Hosseini uses the propaganda technique of appealing to the "common man" to compel the reader to identify with most Afghans. There is a tendency to label foreigners as "strange" and regard them as inherently different from us. In The Kite Runner, Afghan characters are shown doing many of the common everyday things that Americans do: going to see a movie, playing in the streets, and gossiping in the market. It's these small details Hosseini includes that make the Afghans seem human and accessible to the reader. Amir fondly relates how the Afghans would socialize at the flea market. He recalls, "Tea, Politics, and Scandal, the ingredients of an Afghan Sunday at the flea market" (138). Substitute coffee for tea, and I'm sure many Americans can relate to the same experiences of socializing with friends and discussing the latest news. The Kite Runner turns Afghans from "the other" into human beings to whom Americans can relate.

Throughout The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini uses propaganda as a powerful tool to influence his readers' opinions about Afghanistan and the people who live there. His portrayal of Afghanistan is mixed at times, yet I believe it takes steps to positively break down stereotypes that pervade American beliefs about Muslims and the Middle East. It is far from offering a solution to race conflicts, but if everyone read it, perhaps there would be more positive dialogue between Americans who are of Afghan origin, and those who are not. And that would be a good thing.

Skype: Should SJSU Ban It?

So I've been doing a little research about this thing called Skype. Seems it's creating quite a buzz here at SJSU, where there's talk about banning it. For those of you who don't know (and are too lazy to read the Wikipedia article), Skype is a P2P network through which users can make free calls to other users anywhere around the world using their computers. Cool, right? Well, except for the fact that it can turn faster networks into supernodes and suck up their bandwidth, something ISPs aren't too fond of. Hmm...universities tend to have fast connections, so does that make SJSU a target for this? Wikipedia claims that, "The selection of intermediary computers is fully automatic, with individual users having no option to disable such use of their resources." So if Skype wants to leech off your bandwidth, there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

But wait! This article says that a study showed putting Skype behind a default deny firewall "prevented super-node behaviour while still allowing calls to be made and received using web protocols." In other words, bandwidth use was limited to a user's own calls, which were unaffected by the firewall. Ok, seems like that would make the ISPs a little less grumpy.

But there are other concerns about Skype. First, it's closed source. Meaning, no one can know exactly what it's doing and how. This is a common practice and may actually make the network more secure, but some see it as a shady practice.

There are also questions of security. A year ago, some pranksters developed a patch that let them masquerade as other users. Wikipedia says, "The technique was for the prankster to put up an attractive profile with a woman’s name and picture, and put that profile into "Skype me" mode. Within minutes generally another user would invariably try calling/chatting. The patch running the whole time would then partner up another call to the first caller, and send messages from the first person to the second, and vice versa. This way, both victims would think that they were talking to a third, fictitious user, while they were instead talking to each other." Heh. Obviously, this prank was not intended to cause serious harm, but it shows that there are ways to get around the system. Skype also doesn't provide a way to verify another user's identity.

So why should we keep Skype at SJSU? IT consultant Steve Sloan wrote a great post about why Skype is important to have at this university. Skype allows faculty and students alike to collaborate with people all over the globe in an exciting new way. Sure, there are other alternatives to Skype that have less of the problems mentioned above, but did you know that Skype handles 7% of the world's long-distance minutes? As a university in Silicon Valley, it's important that we have access to the hottest technology in order to remain a competitive school. So is Skype worth the cost for SJSU? My vote is yes, it is.

Online vs. Print News

Today I compared the print version of the San Jose Mercury News with the online version. The first thing I noticed was that the front page articles in the print version were only linked to on the home page of the Mercury News' website, while blurbs from newer stories were written out. I can certainly see why they would want to do this. First, the featured story on the print version was an anniversary piece on a traffic column. Interesting to loyal Mercury readers, but not really big news. It makes sense to put more newsworthy stories on the webpage as they get them, therefore keeping their publication up-to-date and interesting. This is a major advantage that online media has over print; there's no limit to how many stories they can put up per day, and no gaps in the news between one printing and the next.

I looked next at the Arts & Entertainment sections of both the print and online Mercury. The "featured story" on the website was the last article on the front page of the print "A & E" section, a story on a T.V. show that premiers tonight called "Heroes." The rest of the front page stories were linked to, but did not warrant a blurb. I wonder why they made that choice? Perhaps they figured that people who log on to the Mercury website for quick news would be more interested in a T.V. show premiering tonight than a longer piece on Jon Heder (the featured piece in the print version). Maybe they figure that those wanting more in-depth news will take the time to click on a link.

Another thing I noticed in the Entertainment section online was an "Events" tool, which allows you to post events or search for things happening on a particular day. This certainly seems like a useful feature. In fact, one of my favorite things about online newspapers is the ability to preform searches to find the information you need.

After this experience, I might just start reading the online version of the Mercury more. After all, the news is more current, there are more features, and it doesn't stain my hands black. Now my only dilemma is how to get my crossword fix...

Access Denied

So for the past couple of weeks I've been putting together a piece for Access (the school magazine) to run in their Spring 2007 issue. It's a fun piece: I asked ten RA's in the SJSU dorms to reveal their funniest/scariest/wildest experiences on duty. All was going well (and I was getting some great material) until I got the news today: I can't publish the stories. Apparently the RAs' supervisors got wind of my piece and forbid the RA's from talking to me and are contacting Access to ask that they not run my piece.

So, I will admit that it was bad on my part to not have done more research to begin with, and clear my idea with the campus housing people. Still, most of the stories I collected were light-hearted, with no names mentioned. I had also been in the process of negotiating with Access to keep my sources' names from being published anyway, since many of the RA's didn't want to embarrass the residents in the stories, even if they weren't named.

So the question rolling around in my head is, could this be considered a form of marketpalce censorship? Both Access and campus housing are affiliated with SJSU. Obviously, the housing department can't control what Access decides to publish, but then again it's not in Access's best interests to publish something that could potentially be damaging to a part of the university. Just something to think about. (Disclaimer: I don't think either the housing department or Access have done anything wrong in this case, I'm just interested in how the system works.)

I understand why campus housing wouldn't want RA's discussing incidents. Essentially, it makes them look bad. It can also hurt residents' confidence in the system, and infringe on their right to privacy. I believe that there's a level of confidentiality that should be upheld regarding incidents in the dorms, especially those of a more serious nature. So naturally, when I heard that my piece probably wouldn't run, I wasn't all that upset. In fact, I would much rather it not run in light of the current situation, as most of the RA's I interviewed are friends or just very nice people that I don't want to get in trouble. You see, technically Access might still be able to publish my article, as I have already sent them a fair amount of material. I seriously doubt that they're still considering it at this point, but on the off-chance that they did, these RA's could lose their jobs if identified. And that's something I really don't want on my conscience, or my record as a journalist.

It's funny, because in my magazine writing class today, (before I knew about the problem with my piece) I asked my teacher, "What happens if you publish something that a source has requested be off the record? Can they sue you?"

His reply was: "I don't know about suing you, but you can bet your sources are going to dry up real quick."

Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

UPDATE: Boy was I wrong: Access wants to go ahead and publish this article, with or without the OK of the housing department. Still, I've talked to housing and made arangements to have them look over my article. I'm going to do this with their OK, or not at all.

UPDATE: Now I'm a little confused. I've been in contact with one person in the housing department who has approved my piece, however, I've still been hearing from some of the RAs that their supervisors do not want any of my stories to be published, and are strictly forbidding them from talking to me.

UPDATE: Look for my byline in next semester's issue. :-)

Propoganda: It's Everywhere!

Q: What forms of propaganda have you encountered lately?

A: After reading Wikipedia's definition of propaganda, I'd say quite a few. Here are just several examples I noticed this week:

1. Testimonials. I've been looking on eBay for a good pair of earplugs (I live in a noisy area), and have come across many listings that feature testimonials, which are a form of propaganda. Sure, they might be from real people who are telling the truth about their experiences, but they are put up by companies to influence a person's opinion without necessarily showing all sides. And come on, how many negative testimonials are you going to see in an ad? The purpose of propaganda is to influence, not inform.

2. T.V. commercials. OK, this one is rather obvious. But I just wanted to talk a little about one commercial I saw in particular, namely the new Gap ad, which resurrects Audrey Hepburn to sell skinny black pants. Obviously, the Gap is using a classic icon to appeal to fans of the late movie star, in a form of the propaganda technique of quoting out of context. As if Audrey Hepburn would be caught dead (heh) selling herself out so shamelessly to advertise merchandise made in some poor third world country. As Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post protests in her article, "It’s a crime and a sin what the Gap has done to her." I agree.

3. Spike Lee's documentary, When the Levees Broke. We watched parts of this film in my MCOM 105 class. It's about four hours long, but utterly riveting and heart wrenching all the way. It tells the story of the devastation or Hurricane Katrina and the government's (lack of) response through the eyes of the people of New Orleans. Again, I'd imagine that all of the facts presented in the documentary are for the most part true, but the film is only presented from one side. It uses emotional appeals to the extreme, showing bodies floating in the water and lingering on the tears of the victims. Now, before someone gets the wrong idea, I want to say that I do not think this was a malicious use of propaganda. A documentary does not need to explore all points of view, and in this case I think the perspective shown is one that needs to be seen. People should just be aware that it is a biased perspective.

4. The Kite Runner. I'm still exploring whether or not to keep this one on the list. It seems, in creating propaganda, that the key lies in the intent of the author. Was Khaled Hosseini trying to influence the opinions of the reader, or was he simply writing good fiction? So far I'm seeing hints of stereotyping, and a lot of emotional appeals. You could argue that all novels are tainted by the views of their creators, but something tells me this book has more than your average dose of persuasion...