4D Catastrophe

Before going into the Newseum exhibits, Tuesday, we first had an ethics class in which we learned about the set of guidelines to which journalists have agreed to adhere.

Newseum Professor and class members

Our "professor" (a Newseum employee) first showed us a photo and asked us if we would choose to publish it. It was a blurry, somewhat obscure photo, in which three soldiers stood upon a small hill, one obviously wounded (the bright red blood serving as the telltale sign of injury, though what exactly had happened was unclear).

Our class argued a little, debating whether or not it would be ethical to publish a graphic photo such as this.

After a little bit of time, she revealed to us that the man was 21-years old, and a soldier in Afghanistan. He had, in fact, been mortally wounded - and died hours later at the hospital. When the AP wanted to publish this photo, his family became furious and the U.S. Secretary of Defense even called the AP President to discourage him from going through with it.

However, the point of the exercise was to show that journalists have to exercise their better judgment in the release of information, because if we left it up to the First Amendment, most things would be allowed to be published.

In the end, the AP decided to leave it up to its individual distributors to decide whether to publish the photo or not.

Here's the photo:

The class ended with an exercise in which each group received a scenario and had to decide what they would do in each instance.

Ours was something along the lines of "You're a photojournalist in an impoverished country and have been observing a starving community, the members of which you have been ordered not to touch for reasons of disease transfer. You see a small starving child, next to which a vulture sits, staring intently at the child. You know this is a once in a lifetime shot, even if what you are showing is arguably inhumane and provocative."
Do you...
A.) Take the photo of the vulture and the child - it is too powerful of an image to pass up .
B.) Put the camera down, shoo the vulture away and call for help
C.) Take the picture of the child but leave the vulture out.

We picked A and B. Take the photo, shoo the vulture - our reasoning being that you can't save one child, but your photo may be so moving that it brings attention to the town, which could eventually save it.

It was a fairly sobering activity, kind of setting the mood for the rest of the visit. We then all filed into the museum, a collection of exhibits spanning 6 floors. There's a section for 9/11, Katrina, journalist deaths, Pulitzer Prize winning photos, and much much muchooo more.

I didn't get through much, however, because after the first exhibit or two, I started to feel sick. It really felt like the museum was fanning the flames of voyeurism - just perpetuating the fact that humans have this sick fascination with observing death and destruction.

I understand that a large part of journalism is covering national disasters and tragedies - so it makes sense that the Newseum would cover our nation's worst historical events. That being said, knowing this doesn't make much of a difference when you're looking at the 50th dead body, burning victim, starving child, impending death or family in ruins.

After an hour or so of gazing at devastation of a disconcerting variety, I headed on down to the 4-D theatre - a fabulous way to end the visit, might I add.

I literally shrieked at one point, convinced that a Revolutionary War musket bullet was inches from shattering my face.

Even though the substance of the film was questionable, the experience was definitely more fun than staring at bodies falling out of buildings or into rivers or fires or whatever other horrific end might await them.

And on that cheerful note, I leave you.

Cheers.

View from 6th floor terrace

Vilde in her 3D glasses, prepping for 4d flick

view 2 from 6th floor terrace

Schieffer Speaker

So,

(please take brief notice of how many of my blog posts start with this word. I'm evidently incapable of a cold start. I think I need to ease into it with a colloquial little quippy word to set the casual tone for the rest of this - god forbid I appear even remotely serious)

Sooooo,

Prior to Monday, I seriously had come to think that all the entire population of Washington, DC was concerned with was
A. Networking. [Connections are everything. It's not what you do, it's who you know. Ask for business cards, follow up with emails, harass the innocent successful. Be Aggressive! B-E Agressive!]
B. Politics. [It doesn't matter what you stand for, only who you stand with].
C. Success. [Money Money Money Power Money]

It is for these 3 (arguably more) reasons that I was SO relieved to hear the first words out of Bob Schieffer's lips on Monday morning.

First of all, let me go on record saying that we start class wayyy too early. It is obscene to start class at the hour we do.

I fully understand that we're in this great city and we need to 'seize the moment!' - But honestly, who would it kill, really, to maybe just seize the next moment in line? Like, say, the moment an hour and half later than the one we're currently seizing so vehemently.

Just putting it out there.

Anyhow, just as I sit down in Capitol Auditorium, that freezing shell of a room, Mr. Scheiffer's comforting voice drifts out over the abnormally large crowd, and he says...

"The main reason you want to go into any profession is because it's fun." He paused, adjusting his volume so that all could hear him. "You find something you like to do, and the success part will take care of itself. Don't let anybody pick what you want to do."

 and Whooooshhhhh

Literally.

In that span of 15 seconds, all the pressure, all the stress, all the tension that my 125-caplet bottle of Exedrin Tension Headache has repeatedly failed to relieve, instantly flew from my poor, overly burdened body and into the once stale (now surprisingly comforting) air of the auditorium.

All this talk of sucking up, of selling oneself, of pretending to be so much more than I ever imagined I was capable of pretending to be, - and now the most experienced and worldly speaker we've had yet is telling us that in the end, it's all about having fun?

Well gee, Mr. Scheiffer. I think you just might be on to something.

And so, when he went on to talk about his attitude toward politics, I listened with open ears,  more ready than ever to accept the advice of the man standing before me.

We've "professionalized an amateur sport", he said, talking about American politics.

He continued, "Democrats and Republicans don't like to be around each other, but it wasn't always like that. We used to get together."

He really made it seem like over the years, what was once a good-intentioned mission to lead the country has slowly and steadily morphed into a meaningless battle based on money, power and ego.

Nowadays, he told us, "it's more important what you think than what you get done".

So alas, the once-noble practice of politics has become nothing more than fighting for the sake of fighting - argument for arguments sake.

Very reassuring.



All that idealistic stuff aside, however, he did finish off with some more practical advice. 'Who you work for is more important than what you're doing - how you present yourself and your attitude can override any other accomplishments'.

After all, we all need a daily dose of reality if we're going to make it in this unforgiving little city of impassioned warriors.

And sometimes, he told us, it's just about getting lucky. 



I did like his final little bit of advice, though

"The harder I've worked, the luckier I've got".

Best speech yet, I'd say. ( And not just because he's the one who gave me my scholarship. Scouts honor. Though in full journalistic disclosure I thought it responsible to share said nugget of information )

Monica and Mr. Bob Schieffer (both Fort Worth, TX natives)

Over the Boardwalk

So folks, my weekends in DC have officially turned into 100% lazy fests (which is so different from my life at Madison, where I am consistently the life of every party)

[Note: I realize my sarcasm here doesn't translate if you're not first aware of the fact that I am potentially the biggest homebody college itself has ever known.]

Aside from my first weekend here, where I made a respectable (and admittedly relatively painless) attempt to be fun and social, I've succeeded at upholding my homebody status every night since. Way to not take advantage of your situation, Gabs!

But you know what, America? I'm comfortable with my propensity to remain relaxed (read: in bed), while the rest of the world goes crazy to undo the knot that the former week has tied. Some of us will simply always be more comfortable curled up in a ball watching repeat episodes of The Office and an obscene number of hours of Lord of the Rings special features DVDs, than be out on the town in some unsightly get-up that our mothers would most certainly now approve of (be proud mom, be proud).

However, my love of comfort has not left me entirely sheltered - and I have tried to see some DC sights (albeit tamer ones) during my stay here thus far.

Last night, for example, instead of participating in some wild shenanigans (like our Oktoberfest-lovin' German peers), my roommate and friend and I decided to just take a walk around downtown, and see if we could make it down to the Potomac - a destination we'd heard a little bit about.

And you know what? I'd say on the whole it was a fairly successful excursion (despite the disgustingly long bus ride I had to endure, and to the delight of my companions, complain throughout the entirety of, to get there). We found the canal and made it to the boardwalk, where there roamed billions and billions of scantily clad women and wide-eyed men, ready to use their oh-so-terribly-terrible pick up lines on whatever girl condescended to give them the time of day.

I'll have to say that not being able to go to bars does have its benefits, rare as they may be - and avoiding some of the slightly too old men interested in more than slightly too young women would definitely have to be one of them.

On a more positive note, the boardwalk was great, and my roommate was as excited as I was to find that the majority of people were sitting down to dinner at 10:00pm, something we'd come to believe only happened in Europe.

The late night atmosphere was so intoxicating and contagious - and there's nothing like a good brightly lit fountain to set the mood. The area is loaded with seafood grills, crowded bars and the occasional little pizza or gelato shop. The only downside was the lack of late-night cafes (a Starbucks exists, but seems to have closed hours earlier), another entrepreneurial venture I'm convinced would make me millions.

So walk it out, kids.

Mine in front of her husband's future residence

Trend Jetter

Mercoledi, Monsieur Jerry Zremski a parle pour nostre classe.

He's a Washington Correspondent for the Buffalo News, who talked about just how incredibly thrilling sitting on a plane for 10 hours a day with Hilary Clinton was absolutely not.

The week he spent follwing her campaign trail was, as he so gently put it, "the worst week of his reporting career". For someone who thinks that the campaign is mostly about the voters, being stuck on a cramped plane with everyone but them seemed to really take its toll on his sanity. He even went so far as to say that journalists often gain a ton of weight on the campaign trail, because "food is your one connection to real life."

How lovely.


Mr. Zremski also spoke about his time over in Iraq while he was embedded with a supply team. Unfortunately, instead of waiting to send him over like he suggested, the Buffalo News followed the lead of every other major organization and sent him right away ("the war's going to be over in a week!").

This meant that all the soldiers from Buffalo who would have made interesting story subjects had yet to be shipped off - so Jerry didn't have a whole lot to cover.

What I found most helpful about his speech was his explanation of how he finds a story by talking to the people involved. He really emphasized speaking with the locals to get a feel for their take on a particular issue, and through these conversations discovering patterns, trends, and eventually, news stories.

I asked him how he can be sure something is a bona fide trend, because I'd think it would be difficult to really know for sure whether you were picking sources to reinforce a personal opinion, or simply speaking with an unrepresentative group, so I'd be hesitant to publish an article stating that "most people think..", for fear that such an opinion was not really the dominant one. (please accept my apology for that horrific run on sentence)

His answer was that you just have to talk to a lot of people - go to a wide array of venues, such as the "bar, unemployment office, shopping mall, high school soccer games" and talk to a variety of demographics to make sure you're getting a real feel for the community. He also uses the polling data as a guide - but doesn't rely on it - a point he stressed.

"Don't get too wrapped up in the trend of the moment", he said, and I think that's such good advice. Be original in your approach and don't just follow suit.

Looks can be ... Achieving

"From the National Press Club in Washington, DC, this is the Kalb Report with Marvin Kalb."









The announcer's voice came over the loudspeaker, proceeded by an orchestra theme that may have been just slightly too epic for the occasion.

Tonights theme - The Great Debates, inspired by the 50th anniversary of the famous (or infamous, depending how you see it) Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960. Guests Bob Schieffer (CBS News),
Sander Vanocur (1960 Debate Questioner), Mike McCurry (Commission on Presidential Debates), and
Janet Brown (Commission on Presidential Debates) made up the 5-chaired panel seated on a small raised platform in the front of the National Press Club's ballroom.

College students, professors, press members and various other interested parties filled the fairly large-sized room, hustling and bustling as the production assistant shouted a countdown with each minute that passed. ("4 minutes!", "3 Minutes!"). The continual interruption, however, didn't feign Mr. Gil Klein, who stood up in front of the crowded room to make the first announcement of the event (and our class feel like celebrities - "we know him!")

Professor Gil Klein

Anyhow, getting to the point, the discussion began with a reflection upon the 1960 debates, and a comment by Mr. Sandy Vanacur (who wikipedia proclaimed "one of the country’s most prominent political reporters during the 1960s" - and this blogger doesn't question wikipedia's credentials...ever) saying that he had no idea at the time just how important the events of that day would become.

At that time, there was no "spin-room", and reporters still played a role in the questioning of candidates. It was a different era, before the once-spontaneous debates morphed into an unfortunate and poorly-disguised staged event, when anything could happen (and anything did).

[Interestingly enough, I did not know that the 1960 debates had been so controversial, that the next like-event was not until 1976. ]

The speakers/panelists spoke a lot about appearances (it is the American way). How not to wear a gray suit (Nixon's failing), how to seat oneself to avoid appearing short, how not to perspire, cough, squint, flinch, or complete any other abominably natural bodily function.

For presidential candidates, as we all know, are not human.

They also spent a lot of time on how it is these small gestures and the unscripted, unrehearsed moments that "reveal something genuine and authentic" about a candidate. In a presidential election, people vote for the person that they would be most comfortable with in a time of crisis, and it is these small insights into the candidates' humanity, they said, that help us determine if we would, in fact, trust them with our country's well-being.

What I took from the Report was an understanding that the American people are more interested in the minute details, the failings, and the human elements of a presidential debate much more than the issues at stake. I'm not certain what this says about Americans as a whole, though it seems to highlight our uniquely shallow focus - our obsession with finding the flaws in celebrity, the pitfalls of the prestigious.

It may, however, mean that in the end, we as a people are more concerned with finding the small slice of humanity in our leaders than we will ever be with their rigid set of goals or legislative promises. Personality seems to be everything, and ever since 1960, the President of the United States has not only served as our nation's leader, but as a persona on which the reputation of our country is, for better or for worse, based.

The presidential debate is not an ad, an interview, a speech, or a rally - but instead a unique amalgamation of these techniques that has, time and time again, served up not only a disheartening opportunity for critique and derision, but more optimistically, a chance for us as a people to see beneath a veneer that is so carefully built, but as history has proven, just as easily destroyed.

Rick Dunham

Rick Dunham caught "the bug" at age 11 and hasn't looked back.

The Bureau Chief of the Houston Chronicle and of Hearst Newspapers as well, Mr. Dunham said that he "was either going to write about the news or be in the news"- and after being inspired by the work of Woodward and Bernstein, decided on the former.

Having once written for Business Week, he mentioned that he prefers his job now, because when working at a weekly he rarely got the opportunity to break a story.

By the time his publication came out, someone else had already gotten to the information that he had, in fact, discovered first. I can't imagine how incredibly frustrating that would be - I think I'd go mad for lack of recognition (I admittedly need my fair share of congratulatory pats on the back). He, however, adapted by turning largely to analysis. So he'd break a story (be unable to report it), and have to think ahead a week in order to imagine at what point the story would be in its progression to come up with the most relevant analysis.

A friendly and relatively optimistic man, he is a self-proclaimed "early adopter", and focused a large portion of the time on discussing new media and the incredibly busy job of a new-age journalist. He, unlike some of his colleagues, welcomed the arrival of the internet. It provided him with the ability to turn out timely analysis - he could reflect immediately on stories without waiting. Now, however, with the instant technology, he says everyone is forced into immediate analysis, because the facts are so easily and quickly obtained that they're no longer a journalist's exclusive.

Finally, Mr. Dunham was big on presidential debates - and unlike Prof. Klein, actually likes covering them. "If you write something different than everyone else's straight report," he said, "you can shine".

He also made one comment that I liked in particular. I liked it because when I watch a debate, I never quite know what to think of it, and always end up waiting to hear the post-debate commentary in order to frame the dialogue. Mr. Dunham affirmed this by stating that "reality is what everybody says".

To me, that's reassuring (to my intelligence), and it proves that the only way debates can be summed up as easily as most are, is because when one person starts labeling a winner, or a loser, or a theme, the rest of the nation follows suit. Commenters make the debate what it is, and set up the context in which the average citizen views it in (so I'm not the only one lazy or confused enough to wait on a news brief to form a solid opinion).

Isn't that sort of scary? I don't want someone else mediating my interpretation of something that I saw perfectly well with my own two eyes. Even TV comics, he said, interpret what we remember (SNL, etc).

In the end, Mr. Dunham said that he has learned to embrace new media, as it caters to his ability to produce fast analytical material. However, if it were up to him he'd love to "sit back and write a book" - but such time is neither available nor feasible for any journalist looking to keep his job in today's fast-paced world.


*sigh*

Rick Dunham with WS Journalism Students

The Man with the 'Mint-Chocolate Chip' Tie

Despite his casual seated position on the auditorium stage, the average-height, medium-built man, now poised in front of us, still managed to exude an undeniable confidence, capturing our attention long before he began to speak.

Somehow, without any noticeable attempt to impress, he did just that from the moment he walked into the over-sized room. His first words confirmed his commanding physical demeanor. In a slow, measured manner of speaking, he asked us questions about international security current events, and began the hour long presentation that would have us all reeling - impressed beyond words and in awe of his unmistakably mesmerizing presence.

J.J. Green, the National Security Correspondent at WTOP radio, hosts a weekly program called "The Hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the War on Terror." He has traveled to more countries than most of us even know the names of (including all the war zones in the world over the last 5 years), has worked for five television networks, is fluent in multiple languages and is, without a doubt, one of the most interesting people I have ever encountered.

He also cooks. So, in other words, he is perfect.

He explained how, because he practiced "source development", he is now the sole media member with whom the wife of recently deceased Sergei Treyakov (infamous intelligence officer who informed the U.S. of countless Russian plots, plans and spies) will now speak. He divulged how the term "nuclear winter" is in fact a complete falsity invented by the Soviet Union during the Cold War era to manufacture fear (information relayed by Treyakov), and how this man's death may in fact be related to the recent discovery of Russian spies within the U.S.


Among other topics he covered were the 'trade craft' of terrorists (correspondence through email 'drafts' to avoid detection that only occurs when emails are actually sent), steganography or concealed writing - "security through obscurity" ("the wedding" always means 'an attack' / entire documents can be concealed in a single digital pixel), and how "there is no difference between a journalist & an intelligence collector". 

During the questioning portion of the seminar he answered that, yes, he has been in personal danger, and that he on a regular basis must conceal information that would do more harm than good if made public (after which he advised that each of us "learn self defense" ...  how reassuring)


Maybe most interesting, though, was his reply after being asked how he started his career. Mr. Green was once a radio DJ - a job he obtained when, through a high school radio fundraiser, he discovered his innate talent for radio speaking (a skill that converts fantastically well to public speaking, let me tell you). 


He also injected briefly how he was once the "big purple thing at Chuck E. Cheese" - a fact that gives all of those with embarrassing summer jobs more than a little shred of hope. 


Far from detracting from his commanding presence, these recounts of the past only served to strengthen the air of complete self-assurance that he continued to exude. Mr. Green was the rare example of a man able list his experiences and accomplishments without projecting an ounce of cockiness or pride - something I have literally never seen in my time on this planet. 


Well, as I'm sure you're fully aware by this point that I could rave about today's seminar for years to come, but I'll spare you the incessant gushing.


I'll instead leave you with a little tidbit from Mr. Green's speech, loosely quoted...

There were two men seated, speaking on a bench. The government needed to figure out what they were saying to one another, but it needed to do so without being detected. Thus, they invented a technology to listen in on the conversation  -  a jet-propelled, laser-fueled dragonfly that recorded the entire conversation without alerting the two men to its presence. 

This was in 1950. 


If the government could do that in 1950, what do you think they are capable of doing now?

Having Fun Isn't Hard - When You've Got A Library Card!

Any attentive viewer of that oh-so-quirky-but-wildly-educational aardvark family, the Reads, knows that the library is your reliable source to endless possibilities!

They're also probably aware that Arthur's voice got progressively more feminine as the series went on. And that D.W. lost some of her spark in the later seasons. And that 'aardvark' can be spelled in a surprisingly catchy tune ("A--A--R--D-V-A-R-K!").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BezT0aygaQ0
(<--if you're at all curious where the title of this post came from)

If, however, you did not watch PBS's Arthur, and instead settled for some possibly-more-hip-but-certainly-nowhere-near-as-educational-program like on Nickelodeon or Disney Channel...

well, then it seems as if you've just failed at childhood as a whole.

But alas! This post has a point after all, to which I will very rapidly attend, for I'm getting a creeping suspicion that I may have lost already lost you all mid-nostalgic rant.

Saturday, Mine and I (after checking Eastern Market off of our things-we-should-probably-do-other-than-sleep-in-DC list) accomplished yet ANOTHER productive feat (I know, it's mind-blowing how responsible we're capable of being) and went to the Library of Congress to get our research/reading cards.

Kids, this is very simple, and if my mom has anything to say about it, totally worth the trip. Just walk into the Madison building (the library has 3, so make sure you go into the right one), follow the signs to register for a card, fill out a paper form and a computer form, get your beautiful picture taken (ps: they will give you like a .001 millisecond warning, so come prepared with those smiles), and that very official looking card is all yours. [just remember to bring an ID - license, passport, state ID].

Ok, looking back on that, it doesn't appear so simple, considering it occupies the biggest paragraph in this entire post (which could very well have to do with the fact that my attention span of .2 seconds corresponds nicely with the number of times I hit return while writing these posts)

But it's easy peazy - I promise.

So here are some pics documenting our experience and unbridled enthusiasm at the prospect of a library card.

iPhone pic of picture desk

Eastern Market

This weekend my roommate, Mine, and I decided we should see a little more of DC while the weather is still on or side. So Saturday we woke up early - well, not early, but before noon, which is quite ambitious if you consider my past two weekend schedules - and headed over to the Eastern Market area.

The area, recommended by various friends, family members and "DC bucket list" websites, is a cute little compilation of art and jewelry vendors (god-forbid I leave without a new pair of leaf-shaped earrings), farmer's market-type stands and other specialty food sellers. There's also a separate flea market area, which is nice if you're, well, looking for a flea market - and a whole indoor food area stocked with an impressive variety of pastas, meats, cheeses and, by the smell of it, fried foods.

The vicinity in general has a bunch of restaurants as well, so it's a good place to spend a whole morning or afternoon just hanging out. It's fairly easy to get to - just get off at the Eastern Market Metro stop (orange/blue line), and it's not far at all from the Capitol/Library of Congress/Supreme Court.

What I especially liked was how eclectic some of the art was. There was a man who made jewelry out of ancient coins (albeit expensive jewelry, $220 roman coin ring), wall art made out of gears and various other reused parts, necklaces made out of preserved plants, exotic soaps .... the list goes on and on. Even if I wouldn't buy all of it, it was still interesting to browse, and all the vendors were incredibly friendly.

The afternoon ended, as all good afternoons should, in a trip to Starbucks and a relaxing chat in the early evening sun. So, a nice relaxing Saturday, even if I was forced to emerge at the ungodly hour of 11:30.

Deny Everything

There are more spies in Washington, DC than in any other city on earth.

And, according to Peter Earnest, director of the International Spy Museum and former member of the CIA, one method of information transfer they use is to "switch carts at the Safeway in Georgetown". So grocery shopping just became a lot more fun.

This morning, before entering the International Spy Museum, Mr. Earnest spoke with us about spies and national security, answering, as best he could, our questions. He debriefed us on the Russian spies recently discovered within the U.S., and on various other topics - such as cyber-war and CIA recruitment techniques.

When I asked him about what they don't want in an agent (though "agent" is apparently not the pc term for a CIA member), Mr. Earnest, in a matter of words said that ego and material gains are what separate one type of spy/informant from another. [Really, even if he claimed to not be  "sidestepping my question", ... he totally was].

After he spoke with our class, we proceeded to enter the museum, where we first were asked to choose an "identity" from a host of possible fake personalities. I was Angelena Falcone - 21 - born in Milano, Italy and destined for Hanoi, Vietnam. I was told that I would be tested on my ability to memorize this identity. spoiler alert : I was not.

Even so, the museum was "hella-cool", as my new west coast friends would say. There were all sorts of spy gadgets that I would have never imagined.

Especially appealing was the wool trench coat with a camera hidden behind the middle-right button. I'm not sure if I thought it was so cool because of the sneaky spyware, or because literally all I could think about for a large portion of the hour visit was how COLD the place was. Seriously, I don't know if it's the whole spy-adrenaline rush or if museum curators are just terrifically toasty people - but that museum was fah-reezing.

Bring a sweater.

With that behind us, let me move on to the second coolest thing I saw today - the Dog Doo Transmitter; "Effectively camouflaged (I'd say), this homing beacon transmitted a radio signal that directed aircraft to locations for strikes or reconnaissance."

Yes, it was the second coolest thing in the whole spy museum, and, Yes, I am 20 years old.

All in all, I'd say the museum was worth the $12 discounted class rate. It covered a TON - every war, major scandal, big spy celeb (and non-spy, or seemingly non-spy, celeb), national disaster, old spy technique ... I could go on. It was awesomely decorated, and it had a pretty extensive gift shop (though with the $12 entrance fee in a city of free museums I don't see why that was such a necessity).

Also - a pigeon is never just a pigeon. Keep that in mind.

Peter Earnest

 

14th street sign

I am constantly amazed by the fact that DC consists of more international residents than any place I have ever been. I'm not sure if the reason this is so surprising to me is because I expected our nation's capital to have well, people from our nation, or because I come from a terribly sheltered and segregated region of the Midwest and am, in fact, terribly sheltered myself.

The real answer is probably a combination of the two (with numerous other self-depreciating variables mixed in). Regardless, walking down the street on any given day, I hear more varieties of Spanish and French than of English and am more surprised to meet an American than to encounter someone from a different country.

Not only are the residents international, though, but diverse in other ways as well. In mindsets, opinions, and global viewpoints, the people of the district vary immensely. And, when compiling a population from such diverse backgrounds, how could they not?

I'm starting to think that another factor in this all is the outspoken nature of many residents of DC when it comes to their political and social ideology.

Because the city is a hub of action and a turning point for so many issues and ideas, I think one has to speak up if he or she is planning on having any impact at all. Coming from the aforementioned sheltered town, this mode of operation is all quite new to me.

Back home, I think we're more concerned with fitting in and not offending those around us than we would ever be with standing up for any sort of personal beliefs or ideologies. Granted, teenagers always think they need to be outspoken and rebellious about something - but where I'm from, with few exceptions, they all seem to be "rebellious" about the same thing.

I think that's why all of this diversity in ethnicity, mindset and manner of public behavior surprised me so much, and why it's taken me a little bit of adjustment time to feel at ease with the constant onslaught of personalities and personal opinions.

The way I see it, it's almost a sort of all-or-nothing dynamic. Either shut up entirely about all personal beliefs and try hard to offend no one (cough, Mequon, cough), or shout all of them at once and so loudly that no one person or ideology could possibly take offense.

Which is why, in Mequon (hometown), the following picture would incite more than a few angry, misdirected and probably very whiny, telephone calls, but here in DC it barely warrants a second (or first, for that matter) glance.

Journalism Assignment [Press Conference]

TUESDAY, SEPT. 14, 2010

EBay’s Successful Business Model Boasts an Environmentally Friendly Byproduct

By GABRIELLE PEDRIANI

American University

WASHINGTON - “It’s not on the top of our minds” acknowledged Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, when speaking about the environmental impacts of the economy. She conceded that people are “much more worried about their jobs and their future” than the threats posed to our environment in today’s day and age.

That seemed to be the reoccurring theme during Tuesday’s conference, where representatives from eBay, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and Cooler Inc, a company that seeks to find economic solutions to global warming, met to discuss the role that eBay’s predominantly small business clientele could play in lessening the company’s carbon footprint.

EBay, the global Internet trading platform, boasts a host of environmentally friendly business practices, including buying and selling used products, reducing transportation and cutting back on packaging materials. The infrastructure impact of the company, in fact, is equivalent to “taking all the cars in…Kentucky off the road for a year”, according to founder and chairman of Cooler Inc, Michel Gelobter.

However, as eBay Inc. President and CEO John Donahoe himself confessed, “green is the secondary issue”, an issue which is proceeded first and foremost by the current economic state. The general consensus Tuesday was that until the environment truly becomes a top priority in U.S. society with tangible benefits, large-scale change will remain elusive.

Hope is not lost, however, as companies’ economic success and their ability to promote environmentally friendly business practices increasingly go hand in hand. “Companies that are looking far enough ahead will realize that … [clean energy] is where the economy is going,” stated Claussen.

“I don’t think people will forget about it,” she continued, with a twinge of skepticism. The three speakers seemed to agree upon one fact; in an individualistic society such as the U.S., real progress can only be achieved when the individual benefits in the process. Luckily for eBay, “sustainability is a byproduct” of their successful business – allowing the powerhouse a best of both worlds deal.

eBottle

What does a journalist dress like?

Well, according to my professor, you're not a business person, but you're not taking out the trash either, so...

yeah. Somewhere in between there lies the elusive uniform of a professional journalist. Mr. Gil Klein wears khakis and a blue blazer - his self-proclaimed daily wardrobe for the past 40 years. How to apply that to a female reporter? You got me.

The result of this confusion over whether or not to blend in, stand out or disregard clothing entirely (a tempting, though admittedly slightly unprofessional approach) was me completely overdressing for what turned out to be a relatively casual event.

Our journalism class assignment was to attend a press conference in the morning and have a story written on it by 4:00pm that evening.
The event, a "press conference" (which turned out to be an arranged 'discussion' between representatives from eBay, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and a environmentally conscious organization called Cooler Inc) where small online business's capabilities for improving the environment were discussed. .

I'd say the highlight of the whole affair was the complimentary breakfast that the host, the National Press Club, so graciously provided. I, a newbie to this whole being a reporter thing, however, wasn't aware that the breakfast was indeed for the attending press at the press conference, and proceeded to stand in a corner for fear of taking someone's chair or food - when both the chair and food were, in fact, intended for, well, me, the "reporter".

Anyhow, putting all embarrassing beginner's mistakes aside, the conference was a good introduction, and an interesting opportunity to watch how representatives of a cause and representatives of a corporation sometimes fail to see eye to eye. Seeing the president of eBay call the conference's designated questioner's wife a "lunatic" (to which he indignantly responded) wasn't so bad either.

I also got a free water bottle. So, overall, success.


[I'll put the article I wrote on the "event"/conference/terribly tame and painfully cordial conversation in the following post]

Oh Henry!

Aujourd'hui, Monsieur Ed Henry paid us a lovely visit at the National Press Club. Mr. Henry is CNN's senior White House correspondent.

The man flaunts a pretty impressive list of accomplishments, and his contact with various presidents over the years makes for some pretty intimidating name-dropping capabilities. He got to interview Prez Clinton the day the Lewinski scandal became public, and defied common etiquette by shouting at George W. Bush in an interview at the Rose Gardens. His most recent accomplishment was a brief one-on-one strategically-maneuvered quasi-interview with Obama during the past month.

However, of all these prestigious sounding experiences, I found it interesting that his self-proclaimed most enjoyable memory was of a story he got to do on Jackie Robinson, because it was "interesting and different".

And admittedly, I can imagine that after the first one or two times brushing shoulders with a sitting president, the whole bowing to your majesty thing gets a little old. That being said, it sure makes for an intimidating autobiography, or intro to a college seminar, for that matter.

Ed started off his speech in a fairly colloquial manner, but as the hour or so progressed, he really became a surprisingly approachable, and I thought, likable, guy. He gave some good advice on interviewing - explaining that the strategy behind good questioning isn't "one size fits all", but rather a sort of skill that one learns to tweak for various personalities and situations.

I especially liked his one bit of advice to "listen to the answers". It hit home with me, because I know that when I'm nervous and all prepared to interview someone, I plan out my nicely typed little set of questions and then spend the rest of the interview thinking about idiotic things. What does my face look like? Should I cross my legs toward them or away from them? Do I look too eager if I nod my head? Is my mouth hanging open a little too wide, or do I look engrossed if I leave it ajar just a tad?

I am not kidding. This is literally what's running through my head. So, thanks to Ed, I'm going to seriously listen to what the interviewee is saying next time, and tailor my questions based on their responses to get the most out of the little chat.

I also asked him if pushing an interviewee's buttons, or asking them a tough question (like he did with Obama and AIG, upsetting Obama and various other concerned citizens), makes them less likely to respond sincerely or candidly to future questions.

To this he responded that it depends on the person, but that most times they're understanding of the role of a journalist. (Except in GWB's case - when he blatantly ignored Ed in a press conference out of apparent spite at being asked a toughie earlier).

Finally, I liked Ed's outlook on journalists and opinions. His personal take was that "[he is] a citizen", and entitled to his own opinions - but that doesn't in any way hinder his ability to present a topic in an unbiased manner. ("unbiased", I know, is an iffy term in itself, but I'll leave that whole spiel for another time)

He stated that he doesn't like that journalism has to be so "robotic" - something with which I entirely agree.

Journalists are human, so let's accept it and move on with informing the public. Enough with this overly-obsessive self-analysis that journalists are so obnoxiously concerned with.

That's my opinion 

Ed Henry speaking at the National Press Club (13 Sept. 2010)

salt n noodles

You know those nights when all you want to do is sit?

It doesn't even matter where. All you know is that however the night ends up, it better consist of you resting on your laurels in some way, shape or form. And that night, my friends, was tonight.

Good thing I wasn't the only one who felt that way, or I'd have ended up sitting in some deserted courtyard all by my lonesome (or more likely in my dorm room - - a deserted park sounds more dramatic though, doesn't it?) The feeling of not wanting to move being mutual, however, my roommate, neighbor and I decided to go see a movie. The nearest theater is in Friendship Heights, (one metro stop or a 10 min bus ride away). We decided on the metro, not trusting our arrival time to the unreliable DC bus schedule.

Unfortunately, "The Switch", which we'd decided upon seeing ended up only admitting people 21 and over, which is getting to become a common, and incredibly unfortunate, theme to this city. So the three of us settled upon "Salt", the Angelina Jolie movie (even though she annoys me to death most of the time).

Though the film was essentially one long chase with a few WOWOW plot twists thrown it, it actually ended up being a lot better than I'd expected, and actually sparked some post-film-bathroom-conversation (a tell-tale sign of success).

Best part of the night, though, was getting soup at CVS!! Progresso noodles, baby. What more could you want from a Saturday night in our nation's capital?! I'll take advantage of the location in good time, don't you worry,

but tonight, I slurp. :)

The Ship

It's an endentured servant, it's a slave, No! It's an...


Intern.


According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, today about 50% of college graduates have had an internship, compared with a mere 17% in 1992. Why has working for free gained such popularity? Why now are employers suddenly so concerned with experience, when years ago a comical list of summer jobs suited most of them just fine?


With the poor economy and limited opportunities, quality jobs are more difficult to come by now than ever. Along with the loss of such quality (and paid) experience, comes the loss of marketable skills. Employers, short on time and money, simply can't afford to train new and uninformed employees, and the prospective employees in turn cannot receive the experience necessary for making themselves appealing to employers. 


It seems to be a never-ending cycle, remedied only by the solution of unpaid internships - opportunities for young students and job-seekers to obtain knowledge in their desired field without standing in the way of a company's success.


Since the advent of this system, its popularity and scope have only increased, and now the majority of students complete an internship at some point in their college career. However, with the increase in demand, the difficulty of obtaining an internship has risen as well. 


35 years ago, when my mother attended the American University Washington Semester Program, she recalls it being relatively simple to find a company delighted at the prospect of a free and competent helping hand. 

After all, such an arrangement is a seemingly perfect solution, a win-win of sorts, or so it seemed until recent laws passed by the Obama administration set severe restrictions on just what type of labor an unpaid intern can perform. After all, it's easy to see why services rendered entirely and willingly without compensation would raise a red flag for the government, especially when they've become so mind-bogglingly difficult to obtain.
"Who wouldn’t want a smart college student working for free 16 hours a week?" my mother questioned. And logically, it's true. But recently things have gotten out of hand, and the competition for internships at certain desirable, big-name organizations has become nothing less than cut-throat.


For example, according to a source at National Public Radio, an internship with them is akin to "getting into Harvard", an astonishing fact considering the charitable nature of interning itself. 


Yet, with the state of the economy and the widespread desperation for employment in one's respective field, an internship may be a hopeful job applicant's only ticket into a large company or organization that might otherwise ignore their existence. Moving up within has proven to be easier than breaking in from without - and such access to quality employment is more crucial now than ever before. 


The debate, however, is far from over, and people everywhere are weighing in on exactly what should be expected from an unpaid intern and how interning's possible opportunities for young hopefuls can best be exploited. 

I can only hope I'll have more luck with internships than Harvard applications.

Wayne's World

Today's seminar was lead by Sylvia Smith, the Washington correspondent for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (that's in Indiana for those non-midwesterners among you).

Ms. Smith was very animated, and painted a seemingly honest picture of journalism work in DC. She's a regional reporter, which means that she takes the national news and picks it apart to find something relevant to her hometown. Her stories, therefore, cover areas that very few people touch upon, because essentially, very few people are from Fort Wayne.

I thought it sounded tough, though, to take every large story and have to find something minor that applies to a niche audience. It seems to me like that would require a fair amount of investigative journalism.

For example: When former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens recently died in a plane crash, Ms. Smith took the story, did some investigating, and found out that he had actually been raised in Indiana. So, unlike other reporters, she didn't simply relay the facts, but instead delved beneath the surface to find an additional aspect that a lot of journalists didn't. So, although "small town" sort of denotes, "simplistic", here that doesn't really seem to be the case.

She also made a really interesting point when talking about things she's learned in DC. She said that she had never realized how committed people like House Representatives were to their jobs. I guess I never really thought of it this way, but she said that she couldn't imagine having to fight for her job against a worthy opponent every 2 years - and it's true, that would be incredibly stressful for anyone.

Another bit of interesting info she added was that the journalists in the best positions right now are those that have a specialty, because they have a knowledge of a niche area that's hard to replace. That's great news for me, as I've decided to pursue a journalistic focus in fantasy films - LOTR, Hpitty, Narnia, ...etc


Kidding.

Anyhow, I'll sum up this posterooni with my fav quote of the entire seminar
... "We get in this business because we like people, or because we hate people."

Sylvia (in the zebra print), with students in the Journalism class

BBC

So, last week, after an incredibly difficult decision making process, I decided to officially go with an internship at The BBC's Washington Bureau.

I've been really interested in not only British culture, but their unique and world-class broadcasting for as long as I can remember, and now I'm very VERY excited to be a part of it.

That being said, for entirely understandable reasons, I can't talk a ton about the internship itself, but I can tell you that it's inexplicably cool to be in the middle of such a hub of activity, and the stimuli from all different directions is intimidating and invigorating all at once.

I also got to sit in with the editors for an hour or so on Friday, and I actually think that I started to drool out of envy. They have THE most amazing jobs, and I really hope that I can sit in to observe them again. My boss also said that I'll be able to move around the bureau a bit, so that I can get a taste of everything.

But for now, here is where I reside...

Newsroom

Desk where I've been working

Clock/tvs showing other networks