What Silver Spoon?

It's an old phrase used to describe people of privileged backgrounds. The kind of person who has always had everything they wanted and needed, though those two may not be the same thing.

Those are the enviable, and not so enviable, people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

They are perhaps the kind of people everyone wants to be because they don't have to worry about getting anything.

But when it comes to information, far too many people seem to think they need to be "fed" everything on a silver spoon.

I find this tendency to be quite annoying because I am a very independent woman. I don't like to rely on other people if I can avoid it. And while it isn't easy for me to do, I do know when to ask... Even if it makes me uncomfortable.

When it comes to information, if I don't know what something is or understand an idea, then I go and look it up.

Thanks to the Internet, there is plenty of information available, literally at your fingertips! You just have to be a little careful of the information you look at because sources online may not be reliable.

Despite the fact that not all the information on the Internet is reliable, it is there and easily available.

For an example, I saw a comment on an online story a while back that kind of irritated me. The story was about HOV lanes in Northern Virginia. The person's comment was basically a demand for information on what HOV lanes are. Actually it was more of an accusation that the news outlet wasn't providing enough information.

I am old enough to know what HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) and HOT (high-occupancy traffic) lanes are, though they have existed for almost twice the number of years I have been around. And with just a few quick key strokes, I was able to look up even more information than I could possible want to know about HOV/HOT lanes.

I personally believe that it is better to seek out information for yourself rather than sit around and prat that I don't know what something is because people won't tell me.

I see a word I don't know... A good old dictionary will help solve that. And if my old hard copy of the dictionary doesn't have the word (which does sometimes happen, especially since language changes - see my last post - and words come into the language or drop out), there are quite a few online dictionaries you can use.

I see a topic I don't know much about... A quick Google search will probably bring up lots of resources about that topic, which I can then peruse at my leisure.

For an example of one of these, anyone who has seen the special collector's edition of James Cameron's Avatar will have seen the scene in which Jake talks about the Hallelujah Mountains and what holds them up. He says Grace told him it was a MagLev Effect.

Now I had an inkling of what that might be, but I wanted to check. So I looked up Magnetic Levitation, because that was what I thought it was. Turns out I was right, but I still looked it up!

No one told me to do so. I did it on my own for my own personal edification.

Why am I making a point about all this?

The ease of access to information is one part of my point.

But the other part is that these kinds of comments are being made on online stories. That means who ever is posting those kind of comments is using a computer, a modem, a browser... This means that person has almost instant access to a whole lot of information.

So posting something that in essence is accusing a news organization of not posting enough information is kind of silly, don't you think?

Information is readily available. You don't need to have it fed to you. Look things up for yourself and draw your own conclusions based on what you learn.

There are many points of view you can select. Please try not to limit yourself to only things that make you feel comfortable. Comfort can be misleading and change is rarely comfortable.

Weathering the Weather

I've heard it more times than I care to count - Viewers are most interested in the weather, so even though the homepage of a given site will be the first to come up, many will click immediately on the weather tab.

So one of the main functions of a person like me is to help viewers get the information they need as quickly as possible when it comes to weather alerts.

I've seen it happen that on a day when there is severe weather, views on a news Website will skyrocket.

Where I currently work, one of our busiest online days involved a very nasty winter storm that dumped a huge amount of snow on the area. We hit more than 200,000 views on that day alone.

And the weather has been very freaky these last couple of years. From the record-breaking snowfall amounts in my part of Virginia in 2009/2010 to the kind of nasty, super humid heat you don't normally see this far inland. Now we're got the kind of biting cold I haven't felt since I moved out of New Jersey more than a decade ago.

The effects of this crazy weather will be felt on all levels of society from the outdoorsy who like to hunt but won't have as large an opportunity to do so because of falling wildlife populations, to people looking at supplies in the grocery stores where prices are climbing, to people born under that wandering star who want to get away but can't afford it because gas has gotten so high...

So I understand that people want to know what the weather's going to do. Then there are the calls from people asking, "Is it gonna storm tomorra?" Well, when they start giving you their exact address and expect you to give them a weather forecast for that location, it's just a tad ridiculous.

I think my biggest beef with weather complaints comes when I get yelled at by a viewer because the station is cutting in every 15 minutes for a weather alert, say a tornado warning, and the person couldn't watch one of his or her favorite shows. The complaint being that the warning didn't cover that specific person's area, so why was the station interrupting his or her entertainment?

Take a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for example. Or that Tornado Warning. Or a Winter Weather Warning. First off, the National Weather Service is NOT going to issue one of these alerts just on a whim!

Like people who scream "global warming" (though the newer "global climate change" may be more applicable) is a myth, that it's just a fantasy, but fail to consider that scientists must use the Scientific Method to reach conclusions and that method requires data to be replicable... There is science behind what the NWS predicts.

Predictions may not be all that good days out, but within a couple of hours or even minutes, they're usually pretty accurate. There is no such thing as a "guaranteed forecast," because that's an oxymoron!

So we've got a warning out there. Even if it's a hyper-local one, say for just one town, there is still a need to get that information out to all. Such weather developments, when they occur, can be quite fast moving, which means they may affect more than just the initial place under the issued warning.

This is especially true for tornadoes, to which anyone who has lived in "Tornado Alley" will attest as they have seen such storms tear across the landscape at breakneck speeds, wreaking havoc and destruction in their wake.

Sometimes warnings only cover one part of an area, say the eastern section of a given county. And then a second one can crop up that covers a different portion of the same county for a different time frame... So more people affected!

The sheer numbers are what matter here. Television stations want to keep people safe, so even if your favorite show is being cut off by the weather alerts, it's still a heads up, especially in smaller markets that cover a "small" area. Why? Because of the size of the area, you're more likely to be affected by the same situation.

And in truth, the Shenandoah Valley is not that big.

In order to get the relevant information out in a timely fashion, news outlets are using numerous resources ranging from cut-ins on air to text alerts to statuses on Facebook.

For the text messages, a person can sometimes sign up to get alerts for just a specific place, say the county in which that person lives. But for the on-air and online stuff, they can't be that specific.

So if I put up a marquee on the Website, a Desktop Alert crawl or a status on Facebook announcing a weather alert, everyone is going to see the same message no matter where they are. I can't assign such a thing to only show itself to people living in a certain area or using a certain IP address.

On top of that, weather situations sometimes change so quickly, no one person can keep up. On those kinds of days, I will often put up a message saying, "Tune in for information as it becomes available" rather than try to update a marquee or status with every change...

Even I know seeing a ton of similar messages gets irritating, so I try and keep such messages to a minimum if I can... Though I've gotten in trouble for both sending out too many and sending out too few... If that makes any sense.

One the one hand, some people appreciate it and the higher-ups encourage frequent messages to the viewers. Then you have the people that find it annoying and say they are going to stop watching/reading because of it...

Caught between the viewers/readers and the boss. Never a fun position in which to find yourself. And so the fulcrum continues its endless dance to find balance...

The weather is always changing, as any meteorologist will tell you. You don't like the weather right now? Out in Columbia, Missouri, people say just wait a few minutes because it'll change.

And news people like me can only try to keep up. I'm no Data! Nor am I Watson. (Not even Sherlock's companion...) So I'm along for the ride just as much as anyone else in the community.

We want to help people know what's coming and how they can protect themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. And we will use every resource at our disposal to do so.

So keep a sailor's weather eye to the sky and an emergency TV or radio nearby!

Oddities of Inspiration

I recently noticed something about my blog that somewhat displeases me.

My last three posts all say they went up November 1.

The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.

However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.

I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.

I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...

I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.

Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...

As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.

I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.

As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.

For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.

Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...

For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.

It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.

I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.

So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.

So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.

Addendum to Benefit or Bane

Very early on, I wrote a post about most news outlets using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even back then, I had noticed a rather disturbing trend in viewer/reader interaction through such sites.

For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.

However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.

I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.

To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.

To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.

Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.

Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.

Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.

For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.

Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.

That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.

Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.

Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.

You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.

They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.

You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.

Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.

Truly small-minded and ridiculous.

Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.

Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.

In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.

I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)

So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.

Posted in December 2010.

Benefit or Bane?

Facebook and Twitter, they've appeared everywhere now. People are often saying follow us or tweet us... Share with us every thing in your lives. For journalism, the question I think needs to be asked is quite simply is this trend a benefit or a bane?

For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.

I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)

People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.

Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.

You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.

Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.

Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.

Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.

Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.

Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!

So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.

I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.

And the body says... STOP!

Probably one of the really bad things about the Internet is that it never stops. It's on all day, every day. But eventually, the physical body working to maintain anything online simply has to stop. We have to eat, sleep, recharge our bodies. If we don't, we pay a heavy fine.

I'm just getting over paying that fine. Having pushed myself too far, I over-extended. And came down with pneumonia. While I have had pneumonia before, it hasn't knocked me down quite this hard before. Three days during which I could hardly breathe. Simply standing became an arduous task, almost as hard as trying to keep a constantly changing breaking news story up to date.

Thus, the long spell during which I haven't posted.

I can only hope I don't have to go on a second round of antibiotics, because keeping up with that is pretty hard when it comes to working online. It happened several times I was so occupied with my job that I forgot to take my pill... The janitor in the building got a good chuckle out of watching me dive for it one evening when I realized I was about two hours late.

So even though the Internet is constantly updating, it takes people like me to do it in many cases. But we are nothing more than people, which means we have limits. If we hit those limits and we ignore our bodies (or other aspects of our physical and mental well being), then our task must fall on other shoulders until we get back on our feet. Sometimes that recovery is quick and sometimes it isn't. I can be very glad I didn't end up in the hospital with this one, but that's no guarantee I won't someday in the future if I keep going the way I have.

In this market, simply having a job is a relief, but it also places extra stress on the people with jobs to do everything they can to keep that job and keep their bosses happy. Thus we fall victim to our own fear. The fear that we may be next, the fear we will wake up one day and be handed that pink slip, the fear that we simply aren't good enough no matter how hard we try. Even if we consciously know our jobs won't (or maybe can't) be eliminated, our unconscious minds still dwell on the "what ifs."

It takes dedicated people to keep the Internet up and running with all that information, especially on news sites. However, even the most dedicated person must eventually close the program, shut down the computer and leave the desk. Even when working from home, the Internet-based worker has to stop at some point.

Even if you are one of those that would be willing to expand your training (and I do count myself as such a one), this kind of field makes that very difficult. Between the need to keep up with daily tasks of posting and editing, trying to learn the new technology that is constantly coming out adds yet another stress to an already overloaded person.

It gets rather freaky when you start to dream of work. For example, watching text scroll across the screen (or sometimes pull a Matrix on you and be scrolling down in random-seeming columns) behind your eyelids. Even after that computer is off, you still see the screen and the slots that must be filled. It's like you never leave the computer behind, even when you burrow into your pillow. Please do not consider this a complaint. I am merely describing something that has actually happened to me. I have even overheard some of my co-workers describing strange dreams that took place at "work" while their minds and bodies were supposed to be resting.

Because of such things, rest is not restful and stress can continue to build in the subconscious. That makes our bodies weaker when it comes to staying healthy. We can try and try and try, but eventually, it will catch up and take you down. So beware. Listen to what your body has to say. If it says, "Stop," you had best listen.

Filling in...

I sometimes can't help but feel that I didn't quite explain something correctly. For instance, I feel as though I have left something out of my earlier post, some key stone that completes a thought.

It often happens that some connection forms in my head that just doesn't translate well into the written word. So while what I think makes sense (at least to me), explaining to someone else the process and the connections in my mind just doesn't work.

For instance, anyone in journalism will probably already know that it is a very detail-orientated field, but someone outside the field might not realize just how detail orientated it is. Fact checking and accuracy are just two of the words used to describe this.

When it comes to the Internet, there are all kinds of "sources" a person can access, but how do you know the accuracy of that "information?" In some instances, you can't know. Some people will simply write whatever they want without checking to make sure their information is correct. For journalists, that could almost be counted as a crime, say libel. For an online journalist, that makes it even more difficult to make sure information is accurate and correct.

Indeed, expanding into the blogosphere makes the going even more treacherous. Because a blog is simply one person writing their thoughts, beliefs and notions, those writings do not have to be checked for accuracy. There are more blogs out there than can be counted, but most are not acceptable sources of information for a professional writer.

So usable online sources are mostly reduced to Websites produced by government agencies and known organizations (certain charities, local groups or the like).

Journalistic sources try for accuracy, but they can make mistakes. That's where a person like me comes in for I'm is supposed to catch the mistakes before they become a problem. Still, no one person can catch everything. So mistakes are bound to happen.

The good thing about the Internet is that you can, in most cases, go back into the original and make whatever changes you need. There is no real requirement to print a correction or re-air a story with a correction.

While a Website like Wikipedia may not be the best resource to use for information, it is an excellent example of just this process, because members can go in and make corrections when called for without a lot of fuss. But remember the scandal that broke a while back when Wikipedia found out some of its "contributors" were lying about their credentials and similar other activities.

The Internet has its own advantages and disadvantages, just as any information source does. Being an online journalist means I'm one of the people trying to make sure the information is correct, accurate, easy to access and more.

I'm sure I'll think of more concerning what it is to be an online journalist in the future days. And I'll write it down as it comes to me.

Being an online journalist

The Internet has been changing the face of journalism everywhere... Newspaper reporters might need to know how to shoot and edit video or television reporters might need to rewrite their stories for an online newspaper. People like me have to know some web design, Internet language, text editing skills and more just so we can put content online where people can see it. The University of Missouri School of Journalism (from which I got my degree) even created an entirely new department just to help reporters be able to cross media: Convergence Journalism.

You might ask, "What is Convergence Journalism?" I'm sure other people out there will have a slightly different idea of what it is, but for me, Convergence Journalism is taking aspects of newspaper, magazine, photography, television and radio journalism, and combining them all online.

However, there's a twist... The Internet has changed dramatically since news outlets first started posting content. It still is changing and will continue to do so. New programs, new languages, new design options, all these make it very hard to keep up. It seems that no matter what skills I learned, parts of them are outdated within months. I could probably study new online skills 24 hours a day and still not be able to keep up.

It often seems the same for computer technology. Hello! Anybody been paying attention to how many new OSs have come out in the last few years? At least businesses aren't investing in the new technology as soon as it comes out! So there I can at least continue to do my job with most of it...

This is not an easy field. It never has been. The hours are long; the mental strain sometimes overwhelms; news never stops. The Internet is just taking that further because people can connect 24/7/365. It might be an overload, and it might not. Still, as long as there is a demand, there will have to be people, like me, to fill it.

Here is something you might find interesting, even though it's a little outdated now... Epic 2015. It's a very interesting take on how technology has changed media...