Women's Leadership Conference coming soon

Maria Di Bianca explains the Women's Leadership Conference and encourages both men and women to attend in the MU Student center on Friday November 15th, 2013.

Buttons and save the date cards were handed out at today's tabling for the Women's Leadership Conference 

The Center for Leadership and Service at Mizzou puts on a Women's Leadership Conference every year. The conference is meant to promote Networking, Education and Equality and is being held on March 15th, 2014. Today, members of the Women's Leadership Conference's Executive Council were promoting the event in the Student Center.

"We will have speakers coming in from all across the country this year, it will be a great opportunity for networking," said Executive Council member Maria Di Bianca. These speakers include Elisa Parker, co-founder of award winning social change program See Jane Do, based out of San Francisco. Dr. Cathy Scroggs, a member of the chancellors staff will also be speaking, as well as many other leaders in and around the Columbia area. The tabling today was meant to inform students of the opportunity to not only attend, but be a speaker at this event, as well as pick up a nice button. 

News is Crazy

I am not at all surprised by what was presented in this article. Many of the smartest people I know have a political viewpoint, and even if you are a "smart person" you're still going to want to hear that what you think is right. Sometimes even more so, I think. These networks and publications have a massive viewing audience, theres no way it is just limited to "narrow-minded, politically obsessed characters who send mass e-mails from their mother’s basement." 

I have spoken quite a few times about how much I despise the overbearing political tilt of some networks. When I talk about this I am mostly referring to 24-hour news networks like Fox news and those painful radio shows. I understand that essentially every newspaper has a bias, though. I think in that case, its more effective for the viewer to deal with it and take the news with a minute grain of salt, rather than disregarding newspapers all together. A matter of a few words can shift the bias of an article, and finding completely neutral words to describe every situation is not very realistic, especially considering time constraints. 

What this article mostly reminded me of was my dad. He certainly leans to the right, and thats tough in a liberal city like Madison. There is a liberal talk radio show in madison that actually is fairly popular, due to its location. Sometimes my dad puts it on, just for kicks. He, in that regard, goes against everything this article mentions. I think he likes to listen to the other side just so he can hate it more and have more ammunition against it, by hearing their quite frankly, outrageous arguments at times. I consider myself fairly neutral, and this station has the power to irk me just as much as Rush Limbaugh could. 

In the end, there is an equal amount of bias on either side. While it is nice that one side isn't worse than the other, that mean one side is never better, and that is what leaves us with the situation that we have so often been encountering: nothing is getting done. Sometimes people need to be right and sometimes they need to be wrong for there to be progress, but since both sides have enough mediums and supporters to pump themselves up, that is rarely seen.

Afghanistan

In previous journalism classes, we have learned about the duties of journalism. These duties include being a watchdog, making sure the government is doing its job, and giving the people the information they need to know to make informed decisions and to be safe in the world that they are living in. These values were explained within the context of American journalism, but many countries could definitely benefit from holding these same things important.

As far as Afghanistan goes, as important as it is to keep it's own population informed, it is just as important to continue to broadcast what is going on there to the world. As a unstable country, it seems, at least in the opinion of the people who made this video, it will be difficult to keep their heads above water without foreign assistance. Afghanistan needs journalism to make sure they are not swept under the rug, forgotten, and as a result succumb to the Taliban again.

The watchdog element is also very important in keeping Afghanistan moving forward. If they are able to stay in control of their media and continually keep track of what the government is doing, it will be more difficult to shady business to begin to creep in again. Having an independent media source has proved, time and time again, important in avoiding authoritarian rule. When Mussolini came to power, one of the most effective ways he gained control and spread fascism was to take over the media and require every journalist to be a registered fascist. Afghanistan has been there before, Taliban rule is not a distant memory, and they recognize that one of the best ways to steer clear of it is to keep control of their media.

It was also interesting to hear the positive Afghani support of our occupation there. I don't know if that man speaks for everyone, but it seemed that perhaps having troops over there isn't the worst thing in the world. There is a very strong sense of opposition to being in Afghanistan at all, of course there is, nobody ever wants to have to put Americans in danger. It was reassuring to hear that we aren't being a complete nuisance. That guy is right, we cannot stay there forever, though, and I wonder what steps we will/are putting in place to make sure we leave it safely.

You go, green dinosaur

I know the green dinosaur is right. I know it. I sometimes fall prey to being upset by the outwardly bias that fox news and company spews as news, I have to admit it. It wasn't until least semester in Cross Cultural journalism that I learned that it was actually intended that way. That made my firey hatred to clearly biased news outlets dull down quite a bit. But despite this, I will never accept news from either one.

These networks are certainly on the extremes. Non-24 hour news networks like nbc and abc, do present a bias, but I believe, for the most part, double sided coverage. It is not completely objective, no, but I don't believe any human can be, when it comes to reporting news.

A thing happens. Sure, that is a fact. But no one, no one on earth can speak of anything while disregarding their personal views and experience. The comic uses the example of the indisputable fact that the sun is hot. Obviously, that is true. But what about suicide bombing? As Americans, we all have unanimously agreed that suicide bombing--- not cool. We will never accept that as a means of justification, and as both an American and a citizen of the world, I don't think I will ever be able to justify a suicide bombing. It seems like black and white to us, but in reality, it is not.

Countries and cultures that practice suicide bombing do have these justifications. They understand, and sometimes support the individuals that make these decisions. I could never, in a million years do this, but I cannot deny that some people do.

Does this mean that because some people support suicide bombing, US media coverage should give it a chance? Should it try and preach to the American people that, yes, this person killed himself and over a dozen people, but he was doing it for his god, so it is kind of okay?

Absolutely not. This comic uses the argument of science to support this. I would prefer to use the argument of society. Killing yourself and others for your religious belief is not something that Americans believe in. To try and report and justify it, show us their point of view, is a waste of time. Trying to justify attacks on another country because of religious beliefs to a country with no universal religious beliefs is just not right.

Whether or not an individual supports or dislikes its society, it is undeniable, society exists. If journalism does not cater to the society it is broadcasting to, it is simply not doing its job. If doing its job means not justifying a select group of people across the globe, then that is okay. Exposing its citizens to the viewpoints of others, sure, but convincing them that every way of thinking is alright and okay, is something that will never logically happen.

So if the orange dinosaur wants to keep arguing that, it's cool. He is going to be extinct anyway.

Closed county

This blog post is in response to this article http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/10/09/231086726/county-in-utah-threatens-takeover-of-national-park-areas?utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20131013&utm_source=mostemailed

I never thought of the shut down of National Parks as an actual problem, but rather as a more of an inconvenience. I forget that National Parks are not just a luxury, but an actual source of revenue for certain places.

I think that this county has every right to stay open, if that is what takes to stay alive. This entire government shut down is very sad, and I wonder if they realize how many people's lives they affected by their stubbornness. As well-off, educated people, you would think that they would, yet here we are, coming off the tail-end of a government shut down that jeopardizes so many people's well being.

I wonder if the government will enforce the fines and punishments for trespassing. While they could certainly use the money, they look bad enough as it is. To punish people for trying to maintain their well being would be absolutely atrocious.

What I don't understand is whether or not they are just reopening the parks and doing the work without getting paid, or how they are funding the reopening. Everything costs money, and I imagine National parks don't just have a lot of spare cash sitting around just in case.

I am very happy that the government shutdown is over, but I wish more would have come out of it. The polarization of our politics is so terrible. When it comes to election time, of course I want to vote, I think that its hard to complain about how the government is running if you decide not to vote, but I really don't want to vote for anyone. The only candidates I would truly stand behind would never win. I think this government shutdown could've done more to change things, and make an example of how bad it is when things are like this, but I don't think it did.

Malala

I don't think there was a preasssigned blog topic this week, so I am going to talk about Jon Stewart's interview with the 16-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala. She was hunted by the Taliban, yet maintains a pacifistic attitude that has shocked the world.

She says in the interview that if she were to be confronted by a member of the Taliban, that she would, rather that throw her shoe at them, which was her first thought, she would speak to the man about the importance of education and take a non violent route. It was this reasoning that shocked pretty much everyone. For so many years, we have been engaged in such brutal violence to fight them that it is hard to imagine dealing with it any other way, but this girl did.

If we could stop violence all together, obviously that would be great. I feel like we are probably in too deep. To stop fighting now and switch methods, it doesn't seem very plausible. What I don't know is how much discussion actually has gone on. We see on the news all of the terror and violence, but you don't see much discussion. I understand why this may be difficult, the Taliban doesn't seem like the kind of group that would subject themselves to such a discussion, they aren't really looking for compromise.

In the context in which Malala explained it though, it could happen. What has captivated so many people is the thought of what would happen? Although the Taliban might be bad guys, they are humans. Would they listen or would the continue to shoot? I honestly don't know, fortunately I have never had any run-ins with the Taliban, but in my mind, they have to be so messed up to do the things they do. I don't think they have any trace of humanity and decency to stop them from killing yet another person.

Despite all of this, her comment is still striking and her goals are still honorable. I believe she will get what she wants and I think she could play a big role in the future of Middle Eastern relations with the Taliban, because obviously she is very different, special, daring and smart, all qualities that an impactful leader needs.

No Comment

I don't really know how to feel about the whole no commenting thing. I think their reasoning itself is what bothers me the most

Most commenters are stupid, I completely agree. I feel like commenters on "Popular Science" are, on average, more educated compared to the average YouTube and Facebook commenter, though. I cannot be sure because I have never read any of the comments on "Popular Science" and that is no longer an option, so its hard for me to judge how much they might have influenced the reader on how they viewed the content of the article. 

I know on other sites, comments have swayed my feelings on the subject I was reading or watching. They do affect me, to the point that I wish I had not read the comment in the first place. I, and I think many people, use the comments to have their opinion validated. When someone says something to the contrary, naturally that is upsetting.

I always thought that was the point of a comments section, to foster a conversation. If they didn’t want anybody putting their input in on the articles, why did they make a comments section in the first place? I think this concept is very strange to me, and I don’t understand it.

I like writing, too

This post is in response to this: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/10/16/why-i-write-joan-didion/

Reading "Why I Write" made me so happy. I completely relate to what she wrote, word for word.

A couple months ago I read something similar to this, but it was in a book (Sputnik Sweetheart by Haruki Murakami). The main character also expressed her need to write to figure out everything in her life, what she thought and how she felt. At this point I instantly connected with a character I previously did not understand, or even like. Now that this is the second time I've heard this desire/need to write, I am wondering if it isn't such a rare thing after all. Although I am fairly certain that most people I know don't go home and write multiple-page long word documents trying to figure out why they are so darn sad sometimes.

I have done this for longer than I can remember. My mom told me she has saved up pages and pages of me scribbling out reasons why I hate my brother, or prewritten speeches to friends, apologizing for how I may have wronged them. This summer I actually compiled all of my rants, they could be found in nearly every notebook I own. They aren't always negative, sometimes they're really uplifting, in times I found it necessary to inspire myself.

I also used to write a lot of stories, and they were all clearly really about me, just with a different name. Sometimes they would entail what I was going through at the time, sometimes it would be an older version of myself, trying to figure out what I wanted.

I didn't really realize what this was until I saw it written, it truly is just me, trying to sort through what is going through my head. From time to time, I just start thinking too fast and I can't really reason with myself until I can put it on paper. When I reread it, everything makes a lot more sense. Writing is certainly a therapy for me.

Originally, I thought I wanted to be a journalist because I really loved writing. That is certainly not true anymore. Journalistic writing makes me very sad, specifically hard news. The very concept of it is to strip it of every element that I love so much about writing. I am not saying it doesn't have its place, news writing certainly has to exist, I just don't want to have any part of it.

What she said about grammar has a lot to do with it. Everything is so meticulous, even down to sentence structure. I think the way you write a sentence can have a great impact on what you are trying to say, but after seeing all of the red on my first news story, it was clear that there isn't much freedom of expression in hard news writing.

I did much better in writing feature-type pieces for the news writing class. The only thing I actually enjoyed writing was the personal profile. I got to give life to a person on page, something I have been doing for a very long time, as opposed to describing a convenience store robbery in as few words as possible.

Even if I am not going to choose writing as a career (I don't have a long enough attention span to be a novelist) I can still continue to write, because in the end, I am not really writing for anyone else, I am writing for me.

Say naux to faux

It really bums me out that the craft of photojournalism is dying. My roommate was a photojournalism major. When I first met her she was very passionate about photography, but just one year late she has switched her major, because she feels that there is no future in photojournalism, at least not one someone can make a living on.

It gets even harder when people are cutting corners. You can keep your journalistic integrity, but as a result take less spellbinding photos than the person who decided to alter the subject just a little bit. The cheater gets ahead and gets a better photo, and the true journalist is out of a job.

With the public's fascination with fascinating photos, it seems like it would be very hard to change this course of action. There could be more restrictions and guidelines placed on photojournalists, to ensure true photos, but at the end of the day the issue will always come back to money. More captivating, however altered they may be, will sell more. Why would a business try and restrain one of its best selling points?

With all of that said, I would argue that no photograph is a true, pixel by pixel reflection of reality. A photograph is the photographer's interpretation of reality. It is a photographer's decision what they are and aren't going to photograph. When you look at a photograph, you are not seeing everything, that is impossible, so as a default, you must see what the photographer has deemed most important.

The real problem comes in when this is taken to the extreme. There is a difference between deciding to take a picture of something that has actually happened, and changing what actually happened. This article reminded me of a news story I watched a few years ago. It wasn't "fauxtojournalism" but altered video, and I found it absolutely ridiculous.


In February 2011, Wisconsin's conservative governor Scott Walker cut collective bargaining. This effected many employees, especially teachers. Teachers could lose thousands of dollars because of these cuts. This caused a very large protest at the capitol.

It was so large, all the major news outlets were covering it. Including Fox news. Fox news, because of their conservative bias, backed Scott Walker and therefore wanted to make the protest look like it was a bunch of raging, unjustified crazy hippies.

This is where the problems come in. As part of their B-Roll, they showed a police horse, bucking in the air. As far as I know, there are no police horses in Madison, Wisconsin. I am not positive of this, though. If you looked behind the police horse, you would see palm trees. Palm trees. With leaves. I have lived in Madison for 11 years. There are no palm trees in Madison, Wisconsin. There are no leaves in February. This was clearly footage from some other protest in the past. It wasn't that crazy, it was a massive group of teachers at this protest, mind you.

This moment made me lose what little faith I could ever have in Fox news. That was such a blatant lie, I could not believe it. Not only was it an insult of my intelligence, but it was a beyond shady move. This fabricated footage changed the entire story. I know Fox wanted to show its viewers that they love so much exactly what they wanted to see, and they did. But I wonder how its loyal Foxies would feel if their beloved channel was lying to them? Hopefully not well.

Unpaid Internships are okay

I've said it before, and I will say it again, I really like making money. The thought of me possibly having to go through a few months of getting up early and going to a job every single day freaks me out a little bit to begin with, but adding the element of not getting paid, it nearly brings me to tears. Despite this, I understand there is a reason for this.

I feel like there is a growing sense of entitlement in the people around me, and it kind of bothers me. I don't think there is any problem with the concept of "paying your dues" if that means I have to get you coffee and bagels every day for three months without getting paid when I could be working on my tan, then okay fine, as long as I can make as much, or preferably more, money as you do one day. If other people aren't willing to stoop to that level, awesome. Less competition.

Getting rid of the idea of unpaid internships will be disastrous for absolutely everyone involved. Many companies may not be able to pay their interns, they aren't withholding a salary for their own sick enjoyment. If they cannot have unpaid interns, they may have to result to not having interns at all. Now their real employees will have to do the intern's work, and may have lower job performance on their intended job. Even worse, the opportunities gained by a student having an internship will be lost. All of the resume building material and experience is gone. This will make it even harder than it already is to get a job.

I do agree with the restrictions that are set in place, there is a fine line between an unpaid internship and slave labour, and I would hate to be the one who had to cross it. Like any situation, there is going to be some gray area, but perhaps more enforcement of the criteria is a better solution than abolishing the practice as a whole. 

With all that said, I really hope I luck out and get a paid internship. An unpaid internship is not very lucrative to me, I don't need extra college credits all that badly. I think that the trick is being able to identify the cost versus benefit of the situation that you're going to be in. At the end of the day, if you aren't cool with having an unpaid internship, don't take one.

Miley and CNN share a moneymaker

This blog is in response to this Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/let-me-explain-why-miley-cyrus-vma-performance-was,33632/

As a bonafide lover of pop culture myself, Miley's performance was of great entertainment to me. While I didn't actually watch it, I did not find it necessary due to the media's extensive coverage. For days it seemed impossible to escape pictures of Miley next to pictures of raw chicken, or comparisons between Robin Thicke and a Footlocker employee. Maybe it was possible to escape, but I didn't really want to.

CNN clearly picked up on this. They plopped it on their site, front and center, and they made big bucks. Its hard to decide what is more awesome, near nudity and subpar booty shaking or cold, hard cash. The day after the VMA's, CNN got both. 

From a business perspective, this is an obvious choice. From a business perspective, it would be irresponsible not to feature this. From a business perspective, CNN is right on.

Is CNN a business or a vehicle for journalism? Both. That is why there very clearly is gray area when it comes to this.

As far as good journalism goes, CNN did not show this. For a organization that prides itself on being an honest, hard hitting outlet, they really dropped the ball on this one. This is not that important at the moment in comparison to other world events. Placement on a page is huge, and can sometimes say more than the article itself. When the article is about Miley Cyrus' dance moves, I am almost certain that it does.

As sad and confusing as it is to see a reputable news outlet pick cash over class, I understand it. If you just look at Mizzou students alone, it is hard to ignore the mass exodus from the J School to the Business School following their Freshman year. Humans search for comfort, and a lot of times that means money. It is not shocking that the people at CNN acted in this way, but it is disappointing.

It is the job of journalists to give the public the information that it is most important for them to know. Now that even the most reputable news outlets are failing to do this, it makes it harder to be an american citizen, and the credibility of journalism as a whole is dwindling.

Lucky for us, we have zoomed in pictures of Miley's lumpy butt to help us forget. 

Journalists are watchdogs, not cops

This blog post is in response to this article: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/making-sense-of-news/205841/powerful-photo-essay-on-domestic-violence-stirs-backlash/

The article deals with the age old question faced by journalists: when, if at all, is it necessary to step in and intervene. I truly think this issue is all grey area, there are numerous situational differences that dictate whether or not it is right to step in. In this instance, I think it was acceptable for Sara to stand back and continue photographing.

In large part, I believe this because of the reasoning that she used, there was honestly nothing that she could physically do. To step into a fight that she could not contribute to would pointless, what reason does she have to put her life in danger? She also had nothing to do with this fight, so again, she didn’t really have any place in being in it.

Although she could’ve seen this coming, I don’t understand what she was supposed to do because of that. I don’t believe you can call the police and say, I think this man may possibly hit his girlfriend sometime soon. She did what she could, when she could.

As far as the journalistic values, I think that’s a little bit trickier, but again, I do not think she was in the wrong. Even though the story she was trying to tell wasn’t about domestic violence, because the story that she set out to tell included domestic violence, it only makes sense to include it. Was she supposed to scrap the whole story because it had this element? I do not see why. Another alternative, I suppose is to not include the photos of domestic violence, which I think is even worse. The domestic violence is part of the story; it needs to be included in the story.

People naturally will feel uncomfortable when viewing pictures of such intense nature, such as pictures of domestic violence. I can understand why there may have been backlash. Seeing something like that is startling and confusing, but if you take a step back and think about the situation Sara was in, the end result was justified. Her pictures provided concrete evidence that this was going on, without them this man could’ve gotten away with this. It would’ve then been a tragedy if she set her camera down for some feeble attempt to break it up. Perhaps they didn’t need to be published, but she is a journalist, she set out to tell a story, and that was how the story went, and so that is how she is required to tell it.

They aren't secrets anymore, now are they?

This blog is in response to Annie Murphy Paul's article "Secrets of the most Successful College Students."

As far as secrets go, these are not in the slightest bit juicy. Being one of the most successful college students doesn't sound like that much fun if the gnarliest skeleton in their closet is that they are deeply invested in their class material.

With that said, I like to think of myself as a fairly successful college student. I would probably fall under the category as a "fair-weather" deep learner. If I am in a class that I enjoy, journalism, english, history, I can let myself get pretty immersed and dig a little deeper than the weekly online BlackBoard quizzes. As for math or science, I certainly am only in it for the grade. In my personal opinion, you can't dig any deeper in stats. Math is what it is and nothing more. I will not give math an ounce of passion.

Luckily, I am done with math forever, so perhaps I will be able to move on and become a full-fledged deep learner. In each of my classes I could explore more about the subject beyond what the textbook or the professor teaches. Textbooks and professors teach everything from their point of view, everything is tainted by their own experience, which is why it is important to learn from various perspectives, to ensure that a wholesome education is achieved. Consulting more with other students is another way to get a different and more in-depth understanding of the material.

Deep learning certainly gives a better educational experience. When I actually care about what I am learning, it doesn't seem like schoolwork, its the difference between checking the clock every three minutes in class and just sitting there, absorbing the material. Looking at the clock is not that fun, but learning, and increasing your value as a person can be nothing but a rip-roarin' good time.

In journalism it is very important to have a well rounded understanding of everything, especially other people. Becoming more richly and diversely educated is a great way to broaden one's knowledge base. As a journalist, to truly be able to capture the people you are writing about, you must be able to understand them. In strategic communication, to sell something, you must be able to connect to the buyer. Being more educated in the world can also help to ease the nerves of going into the unknown. If you are well educated about the world around you, the foreign may not feel to foreign after all. The more you care, the more you learn, and the road to the Pulitzer prize becomes more evenly paved.