The Fourth Estate

Writing to Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Sat, 11 Mar 2017 19:20:00 +0000

Me, in January: "I will blog about all the awful things Trump is doing. Keeping up on it will keep me informed!"

Me, now: "OH MY GOD THERE IS SO MUCH NEWS ALL THE TIME, CAN'T IT JUST STOP?" (Also, me: "Oh yeah. If I want to blog I have to keep this POS laptop charged.")

I've been making lots of calls to my Congressman. I have form letters spread around the house and in my email. It's so nice when the letters (don't) address your specific concerns. But they come out quickly, so I guess I can compliment him on his efficient staff.

A couple of weeks ago, Congressman Dan Newhouse was invited to a town hall. He declined to attend, but the community held one anyway and submitted written questions along with video recorded questions for him. They've all been delivered to his office and within a couple of days of the written questions being delivered, I got the following responses.

To the question: "I see you are a cosponsor of the BRIDGE act. I would like to know more about what you are doing to support Dreamers." (I did not ask about DACA)

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I sincerely appreciate you reaching out and sharing your views on this important issue.

On January 12, 2017, Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO) introduced H.R. 496, the Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy (BRIDGE) Act, and I was proud to cosponsor this important legislation. H.R. 496 provides young students and veterans, who were brought to the U.S. as children and grew up in the United States, with work authorization and temporary protection from removal for three years. By providing temporary protection for these individuals the bill ensures they can continue to work and study in the U.S., while Congress debates broader legislation to fix our broken immigration system.

Since our country’s founding, America has been a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Our communities in Central Washington are a testament to the contributions of immigrants to the fabric of American society, and it is important that we remember our history and heritage as we address this important issue. President Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders on DACA left individuals and families across the country in legal limbo, after the courts struck down the President’s unilateral actions. Congress has the sole authority to write laws that provide a humane solution to our broken immigration system, which is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. I was proud to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 496 and protect children brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own. These children and young adults deserve certainty and stability while Congress works together to provide for long-term immigration reform, a permanent solution for DACA individuals, increased border security, and a reasonable and accessible immigration system going forward.

Thank you for contacting me on this critically-important matter and I encourage you to stay engaged with my office as Congress debates solutions to the many immigration issues currently facing our country.

I hope you will continue to be in contact as Congress debates the many issues of importance to the country. I also encourage you to connect with me on Facebook and Twitter and to sign up for my e-newsletter for the latest updates on my work to represent Central Washingtons views in our nations capital.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with meI am always glad to hear from constituents of the 4th District. It is an honor and privilege to serve you in Congress.

To the question, "Do you support HR 610?" (It ... sounds like he does not? Given that the letter suggests I might know that the bill I asked about exists, it's safe to say the question is not really answered).I DID express concern about cuts to the school lunch program and nutritional changes.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns about eliminating federal involvement in education decisions. It is important to hear from constituents as I work in Congress representing the people of Washington’s 4th District. I sincerely appreciate you reaching out and sharing your views on this important issue.

As you may know, Representative Steve King (R-IA) introduced H.R. 610, the Choices in Education Act of 2017. This legislation would repeal the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and would create an education voucher program in its place and limit the power of the Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education would have no authority to impose further requirements on elementary and secondary education outside of issuing block grants to states that are complying with the voucher programs, and school choice requirements set under this legislation. Effectively, this would transfer all education decisions to the state. To meet the school choice requirements, states must allow parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state, or homeschool their child. Additionally, H.R. 610 would repeal the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) standards on school nutrition, and establish new nutritional standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs.

H.R. 610 has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. You will be pleased to know no committee action on the bill has occurred nor has been scheduled on this legislation.

Additionally, last Congress, I was proud to support the Every Student Succeeds Act. I voted to support this legislation because I believe our students will receive the best formal education possible when local stakeholders such as parents, teachers and administrators are able to assist children in reaching their potential. While the bill did not contain every provision I would have preferred, it accomplishes several important reforms to the federal role in K-12 education. The legislation gave states wide discretion in setting goals for public schools, as well as the authority to identify and intervene in low-performing schools.

I hope you will continue to be in contact as Congress debates the many issues of importance to the country. I also encourage you to connect with me on Facebook and Twitter and to sign up for my e-newsletter for the latest updates on my work to represent Central Washingtons views in our nations capital.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with meI am always glad to hear from constituents of the 4th District. It is an honor and privilege to serve you in Congress.

Calling Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:16:00 +0000

Quick housekeeping thing: If anyone reading this remembers how to make jumps within posts work correctly, please let me know. The text for the jump link shows up, but the entire post is above it. Is this just my computer?

As much as I loved being a journalist and desperately miss it, the best part about leaving the industry is that I'm now allowed to express political opinions in public. In college I drove a car held together with prayer and political bumper stickers, and while not putting stickers on my car was easy, having to refrain from protesting or calling my Congressmen was not. While I've spoken to politicians in person who didn't know I was a journalist, I've never until now been able to call them to voice my opinion. (When I was in high school, I wrote several letters to presidents and Senators. I have a stack of form responses somewhere. But I haven't written an opinionated letter to a politician since the 20th Century.
So about two weeks ago, I finally picked up the phone and called. First, I called Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat. I knew this call would be preaching to the choir, but that's what makes it a good first one. She is a ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, and so is working on the confirmation hearings for Betsy DeVos, Trump's abysmal nominee to lead the Department of Education. The phones were busy so I had to leave a message. I simply said, "I know Sen. Murray is on my side here, but I'm calling to express my extreme concern about Betsy DeVos. She's horribly unqualified and as a parent of a future public school student, she terrifies me."

Then came the harder call. Congressman Dan Newhouse. He's the Republican who represents Washington's Fourth District. He seems like a nice man, but there is very, very little he and I agree on politically. We probably agree on some things related to the clean up of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, but that's about it. I voted for him twice, because in both this election and 2012, he was running against someone I don't even want to take a tour of Congress, let alone represent me. (Washington State has a "top-two" primary, meaning that the top two candidates in the primary go to the general regardless of party. When you're a Democrat in the Tri-Cities, this often means there isn't going to be a candidate you want to vote for.

One of my biggest concerns is the ACA. Now, what I want is single-payer, universal health care that doesn't require relying on giant corporations to decide what kind of care you get. But that's not happening. So what I care about is the provisions of the ACA that are popular and help keep vulnerable people alive. I dialed and told a nice man that I know several very sick young children who rely on the ACA to stay alive. I told him if those kids get denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or lifetime coverage limits, their lives are in danger. It is unconscionable, I said, to allow young children to die because of a political grudge. And I said he doesn't get to call himself pro-life if he's not going to work to keep those provisions. I also sent a more detailed email with the same information, but stated a tad more eloquently than I could get out on the phone without letting the staffer who answered get a word in. Below his his response. I will be fact-checking the shit out of this so that I can respond.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is important to hear from constituents as I work in Congress representing the people of Washington’s 4th District. I sincerely appreciate you reaching out and sharing your views on this important issue.

The framers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) intended that law to accomplish two goals – reduce the number of uninsured Americans without health insurance, and reduce the costs of coverage. The law has woefully underperformed on both measures. We need only look at the health insurance exchange marketplace here in Washington State to see that costs are on the rise while consumer choice is diminishing. For 2017, the Washington State Insurance Commissioner approved an average 13.1 percent premium increase, coming on the heels of a 4.2 percent increase the year prior, and a 1.9 percent increase in 2015. Additionally, consumer choice is rapidly declining. For 2016, 136 plans were offered statewide by 12 insurers. That reduced to 46 plans offered by just seven insurers for 2017. For many consumers across the state, they now have access to just one or two providers in their counties.

Proponents of the ACA try to claim that the law has been successful in reducing the number of uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while it may be true that 22 million people have attained “coverage” through the ACA – 10 million fewer than expected when the law first passed – nearly two-thirds of those enrollees have come under the expansion of the Medicaid program, not through the private insurance market. Sadly, the ACA placed enrollees into an already broken system, as Medicaid was already experiencing physician shortages prior to the ACA. This explosion in Medicaid enrollees has only aggravated this shortage, as well as increased wait-times for enrollees and the cost of the program. A Medicaid actuarial report from August 2016 found that the average cost per enrollee was 49 percent higher than estimated just a year prior – in large part due to beneficiaries seeking care at more expensive hospital emergency rooms due to difficulty finding a doctor and long waits for appointments.

I believe we owe it to the American people to repeal the ACA, and replace it with an alternative that embraces free market principles, will actually help to reduce costs, and will protect certain consumer safeguards supported by most Americans. For example, it is vital that we preserve coverage options for those who have preexisting conditions, and allow students and young adults the option of maintaining coverage with their parents. Since joining Congress in 2015, I have sponsored and supported several bills that will do just that. Most recently, I supported H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 240-189, and was vetoed by President Obama on January 8, 2016.

As you may be aware, President-Elect Trump has pledged the repeal and replacement of the ACA upon taking office. I look forward to joining him in this effort, and restoring choice and affordability to our healthcare system, while preserving protections for those most in-need. Rest assured that I will keep your views in mind as Congress discusses repeal and replacement options in the coming weeks and months.

I hope you will continue to be in contact as Congress debates the many issues of importance to the country. I also encourage you to connect with me on Facebook and Twitter and to sign up for my e-newsletter for the latest updates on my work to represent Central Washingtons views in our nations capital.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with meI am always glad to hear from constituents of the 4th District. It is an honor and privilege to serve you in Congress.

Rep. Newhouse's staff and I are going to become very well-acquainted. His number is programmed into my phone.

Welcome to the Trump Administration

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 23:45:00 +0000

Boy, it's been a while. Short recap of what I've been up to since the last time I posted here: Had a baby and realized newborns and the copy desk vampire hours don't mix. Left journalism for a 9-5 job in the public affairs office of one of my area school districts. Left that job after 90 days for a variety of reasons that aren't really appropriate to discuss in a public blog. Became a substitute teacher and sub paraeducator. Still trying to figure out exactly what I want in a full-time position.

Now I've decided I need a place to post about the various ways in which Donald Trump's presidency is affecting our rights. I'll post fact-check articles and anything else I think is relevant to helping journalists and other Americans wade through the bullshit. Lots of friends ask me to fact-check stories they've read or to vouch for the reliability of a given news site, so I figure it's worth a shot to do it here. I'll also use this to keep track of correspondence I send to and from members of Congress.

Blogger tells me I'm supposed to somehow tell European Union readers about cookies. I don't know what that means, but if for some reason someone other than Bethany is reading this, and if for an even weirder reason, that person is in the EU, there are cookies. If they are Oreos, please share. I'm throwing together this first post while cooking soup for a friend's meal train, so forgive me if it's all over the place.

I guess I'll begin with a short list of news organizations I have been impressed with lately.

The Washington Post. The Post has done some fantastic reporting on Trump ever since he won the Republican nomination. A digital subscription isn't very expensive and it's worth the money. For one thing, Trump hates them and it will piss him off if their subscriptions go up. For another, the reason he hates them is that they produce accurate stories that are critical of his campaign and administration. Reporter David Fahrenthold worked himself to the bone throughout the campaign investigating Trump's claims about his charitable giving.
Vanity Fair. I've always liked Vanity Fair, but it's another publication Trump has been especially critical of. (Publisher Graydon Carter is the one who started the joke about Trump's small hands many years ago.) After the magazine published a hilarious, terrible review of the Trump Grill, Trump responded by Tweeting about how low the circulation was. It skyrocketed within days. I know people who have never read this magazine and are turned off by the fashion ads and overwhelming perfume aroma, but it's worth the subscription. Their political writing is fantastic and even if you use it to line the litter box, a few bucks a year to annoy the Orange One and support hard-working reporters who are not going to be intimidated is worth it.
Teen Vogue. If you had told me a year ago that I would be recommending Teen Vogue, I would have said you were insane. But this magazine has been doing great work lately. The piece that really convinced me is this op-ed about Trump's gaslighting of America.
The New York Times. Always. I will always trust the New York Times.
ProPublica: Non-profit public interest journalism.
PolitiFact. People tend to claim Politifact is biased whenever they don't agree with a Truth Meter ruling. But I've found that while they're sometimes harsher or easier than I might have been, their reasoning is usually sound.

That seems like enough for now. I will do my best to keep udpating. My blog access is limited to times that I remember to charge my cranky Chromebook, because I have more to say than I can type on a tablet or phone. I'll be updating my suggested links along the side of the blog as time goes on. I'm also going to take this moment to brag about the fact that I remembered the correct html tags to make that list!

Storifying it up

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:34:00 +0000

Layoffs at the Oregonian

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:03:00 +0000

Newspapers, blogging and the Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:43:00 +0000

I started this blog more than 5 years ago as a class project. I kept up with it pretty well over that year, then had a three-year hiatus. I always thought it was a good idea, I just didn't know how to work it in with my life. I'm trying to be inspired again, so I'm reposting the very first post from February 2008. Sorry for the crappy formatting. I have to reteach myself how this works.

I was 10 years old the first time I worked for a newspaper. I woke up one morning and decided that I wanted to start a newspaper for my fourth grade class. I convinced my classmates to write various features, which I edited, typed up on my parents' PC (running Windows 3.1 and a horrible word processing program) and pasted onto printer paper before Xeroxing the pages and handing them out to my classmates. We were very proud of the final product, which the class decided to call "What's Up?"

At the time, I didn't realize that I would later realize that I was born to spend the rest of my life working in the media. I certainly didn't anticipate how computers, and later the Internet, would change the newspaper industry. Back then, my 10-year-old self thought the clip art I found on the now-ancient computer that still sits in my parents' church office was cutting-edge technology. Today, I am sitting on my couch accessing The Washington Post over a wireless Internet connection on a computer that would have fit inside the Lisa Frank Trapper Keeper in which I carried the issues of "What's Up"

Although I've blogged for years — I began after I finished my undergraduate education because I missed writing — the idea of blogging as an alternative media form or even the idea of newspapers online bothers me a bit. Too often these days, real, balanced journalism is replaced by bloggers on one side or another of a debate. This is not always bad — I read a few myself — but when people start to believe that the opinions of biased bloggers equates to a "fair and balanced" version of the truth it becomes detrimental to what journalists should be attempting to accomplish. I've used blogs for personal posts — recent entries include a piece on why I love Oregon, a story about a weird girl I met on the Amtrak train and photos of my parents' new puppy. It's certainly a nice way to kill a few minutes and feel connected to the few friends who read the blog. I've also used blogs to share my opinions, always linked to newspaper stories, and while I stand by the things I wrote, I would always want readers to read the newspapers and form their own opinions rather than think that what I wrote was fact. ...

This blog is a class project, and while I seem to be more familiar with blogging than others in my class, I hope I can use it on my resume someday. It's certainly a medium that budding journalists need to be familiar with, and I do appreciate the use of blogs associated with actual newspapers or news services as a tool to enhance coverage and explain the news in a way that is still fair and accurate but can be more casual than the main coverage. I expect to use this blog to write about the experience of being a new journalist entering the field at a time when technology is leading to rapid and dramatic changes in the field.

I have a love/hate relationship with this. I love computer assisted reporting and all the positive ways computers and the Internet enhance what we do, but I'm scared about what's happening in the industry right now, and the idea of not having an actual paper to spread out in front of me every morning makes me a little sad.

I spend hours a day on the Internet. I scan multiple news sites a day and occasionally read the news blogs. But as long as a physical paper exists, I'll always subscribe. For one thing, I'm afraid that too much time attempting to read small print online with damage my eyesight, but more than that, I enjoy the tactile experience of reading a real paper. Having to click on headlines and work my way through several Web pages to read the entire day's edition is my least favorite way to get the news. I like to spread my New York Times out on the couch, read all the stories on the front page and their jumps, and then work my way backwards through the rest of the section. I like the entire story, complete with photos and headline, to be out in front of me so I can quickly scan the first few graphs and decide what to read. I like the way the ink looks on the page and the way the paper smells. I like that I can fold the paper under my arm and carry it around to pull out on the bus or in the few minutes before class starts. I like tearing the crossword out of the arts section and doing it in pen throughout the day. No technology will ever replace this experience for me.

Back on the horse

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:32:00 +0000

Lately I've really been feeling that I"m missing out on something by not writing. I am going to attempt to revive this blog (I say this late at night as my ambien starts to kick in. It might not take, but I'm pretty determined.) This is a short week for me because of one of the realities of the newspaper industry these days -- the furlough. We have to take a full work week off between this month and the end of the fiscal quarter. Ty always tries to take the first two days of the NCAA basketball tournament off and this year, I'm taking the same time to have the time together. So we'll spend part of the weekend here and part with friends in Ellensburg, but quite a lot of basketball will be watched. The furlough is such a part of life these days that instead of being stressed out about losing the money (although we are), it's just nice to have some time off. That's not to say we WANT to be furloughed -- so if for some reason one of my bosses sees this, furlough is not good. OK. This was just a quick inaugural post, mostly to make sure the blog still existed. But here's hoping I'll keep my promise to myself.

Back in the game

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:03:00 +0000

It's been a busy two years. Short update: I've been working as a newspaper copy editor since 2008, but am now temporarily leaving the industry. I hadn't posted in a while because I wasn't sure what the newspapers' policies on blogging were, but now that my future is a tad uncertain, I'm definitely interested in using this blog as an outlet. I'm hoping to do some freelance writing and may post some of that here.

Random stories of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:22:00 +0000

I found a few interesting stories today that I thought I'd share. The first, from the American Journalism Review, discusses whether Twitter is just the latest techno-fad or can be used as a serious reporting tool.

The article does discuss the fact that may "tweets" are boring and/or useless (I'll admit that mine aren't always interesting); however, it does discuss the many ways in which the micro-blogging site can help reporters.

While I'm sick of the trend of older TV journalists (By that I mean those at least the baby boomer age) "discovering" Twitter and getting all excited about learning the new-fangled technology, I certainly appreciate the possible applications of Twitter as a reporting tool. The first photos of the crash of a plane into the Hudson were posted to Twitter, after all. Is most of the stuff on Twitter pretty useless? Probably. Is it depressing that more people follow Ashton Kutcher than CNN? Absolutely. CAN it be used as a reporting tool (both to find sources and to disseminate information) by journalists who know what they're doing and know the difference between useful information/links and crap? Definitely.

• This article I found today has some reaction to the story I posted a few days ago about that claimed the New York Times had tips about Watergate before the Washington Post but dropped the ball on the story. I'm not familiar with the site the story is on, but it's interesting.

• This story is several days old, but I'm going to post it anyway because it is another example in the debate over who qualifies as a journalist (and when). An unnamed student at San Francisco State University who was present on the scene of a murder refused to talk to police, claiming that journalism shield laws protect him because he was there as part of a photojournalism project for school.

It is a bit unclear whether the SFSU student was with the victim, who was a subject of the project chronicling life in the community, or if the student just happened upon the scene of the crime. But he knew the victim and called police and the victim's family after the murder. An LA Times column says police did confiscate the student's photographs and points out that courts have made it clear that journalism students are covered under shield laws. The student's lawyer, who is quoted in the LA Times column, says there is no evidence the student saw the murder happen. I am of the opinion that student journalists should have the same protection under shield laws as professionals, but the question of who should be protected and under what circumstances is an interesting one in an age where anyone can start a blog, take photos and claim to be a journalist.

Tough times

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:48:00 +0000

There's not much going on here. It's a tough time to be looking for work in journalism, particularly in newspapers. It seems that every time I consider giving up and looking to work for a different medium, something reminds me how exciting it can be to work at a newspaper.

A story in today's New York Times reports that during the Watergate scandal, the director of the FBI allegedly divulged sensitive information to a NYT reporter -- including the involvement of Attorney General John Mitchell as well as White House involvement -- before the Washington Post got the story.

The reporter in question had quit the paper and was leaving to attend law school but went back to the office and told an editor what he had heard. The editor took notes and recorded the conversation. But as we know, the Washington Post got the story first — from Mark Felt, then the number two man at the FBI ("Deep Throat") — and the Times never got the story.

It's rare that we hear about the story the paper didn't get, so it's interesting to look back on now. But what this does for me is remind me of what journalism is all about.

Watergate started out as a cops beat story. What seemed like just a break-in, only interesting because it happened to be at the Democratic headquarters, took down a president because a reporter (who happened to be friends with the number two man at the FBI) followed his instincts and looked into who the burglars were. The question today is, if that NYT editor had followed up on his reporter's tip all those years ago, how would the story be different?

Students do not shed their Constitutional rights ...

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:59:00 +0000

The Supreme Court is hearing an interesting case this week regarding students' rights to privacy. As a journalist, I'm of course interested in Constitutional law, but I'm particularly fascinated by how the Court defines students' rights. When I joined the staff of my junior high school newspaper, one of the first assignments was to read about some famous cases regarding student rights and we wrote a term paper on those cases. My interest in Constitutional law and the First Amendment is what made me want to become a journalist. When I first read about this case a year or so ago, I thought of the cases I studied all those years ago.

In Safford School District v. Redding, the issue is whether school officials were right to require a then-13-year-old girl to strip down to her bra and panties while investigating whether she had prescription ibuprofen in her possession. Another student was caught with 400 mg pills — a dose equivalent to two regular Advil. She told school officials she obtained the pills from Savana Redding, now 19.

Redding's backpack was searched and when officials did not find pills, they forced her to strip down and shake out her bra. She did not have the pills. Her parents were not present and they filed suit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the search to be unconstitutional.

What's really interesting about this case is that there is no real precedent to guide the Court. In 1969, justices ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that regulation of students' First Amendment rights is limited to situations in which the speech is disruptive to the educational process (In this picture: The armband worn by high school student Mary Beth Tinker to protest the Vietnam War). Some other cases, including Hazelwood East v. Kuhlmeier, which applies to regulation of student newspapers, have expanded the rights of school officials to limit speech.

The only ruling that applies to student's Fourth Amendment rights is TLO v. New Jersey. In the 1985 case, a student's purse was searched after she was caught smoking in a bathroom. School officials found marijuana, rolling papers, a large amount of cash, plastic bags and what appeared to be a list of students who owed the girl money. The police were called and the girl later sued, claiming the search was unreasonable. The Court upheld the search, saying school officials have the right to search a student without a warrant if there is reasonable suspicion that something in his or her possession would interfere with the officials' ability to keep the school safe ...

This case seems like a no-brainer, but today's news indicates the justices may be leaning toward an interpretation of the law that could drastically impede students' rights in the future. Justices seem to be leaning toward the idea that the type of drug is irrelevant to whether officials have the right to search a student. This could be an interesting re-interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable search.

In the case currently before the Court, school officials are arguing that the search was reasonable because of the need to keep other students safe.

School officials (and, it seems, some of the Supreme Court justices) defended their actions by claiming they need to protect students from the harmful effects of abusing prescription drugs. While this is of course something schools should do, I see several problems with the argument, not the least of which is that they were basing their search on a single student's story. First of all, if they were so worried that they thought she was hiding pills in her underwear, her parents should have been notified. Second, there was no immediate danger to Redding or other students if they waited for her parents to arrive. Third, there is a world of difference between the types of drugs that are abused and ibuprofen. It is not reasonable to believe that the possession of a non-narcotic pain reliever available over-the-counter poses such a threat to the school that any forced search of a student is Constitutional.

The ruling is expected in June.

2009 Pulitzer Prizes

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:47:00 +0000

This year's Pulitzer for feature writing went to Lane DeGregory of the St. Petersburg Times for a feature on an little girl who had been horribly abused and neglected by her mother. I was excited to learn that this piece won, because it was some of the most powerful reporting I've ever read and I haven't been able to forget it since I read it when it was first published last year.

The article, titled "The Girl in the Window," is very disturbing, and I wouldn't recommend reading it over breakfast, but is a fantastic piece and the reporter is absolutely deserving of the Pulitzer.

The prize for feature photography went to Damon Winter of the New York Times for his coverage of President Obama's campaign.

A list of the rest of the winners can be found here: http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2009.

And here is the rest of it.

Quick update

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:33:00 +0000

I never did get around to updating the situation at the Oregon Daily Emerald. Long story short, the strike ended and among other things that were agreed upon, the board decided to advertise the publisher's position nationally.

Today, I opened my job search email from journalismjobs.com and found this: http://tinyurl.com/djd5eh.

If I had the experience needed for this type of job, I'd apply in a heartbeat.

The journalist's lament

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:29:00 +0000

This weekend, I volunteered to mentor a teenager in a journalism workshop at my old paper. It's the seventh time they've done the workshop, in which high school students come in on a Friday night to hear a guest speaker and have dinner, then on Saturday morning go out and do interviewing and reporting for a story, which they write on Saturday afternoon. It's a pretty good crash-course in what it's like to be a reporter at a daily paper. My experience was a bit different.

The student I mentored was only in eighth grade, making her the youngest to ever to do the workshop. She had no previous experience, but was great to work with. She was enthusiastic and very willing to learn. We went out on Friday night — another first — and covered a DVD release party for "Twilight," which I know nothing about, but which she loves. The best part of the party was that while we both went in expecting a lot of girls her age, what we found was that women my age and older are really, REALLY into "Twilight." Our main characters were a group of women all wearing shirts that read, "Over 30 and dazzled," with pictures of the male lead in the movie on the backs. They were VERY excited about the movie and more than willing to talk about it. When we came back in the morning, we wrote during the time other students were out doing their reporting, so we had time to do a second story. We went out to do a quick piece on a giant yard sale to raise money for the graduation party at one of the high schools. Doing a second story was yet another first for my student. It was a blast, and the photographers on both stories were so great. The photo and story from the "Twilight" party were so good that package wound up running as the centerpiece on today's "Homefront" (what would be the city or metro section in a bigger paper) section.

The weekend was a blast, my student was awesome, and it was great to see so many young people interested in journalism. I don't know how many of them are interested in doing it as a career, but it's still exciting.
For better or for worse, going around with my student helping her interview and write just solidified my determination to stay in journalism. On one hand, it's nice to feel so passionate about something, on the other, the news about daily papers just keeps getting worse and worse. At this point, even if I found a job, there's very little job security. Even a paper that appears to be doing well could make cuts in a few months in order to try to get ahead of the storm. I've decided to move back in with my parents, which will allow me to save my unemployment checks instead of budgeting every cent while I look for something new. Taking away that stress will make it easier to be a bit pickier, but will give me time to look into other options. If nothing else, I'll freelance on the side. I'm already doing a bit of freelance editing and have been accepted to some freelance writing Web sites. I just need to DO the writing. Hopefully it won't take too much longer to find the right job.

Why I love journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:55:00 +0000

The Nieman Foundation at Harvard recently awarded The Charlotte Observer an award for fairness in journalism for its absolutely amazing series on "the human cost" of the poultry industry. The series, which originally ran in February 2008, looks at the injuries suffered by workers at one of the largest poultry plants in the nation. Workers can suffer injuries related to repetitive motion, but for many reasons, the injuries often go unreported and the workers are left in pain, sometimes crippled by their injuries. The series is very long, but is definitely worth a read.

The Web presentation is great — it puts all the articles in one easy-to-access place and has links to interactive features including a diagram of the hand that explains in plain English how these injuries happen — but I wish I could read the series in print. I love to read investigative series in print and see how they unfold each day. It's easier to read that much text on paper rather than on screen and waiting for the next days' articles gives some suspense to picking up the morning paper. That being said, without the Web, I would probably never have read this series.

[via Romenesko]

The lay-off song

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:55:00 +0000

Still no responses in my job search. Most of the ads I've responded to are still active, so here's hoping. In the meantime, I have a lot of time to surf the Internet. I found the site for a journalist and musician who wrote a song about the laid-off copy editor. It's the first song linked. The writer has never worked as a copy editor, but he's got it down. The song would be funny if it weren't for the malaise I'm feeling lately.

"The Copy Editor's Lament."

[via Poynter]

Really, CNBC?

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:01:00 +0000

Jon Stewart's take on CNBC's coverage of the recession. One of the better "Daily Show" segments in the last week or so.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

In support of the Emerald

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:08:00 +0000

Edited to add that the description of the Oregon Daily Emerald publisher job does say the publisher would not have control over content. The entire description, including the following paragraph, was posted on Steve Smith's blog.

“The publisher is responsible for all hiring within the company with the exception of the editor, who is appointed by the board, and the newsroom staff hired by the editor. In areas of business management, the editor reports to the publisher. However, the publisher does not have and cannot exercise any supervisory control or authority over the editorial content of the Daily Emerald newspaper and its related online and mobile sites.”

I've read several articles and posts on this today, and I still feel the staff is right to question the board's actions in this situation and to take the steps they have taken. I had not read the job description (the full description is posted way down in the comments on Smith's blog) before I made my initial post here. I do not believe Smith would be a bad choice for the publisher position (he has since withdrawn his name and the board will be conducting a search), and I am sure the work he has done to try to help the Emerald is appreciated. However, the staff's demands (outlined in the Emerald article linked below and in other sources I've linked to) are reasonable. They are right to be concerned.

The editorial staff at the Oregon Daily Emerald, the independent student paper at the University of Oregon, is on strike.

The Emerald has been completely independent since 1971. It is a contracted service and the only funding from the University comes from a small "subscription fee" that comes out of the overall student incidental fee. As someone who worked for a term as the higher education reporter, I know how necessary it is to ensure that no member of the faculty or staff have control over decisions at the paper. In order to provide the most truthful, objective reporting on the University administration, the paper must remain independent.

The Emerald is keeping a blog to update people on what's going on there. I'm fully in support of what the editors and staff are asking. If the demands are not met today (March 4), the Thursday edition of the Emerald will not be printed. It will be the first time in the paper's 109-year-history that an issue was not printed. I'm afraid for the future of the paper, but I'm proud of the staff for sticking up for the paper's legacy. If I were still a student, I'd be right there with them.

• Romenesko post on the strike here
• Chronicle of Higher Education article
• Oregonian article

The death of newspapers?

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:57:00 +0000

It seems that every day, there's a new article on whether newspapers are really dying. I of course prefer the ones that take a more optimistic view. I liked this interview with Bob Woodward, who says he and his former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee, believe newspapers will survive. It's hard to stay positive under my current circumstances, but reading that one of my heroes believes my industry has a chance makes me feel better.

[via Romenesko]

A victim of the newspaper industry

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:09:00 +0000

It has been far too long since I've posted here. The ethics policy at the paper where I work requires having the editor's permission if you're going to have a public blog, and before I could get permission, the editor resigned.

But, thanks to the economic crisis and the state of the newspaper industry, I am no longer employed at said paper. I was laid off today. We actually were informed of the impending layoffs about three weeks ago and I knew that because I'm the newest person in my position, I had a big target on my back. Through a rather long process, the union members agreed to some concessions involving the 401K and holiday pay and that cut the number of layoffs, as did the generosity of the people in the newsroom, many of whom volunteered to reduce hours and/or take unpaid time off to try to save jobs. It worked -- I lost my job, but I'm the only one in the newsroom to go. It's depressing and I'm freaked out, but I'm happy that all the reporters get to stay. We have some great people who do excellent work and frankly, the paper needs them.

Truthfully, the three weeks of not knowing whether I was going to be able to stay was way worse than getting the news. I didn't tell many people about the layoffs when we first found out because I didn't want to jinx it. But honestly, I'm relieved that I finally just know.
So tomorrow I will go to an unemployment office for the first time in my life and hope that the check will be enough to live on until I find a new job and move out of this town. I was given a severance that's more generous than what the union contract required, so there will be enough money in my savings account to pay for the move. I won't be staying here -- there aren't any other media jobs (at least not the type I want to do) and I didn't want to be here forever anyway -- but it will do until I find a new job.

The thing that makes me sad is that while I have gone through phases of questioning what to do with my life, nothing feels as right as being a working journalist. It's an industry I am passionate about and one that I believe is essential to the maintenance of the entire democratic system. It's hard to even consider leaving that behind. People will say "You have to be flexible and look in other industries," but this is something that I love and something that I want to do. I may have to be flexible about what type of journalism to do, but leaving media behind in general is not an option. If nothing else, I went very far in debt for a master's degree and damnit, I'm going to stay in the field that degree is in.

On to update my resume and think about possible freelance opportunities.

John Edwards

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:15:00 +0000

In recent days, the Raleigh News & Observer in North Carolina has been criticized for "ignoring" a story that has surfaced alleging that John Edwards fathered an illegitimate child with a former employee. The "source" of the original claim was an article in the National Enquirer that cited anonymous sources only.

The only two stories the News & Observer ran were about Edwards' refusal to speak to reporters recently in Washington, D.C., and another about the fact that there is noth father listed on the birth certificate for the baby in question. This is discussed in a column by the paper's ombudsman . The paper's executive editor is quoted as saying: "I don't view the National Enquirer as a credible source of news."

This "story" has me so upset that it's hard

to come up with a response that doesn't involve a lot of cursing and sputtering about the sheer stupidity and gullibility of anyone who believes that a single word in the Enquirer is worth even a second of real journalists' time. Readers, and apparently those on the "blogosphere" have been critical of the paper's refusal (and the "refusal" of other media outlets) to pay as much attention to the story as it would to, say, the Larry Craig Scandal.

Here's the difference. Larry Craig was arrested. There are public records to prove that he was arrested. The sources are on record with real news sources. Larry Craig gave a press conference and "resigned" in the wake of the scandal. Whether or not he actually did the things he is accused of and whether or not he meant those gestures as a sexual proposition is up for question, but the fact that he was arrested? Is NOT. The fact that he was arrested for propositioning a male police officer when he is known for anti-gay stances? Not up for question.

The John Edwards story is something that was printed in a TABLOID. The National Enquirer has been the target of libel suits by several public figures, is known for paying sources for information, and many of its stories have been proven to be false. It is not a newspaper, its stories are not legitimate news and its employees are not journalists.

It is NOT a reliable source for news, and ANYONE who thinks the real media should be covering anything that appears in the Enquirer doesn't know enough about journalism to understand that, and no real newspaper should be bowing to pressure from people who believe that any other media outlet should waste their time reporting on Enquirer stories. I don't know if I should be angry or scared by the fact that people who would consider the Enquirer to be a reliable source of news are allowed to vote. Real journalists are entirely correct for ignoring anything that appears in a tabloid rag and until reliable information surfaces in a respectable media outlet, I would be sorely disappointed in any newspaper that bows to reader pressure to cover the story unless something surfaces to indicate this is in anyway reliable.

Should the media be paying some attention to this? Probably. Reporters should always be keeping their eyes and ears open. Should they be jumping at the chance to cover the "scandal" just because the Enquirer wrote a story? NO. Should they assume that John Edwards' refusal to answer questions comes from anything other than annoyance at the fact that anyone would consider the Enquirer to be a real news source? Hard to say. When a source refuses to answer questions, it generally makes my reporter sense tingle, but I don't blame Edwards in this case.

Stopping to enjoy some music

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:00:00 +0000

When I lived in Washington, D.C., last summer, one of the things I loved was hearing all the street musicians who would perform in or near the Metro stations. I love music and wish I had the nerve or talent to perform in public like that. I have nothing but respect for other musicians and some incredibly talented people played right there on the street. It helps that my favorite musical group, The Coats , got their start singing on the street corner in Seattle.

I didn't always give money to the performers in DC, although I wanted to — I simply don't carry cash and rarely have so much as a quarter on me — but I tried to stop and listen. The first night I was there, while waiting to meet a friend outside the China Town stop, a young man played the saxophone. Another time, just a few blocks away, a man played a brilliant percussion routine on buckets and pots and pans. The effort left him soaked in sweat and drew a large crowd — I was told he played there regularly.

Several times a week until the day the Metro cops chased them away, a group of four men sang old Motown standards A Cappella late at night.

Of course, I was always traveling on the Metro on weekends or at times of the day when people are in less of a rush, but at least a few people stopped for the musicians I saw.

Today, I found a link to a story about what happens when a world-class musician plays in the station during the morning rush hour . The Pulitzer-winning article by Gene Weingarten appeared in the Washington Post Magazine in April 2007. For the article, Weingarten convinced Joshua Bell, a world-class violinist who people pay hundreds of dollars to see, to play inside the L'Enfant Plaza Metro station at rush hour. They discovered that very few people would stop, even for one of the most talented musicians in the world, playing some of the most beautiful music ever written on one of the best instruments ever made (a Stradivarius violin). It's a wonderful article and made me quite sad. Perhaps growing up in the leisurely pace of the Northwest has made me more willing to take time to stop and enjoy the good things in life, or perhaps my own musical training makes me feel compelled to stop and acknowledge when someone is really talented or even when they're not, but are putting themselves out there for the world to judge. Read this article and play the clips — at the end there's one that lets you listen to the entire performance, which you should do. How anyone can hear something that beautiful and not stop, even for a minute, astounds me. I highly recommend taking time out of your day to listen the clip of Bell's performance. The music is just exquisite. Music that beautiful always makes me tear up, and the idea that people could just pass by amazes me. Anything even close to this makes me freeze in my tracks, almost physically unable to keep walking.

It should be said that I found this via a Poynter link to another column in which Weingarten writes that after receiving the Pulitzer for his "original" work, he discovered that a Chicago newspaper had tried the same "stunt" in the '30s, also with a world-class musician. The second Weingarten column is also interesting, but more from a journalistic standpoint

Hard at work

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:00 +0000

In the time since I last posted, I've started my new job. In this position, I'll be working primarily on Web content, including new blogs that my paper is rolling out. It's pretty exciting. In the meantime, I'll try to post a few articles here and there. I meant to post this weeks ago when I found it linked in one of my Poynter.org emails.

The Gazette, a paper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, did a two-week daily series on a prostitution ring in rural Iowa. The whole thing was discovered when a 13-year-old girl who had been kidnapped and forced into prostitution escaped (with the help of the girlfriend of the man in charge) and started talking. The series is quite long -- I think several of the stories could have been condensed -- but it's an interesting piece of investigative journalism and I like the way the project was presented online.

The reader comments tend toward the negative, asking why the paper would devote so much time to something the readers felt was sensationalized, but there aren't enough of them to really make a judgment about what the majority of readers thought.

I asked in our Power Journalism class if the Internet would lead papers to move away from time-consuming investigative work, but pieces like this are proof that that doesn't seem to be happening.

You know you're a journalist if you ....

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Sun, 04 May 2008 02:08:00 +0000

The first item on this list was added by yours truly prior to posting the list here. I did not submit it to the site where I found the list.
* corrected the grammar on this list before posting it.
* feel stupid when you can't come up with something more creative than your co-workers.
* like to hang out with your right-brained friends because you're the "wild one."
* aren't concerned with losing your job because it's such a piss-poor field you know they would be doing you a favor.
* understand where the term "starving artist" derived.
* talk in "headline speak" for shits and grins.
* correct your church bulletin with a pen during the service or mark up any newsletter that comes in the mail while you're on the phone.
* insist on explaining to everyone where the grammar mistakes are in any publication or sign.
* actually understand the correct use of commas, semicolons and colons.
* hope you don't get an assignment that requires a lot of driving because your car might break down.
* enjoy reading your dictionary and quizzing your co-workers and friends.
* read an e-mail several times before sending it and making at least three editing changes.
* are pressured into making a list because two other journalist-types already have.
* play Scrabble and go for the word that is the most impressive, rather than the highest scoring.
* kept all the books you read in college but haven't touched them since.
* point out that someone made a grammatical error and your friends/significant others just smile and nod.
* silently deride your reporters' stupidity every time you find a mistake.
* hear about a murder on TV and sigh with relief when you realize it's not in your "coverage area."
* are bothered by the fact that you can't come up with anything clever enough for a list about what writers/journalists actually do.
* mock incorrect grammar while allowing yourself any and all "creative" uses. You are, in fact, a professional.
* are able to attribute your misspellings, such as "independance" or "milenium" to your editors' lack of skill. It's the whole point of having editors, right?
* have ever figured out how much more income you could bring in as manager of Taco Bell.
* have been prescribed at least three different anti-depressants.
* have seriously considered joining the peace corps but couldn't for fear of being stationed nowhere near a Gap.
* like to eat out but don't order wine or appetizers because you can't afford it.
* have ever spent more than three hours in a cafe and used your debit card to pay for your $1.69 grande coffee.

We're sorry about all the trees

noreply@blogger.com (Copy Editor) — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:08:00 +0000

In about two weeks, I will join the ranks of real, professional journalists when I start my new job at a mid-sized daily in the Pacific Northwest. Those of you who know me personally of course know where I'll be working, but I want to be careful not to mention the name of the paper here. I will have to leave Eugene, which is sad, but I'm thrilled to have a "real" job at last.

In the meantime, what I post here will be determined by whether my paper has a policy on blogging. This was the topic of As newspapers today's "Everyday Ethics" column. start taking on summer interns and young employees, the author writes, it is important for papers to decide what their policies are on personal blogs. More and more of the college-aged employees/interns are going to have them, and it is better to set a policy than for anyone to be surprised. The writer also suggests that the interns themselves be upfront about whether they blog. I certainly hope I'll be able to continue blogging in one way or another. Here are some of the suggested policies from the column:

# Write one. Maybe start a blog about policies. But do it now. It's way too late to claim that blogging is just too new of a phenomenon to merit a policy.
# Reconsider your policy if it states: No personal blogs. Telling a 20-year-old he can't blog is like telling a 50-year-old she can't write a holiday letter. You won't win that one.
# Consider what you're comfortable having employees discuss in public:

* Nothing about the newsroom at all? That might be unrealistic.
* Nothing about stories in development? That seems fair.
* Nothing that puts the company in a negative light? Sure, you've got a right to require that, but you might define negative carefully.
* Nothing about sources? Good idea. Journalists who say things about their sources that they wouldn't put into their stories are treading in dangerous territory.
* Nothing embarrassing or negative about your colleagues. (I had a young journalist once ask me if she crossed a line by blogging about a fellow reporter's bathroom habits. Yes, I told her, I thought that was rude. Maybe not unethical, but definitely rude.)

# I counsel journalists who keep personal blogs to employ a no-surprises rule. Always let your boss know if you have a blog. Ask for guidelines, if they don't exist. Never say anything in the blog that you wouldn't say out loud, to the primary stakeholders. This could all be included in a policy.

I also found a fun feature on Poynter in which journalists were asked to submit possible six-word mottos for the profession. My favorite is the title of this post. I may be concerned about the environment, but the one thing I'll be "wasteful" about is newspapers. I recycle them, of course, but I need the paper. After I move, I'll be reading three papers regularly: the one I work for, the large daily in the area, and the weekend New York Times