YouTube Comments: Epic Fails

Maybe I should have included the words "Epic Fail" into the title of my YouTube videos. I might have at least gotten some more traffic that way, and maybe another comment or two.

This project proved to be very difficult for me. Going in, I thought that I had the creative capacity to make an entertaining video that would garner plenty of comments. Once it came time to make the videos, I had no clue what I was doing. I knew that I wanted to sing, but I also wanted to try and do something a little wacky.

I didn't initially know how to go about marketing my two videos. I put them both on my Facebook page more than a few times, begging people for comments. I put them on Twitter, but because I only have 15 followers they didn't circulate very widely. One of my friends put them on his Twitter, but it didn't seem like any of his 100+ followers watched the videos or commented.

I put the videos on Digg, and the only one viewing them from that site was me. I tried to embed the videos on other YouTube videos in the comment wall, but that was way too complicated for me. In the end, I received about 6 or 7 comments on each of my videos, and I responded to some of them but got no response back.

The biggest problem I noticed was none of my friends wanted to take the time to make a YouTube account. They would comment right on my Facebook page. At least four or five people told me this. I had a comment stream of about eight people in one day right on my Facebook wall, but none of them went to the actual video to do it. Nobody other than friends or people from class commented either.

Another problem I think I created for myself was the titles of my videos. I wanted to put the word "Ginger" somewhere in one of them because who doesn't love a good ginger video now-a-days. I became too embarrassed to leave it up, so I changed Ginger to Me. The title was far too long for anyone to find in a random YouTube search, and that hurt me .

If I could go back and change some of my strategies, I definitely would. I think that my efforts resulted in an epic fail.

Yelp, I Need Somebody...

I decided to review two eateries that I had just recently visited. The first was Bub's BBQ and the second was Pasta e Basta, both fine establishments that received glowing reviews.

I think that Yelp is a cool concept, but only if you go out a lot. The problem with me is that I am a hermit. I am not actively looking for cool new places to go eat or hang out. My budget certainly doesn't help this problem either. It translates more to fast food.

The one problem I have with Yelp is that it seems really impersonal. I don't know if I am old fashioned, but I just don't know how much I trust the opinion of a stranger online about a potential lunch/dinner selection. I would rather hear this coming from somebody that I know and trust instead of Lisa D., a food-porn addict from New York City.

I understand that there are friend applications available on this website, but I don't know that I would want to start being somebody's online friend solely because we like the same restaurant. This isn't like being a Facebook friend. And how often would you be checking in on it? It is just overkill to me. I already have my Facebook that I check religiously, I don't need another one.

It just is very foreign to me. Maybe it is because I am a hermit and am scared of change, but I am going to resist it for now. Yelp just doesn't cut it for me, but I won't bad mouth it for users like April G., who is definitely in the top three good-looking girls on the street.

I "Digg" It

I had first heard about Digg because I read Sports Illustrated.com. The website uses Digg to rank stories by their writers and other sports stories from around the country. I didn't really look into it that much, because I have pretty picky tastes when it comes to sports.

I should have taken the time to look into it a bit more, because using it for the past week was pretty freaking awesome.

The first thing that I did on Digg was put up the two videos that I made from class. I was expecting to receive some sort of increase in views and/or comments because of this, but that didn't happen. It seemed like the only person that viewed my videos was me. That didn't stop me from checking out other really interesting things, though.

One of the coolest things that I saw over the week was this video of an Australian comedy act called Axis of Awesome. They proved that most if not all of the famous pop songs use only four chords. I didn't believe it, so I had to check it out. Sure enough, a whole lot of songs used the same four chords. I was amazed, and they probably could have gone on for a lot longer with more examples. They must have gone through nearly 50 songs, and it was actually pretty funny.

Since I am a big sports guy, I wanted to check out what people were Digging in the sports world. One of the best ones from this week was of a five-year-old baseball player named Ariel Antigua. This kid could hit a fastball at 85-MPH, field grounders like Omar Vizquel, and even had a sweet pitching motion. My jaw dropped. This kid has more talent at five than I did ever. I will be following this youngster all the way through little league, high school, and whenever he signs with the Yankees thanks to Digg.

I didn't comment on that many things during the week. It seemed like it was enough just to Digg it. Commenting on top of that just seemed redundant. I saw a couple of things thrown up today that I commented on. The first was an infograph that shows how California could profit from the legalization of marijuana. I thought that the graph made a lot of sense. There certainly are a lot of cons against the legalization of this drug, and a lot of people were commenting that increased costs of DUI's and health care weren't taken into account. I just commented that the two biggest killers, alcohol and cigarettes, are both perfectly legal. This would just be another one. As of right now, my comment was dug four times. I was pretty excited that others shared the same sentiment.

The other story I commented on was about an American climber who climbed 13,000 feet without any safety equipment and then jumped off with nothing but a tiny parachute. The story made me feel like a complete wimp. This guy is a total beast. The pictures made me feel so weak and insignificant, and the video that accompanied the story was just unreal to watch. The comments were pretty insignificant, so I just threw out and insignificant one as well. It seemed cool enough to write about how manly this guy was.

It is interesting how certain stories get popular and others don't. I probably timed my posts poorly, putting them up late one night and taking away any chance they had of getting views. I put one of my videos in the "Offbeat" category, and one in the "Music" category. I really don't see how some of the offbeat ones were more offbeat than mine. It might be all about timing, but it is probably more about luck and what you call it. "Afternoon Delight in a Robe" doesn't exactly scream "WATCH ME!"

I think that having used it this week, I will continue to use it. I am going to try and put the widget in my out-of-school blog and maybe try to gain more readership that way. It is worth a shot to try and extend my audience, and maybe if I just keep bombarding the website with links and posts, they will have no choice but to Digg some of them! I think that it could really help my blog get off the ground, not that I want to do anything long-term with it. It would be nice if someone other than my parents read it.

I will end it with the favorite thing that popped up this week: a new Old Spice Body Wash commercial. I love Old Spice commercials. I think that they are hysterical. This one was so over the top, and I loved every second of it.

Second YouTube Video

So I really couldn't make my mind up as to what I wanted my video to be. I ended up making another one to compete with my first try, and here it is. It is a little sillier.

YouTube: Digital Media and Society Series

I thought that this book was an interesting read. It was a bit dry at times, but that was the tone that the book needed. If it was a book about viral videos, it could have a more playful tone, but no. This book was about YouTube as an entity, and it did a good job describing all of the different aspects of YouTube.

Despite the dry nature, the book did get me to think about a lot of things I normally overlook when I use YouTube. In chapter 5, it talks about YouTube being an "Accidental Archive of Culture," cataloging moments from different eras and storing them for later reminiscing. I look back on things from the 90s/early 2000s all of the time, but never realize just how much culture YouTube is actually "preserving," in a sense of the word. The book opened me up to simple ideas such as this that I wouldn't have normally thought about.

It is also interesting to look at the future of YouTube. The book notes how the website didn't have an identity or a purpose at the onset, and that might be true for a lot of these websites. The way that the site is evolving, with sponsors and other signs of mainstream integration, is very intriguing. Will that change the way that the site operates and affect the participatory nature of the community? Will they be able to sustain such a large audience? That remains to be seen. These are all questions that a lot of people are interested in, but not me.

I don't know if this is a book that I would have read outside of class. The dichotomy of YouTube isn't necessarily thrilling to me. Sure it has become a part of mainstream society and the media, but knowing its roots and criticisms and such isn't going to change the way that I use YouTube: watch funny videos, find music videos, and watch sports videos. That is all I really use it for, and the things in this book really didn't change any of that. It is a good read for someone who is very interested in the web, and it's still a good read if you're not. It is just a little boring.

YouTube Video: Posted

This is the video I ended up posting on YouTube: Me Singing Elton John. It's not much, but I will explain later the difficulties I had coming up with something even this simple.

There are so many to choose from...

I really don't have a favorite YouTube video. I have seen so many over the course of the last few years that none really stands out as a clear favorite.

That being said, some of the videos that I enjoy a lot are the "Batting Stance Guy" videos, particularly the one in which he impersonates players from the Red Sox. I am a Yankee fan, but I find this video much more entertaining because: 1) There aren't many distinctive batting stances in Yankee history, 2) It is fun to make fun of the batting stances of the Red Sox, 3) I don't enjoy watching Yankees get made fun of.

I first saw this video on Sports Illustrated's website. They have a section on their website totally concentrated on interesting links and videos that is updated daily. This video was put up one day a couple years ago, and it was one of those videos that I had to show all of my friends, since they are Red Sox fans. What I like so much about it is its simplicity. It is short, sweet, and very humorous. Well, maybe if you know baseball. Otherwise it might just be boring.

NOTE: So after watching other videos by this guy, I found one he did of the 2009 Yankees. I have to admit, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

YouTube Blog Post

I considered vlogging this, but thought better of it.

PART ONE: I would have to agree with that quote. As a casual/frequent user of YouTube, I don't really think about the political or economic implications of its use. With any "participatory culture" there will be questions like this. Facebook has the question of age limits, MySpace has the question of privacy, and so forth. With YouTube, the questions are different. There are certainly people capitalizing on celebrity and creativity reached on YouTube, but there is a question about how one can monetize all of the hard work that was put in to create a video or videos. This question was the butt of an episode-long joke on "South Park," so it certainly has been thrown around.

I always assume that everyone can participate, and I feel that due to the popularity of the site more and more people try to. It is interesting how some videos become so much more popular than others. Sometimes I will watch a video and think, "How the hell has this gotten 5 million views??" Certainly more important voices get thrown under the rug for silly videos of people falling down. More and more are using YouTube to and try and voice politics, but I feel that even more are using it for much simpler purposes.

It is interesting to wonder about the authority on YouTube. With so many videos, it seems incredibly hard to look at them all and "police" them if you will. But there are more and more entities with interests being compromised, so they do a lot of the policing too.

PART TWO: "Hey Girl" and "Lonelygirl15" are two more examples of videos who's popularity is incomprehensible to me. Nothing about those videos interests me at all. When I read about the mythology behind "Hey Girl," it was exactly what I thought it would be. Two girls dancing. That's it. They weren't trying to get millions of hits, but they miraculously did. The person that responded to their question of why the video was so popular with, "Because it's reality" needs to get a life. If you need to go to your computer to get a three minute slice of reality, you are in big trouble. Hopefully this doesn't become some weird alternate reality, where we need to go on YouTube to get our daily fill of "reality" and escape our own awful existences...

It didn't surprise me that the Lonelygirl15 video was fake. Once I watched a few more, they all began to look incredibly scripted. The "Is it real?" ploy is a very strong tactic to gain views, and thusly gain popularity. Obviously that wasn't the intention, but once people caught on they rolled with it. Plus, there was no way that girl was 16.

PART THREE: I like the design of YouTube. It is easy to navigate, the site offers recommendations for videos you might be interested in, and it's easy to share these videos. I don't necessarily like the comment function. Too many people get out of hand, and the comments get way off track and into personal battles between people commenting. The new redesign is also a little awkward. It will take a while to get used to, because it probably won't get changed back.

Compared to other social networking sites: I only really use Facebook, so that is the only basis I have. The biggest difference that I can see is the availability of everything the site has to offer without the need for a membership. You can see pretty much anything you want even if you aren't signed up. I think you need the privacy settings for sites like Facebook, but YouTube doesn't really require it.

Wiki Experimentation

I am pretty awful with HTML and things of that nature. That's why I'm not very good with editing webpages like Wikipedia. I thought that this assignment was going to be challenging, but it turned out to be easier than I thought it was going to be.

I wasn't really sure what to try and change on Wikipedia. It seems like there is already information about everything. I decided to take it local and punch in my high school. There wasn't much info at all concerning my alma mater, so I decided to enter in some information about the types of sports at Sullivan West Central School. I also added a section describing how football plays in its own class different from the rest of the school's sports.

Next I went to a collegiate summer league baseball team that I interned with over the summer, the Niagara Power. I don't know much about the players on the team, but I did know one thing that was missing: the mascot. I added that while almost butchering the page in the process.

Next I wanted to make a change to an athlete's page. I decided to pick on new Knick Eddie House. I always made fun of how well-groomed House was during his playing days in Boston. I added a playful comment in the "personal" section that House is one of the most well-groomed players in the NBA and that his immaculate chin strap and eye brows are the toast of the league. I saved those comments, and then thought of something else to add. Literally one minute later, my addition was removed. The other two, as of right now, still remain.

Overall, I maybe spent 20 minutes tops entering in the information. I wasn't worrying about citing because this was all information I knew to be true, including Eddie House's eyebrows. The swiftness in which my post was removed tells me a lot about how Wikipedia is trying to establish itself as a credible source of information, and that is a good thing. It is certainly the most popular of all the wikis, and it was too powerful for me.

Talking To The President

For this assignment, I really didn't know where I was going to go to call in. I knew I wanted to do something related to sports, since that is really all I know. I tried to call in to WFAN New York on my way back from Spring Break, but after 10 to 12 attempts without even reaching the producer, I knew there was no way I was going to get through that traffic. I thought about calling WEEI to give a New York opinion on something related to Boston. The WFAN experience discouraged me, because there will be just as many if not more callers during the times I would be calling in.

Then I struck gold. I have only just recently started reading Barstool Sports. I don't care for it that much, but some of the links are funny and sometimes they actually do talk about sports. I noticed that the site has a "Barstool Power Hour" internet radio show three times a week. I listened in last Wednesday to get a reading on the show, since there was a call-in line. It is kind of amateurish. The sound quality is poor since it seems like the hosts are both calling in to a line. There really is no set topic of discussion. It is almost a free-for-all. But when "El Pres" was complaining about the lack of callers, I knew that this was the place to go if I wanted to get on.

I called in last Friday at around 3:15. The line went right through to the radio broadcast of the show, and then after a minute or two I was connected with the producer. Nobody was really talking about sports, and I think he was refreshed when I said that I wanted to discuss how CBS was performing as a network with its coverage of March Madness. He said he would put me right through, and I only had to wait about two callers to talk with El Pres. The entirety of my call-in can be heard HERE. Just fast forward to like halfway through? Something like that.

I talked with the guys for a good 3 minutes or so, and El Pres was very receptive of my ideas and thoughts. I didn't listen long after, but I don't think that anyone commented on my call. It wasn't as juicy as someone randomly asking whether Chipper Jones was a Hall of Famer or what superpower you would want to possess. Nobody wanted to talk about what a sucky job CBS does near the end of games.

Overall, it was a very exhilarating experience. There were definitely some butterflies in my stomach when I started talking to the producer. I was barely able to mumble what I wanted to talk about. Something clicked once my name was said on the show though, and I didn't really stutter or stammer while on the air. That was fortunate. Maybe next time I will go for insane, but this was a good time to keep it cool.

Review of "Talk Rad!o"

4.0 out of 5 stars Definitely an enjoyable read, March 16, 2010

By	Ross Bernhardt (Amherst, MA USA) - See all my reviews

After reading a bunch of different pieces about talk radio hosts, this encapsulated all of that into a fun afternoon of reading. Bogosian really nailed the persona of a talk radio host: brash, rude, seemingly above the listeners and other employees. That is what I usually picture when I listen to talk radio. I love him, I hate him, I want horrible things to happen to him; the full spectrum of emotions when listening to a talk radio host are felt. Bogosian really did a great job of creating a character that evoked such a reaction from the reader.

The length of the play is extremely manageable, and it doesn't need to be any longer. I don't really want to know what happens after that one night in the studio, I want to think about what happens. It's also short enough that it made me question why I keep going back to talk radio time and again. It frustrates but also keeps pulling me back in, and I feel like Bogosian does a great job of explaining this. This is fun read if you have an hour or two to spare."




-I really did like this play, and not just because it was so short. It had so much depth for its brevity, and it was funny to boot. Even though it was not sports talk, it gave me a look at what I might encounter when I call in to a radio station.

Stimulation

The fact of the matter is that it is not John Ziegler’s job to be responsible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his on-air comments are productive or dangerous, or cogent, or even defensible. That is not to say that the host would not defend his “we’re better”—strenuously—or that he does not believe it’s true. It is to say that he has exactly one on-air job, and that is to be stimulating.

This is why I don't really care for political talk radio, or political television. The whole idea makes sense from a business standpoint. When your listeners are interested, they are more likely to come back. It works for these stations, so why fix it.

The problem that I have with it is that it discredits the whole industry. Sure there is freedom of speech, but there is a limit for me. When you give your opinion and state it as fact, which many on talk radio and news channels do, people are taken along for the ride. That show that was described with the host faking interviews is awful. Practical jokes are one thing, but elaborate hoaxes like this one are simply unethical, especially when exposed to such a large audience.

The aim is to attract an audience and being outrageous and saying controversial things does that. I think that you can still be interesting and stimulating and attract an audience without being so controversial. That seems like a short cut to me. Come up with original and thought-provoking ideas that don't walk a fine line between disgusting and infuriating listeners.

I listen to sports talk radio, and most of the time hosts hoot and holler and try to stir the pot. I just don't think this is necessary. I as a listener would just appreciate insightful commentary and an open mind when other people don't agree with your thoughts. Maybe I am just wired differently than the rest of the country that seems to like this kind of stuff.

John Ziegler

Reading this piece gave me mixed feelings about Ziegler. Initially I liked the descriptions of his demeanor and on-air persona. The fact that he treats his listeners and callers with respect is refreshing compared to some of the hosts I listen too.

I primarily listen to sports talk radio, something that Ziegler used to do. Most sports talk hosts are brash, rude, and unapologetic. The best examples I can think of are Mike Francesa and Chris "Mad Dog" Russo of the famed "Mike and the Mad Dog" show on WFAN New York. The name "Mad Dog" is an understatement. If a caller said something that didn't sit well with one of these two hosts, they would unleash hell on that sorry individual. I thought that New England radio would be a little different, but "The Big Show" just ups the ante. Instead of two guys screaming at you, they have three. The calmest show that I could find was the "Dale and Holley Show." Those guys are inquisitive and listen to their callers, dealing with irrational thoughts calmly and rationally.

As I continued to read the piece, I just became frustrated with his outlook on political correctness. He claims that it has ruined his life, and when you look at his track record, it is no surprise that it has. At some point, you should learn from your mistakes, but he continued to walk that fine line complaining about it the whole way. All of the brashness my sports talk hosts is fine because they don't cross any boundaries in regard to PC. It almost sickens me reading about some of the things that he had said, even when he was doing sports talk. It is almost the definition of insanity. He keeps crossing the same lines while hoping for different results.

All in all, I don't think I would enjoy listening to Ziegler. I am sure he is very intelligent and well-spoken, but his brand of content seems to rub me the wrong way.

Twitter Tracking

Image from pastepotpete.com

This past week, I have followed a lot of people on Twitter. I never thought that I would be typing that sentence. I was one of the most staunch critics of Twitter on the planet. I hated it. I didn't understand the obsession. I hated the idiocy of celebrity "tweets." When I found out that I had to get a Twitter for this class, I was more than disappointed at becoming a hypocrite.

Then I started following people that were of interest to me, as well as a variety of other different Twitter feeds. Twitter is actually a very interesting form of new media. I love reading the random musings of my favorite writer, Bill Simmons (@sportsguy33). I enjoy following the eccentric golfer Ian Poulter. News services provide interesting info and links to match up. Rober Ebert and his twenty million tweets have been somewhat compelling, if excessive.

I was also able to use Twitter to send links out of my own blog. It doesn't do that much good, since I only have 7 followers. Still, it is just another way to try and spread the word. I hope that if I somehow can find more followers, the reach of my blog might grow.

Some of it still bothers me. Random people started following me, and I think it was spam. I was followed and un-followed a lot. Some tweets are too specific or too vague for my taste. I still do not get the whole re-tweeting thing. I am not logged on enough to see every single update. Some of the tweets are very lame. I also don't like how direct tweets can be seen by all of your followers. I guess I have to take the good with the bad.

I won't say that Twitter is the greatest thing ever, but it is definitely not the worst thing like I had originally thought. It can be a useful medium for random notes and small news bits, and funny back-and-forths. I will continue to use Twitter, but not because I have to. I don't believe it, but I want to use Twitter.

Commenting: Very Interesting

I have just begun to delve into the world of commenting. It is not something that I normally participate in. I really don't read a lot of stories online very closely, certainly not enough to post a comment. I always felt that it didn't really serve a purpose. What was the point of commenting? It doesn't change the story, doesn't usually add anything. It didn't make sense why so many people would have the urge to comment on a simple online story.

I decided to comment on three sports-related stories. The first story I commented on was about the Russian President wanting heads to roll after his country's poor performance at the Olympics. I tried to make a funny comment: "In Russia, you don't participate in the Olympics. Olympics participate you!" Six minutes later, the reply "You're dumb" appeared. It was also liked twice. However, my post was liked four times, so I am the big winner. I wasn't trying to add anything to the conversation or offend, but apparently my comment irked someone enough to reply.

The next story I commented on was about new Red Sox shortstop Marco Scutaro. I delivered my honest opinion about Scutaro, which happens to contradict what most Sox fans say. I didn't get any reaction, but I thought I might. I was trying to give my opinion because I truly feel that it was a bad move to sign Scutaro.

I also commented on an article about Alex Rodriguez being contacted by federal authorities concerning Dr. Anthony Galea. The story only had one comment, and it was an Anti-A-Rod comment. I could have fought back, but I decided to take the high road and issue an independent comment.

I didn't really feel any particular rush in commenting on any of these stories, nor did I feel that I contributed anything. An online story usually says everything that needs to be said. All other comments are ancillary. I usually only comment on blogs where things are left open, ideas circulate, and discussion is encouraged. I don't think that news stories are written to start discussions.

I find it much easier to comment on Facebook. I normally comment on things like status updates, and I usually wish someone a happy birthday every day. I will also comment on other people's posts if they are funny or maybe if I haven't talked to that person in a while. I feel like commenting on Facebook is easier because of the nature of the site. It is a social networking site, which encourages interaction between users. Commenting hasn't been around for that long on Facebook, but it was only a matter of time. I think it belongs there, whereas I don't see how commenting is useful for newspapers and their websites.

Digital Nation

Wow. After watching that Frontline piece, I am completely stunned. I had been feeling concerned about my Internet habits before viewing the special. I am 100% certain that I have some addiction issues now.

I could relate to almost everything covered during the program. My writing is done despite constant distractions. Even when I write for my personal blog, which I get the most enjoyment out of, I find myself taking breaks and losing my initial train of thought. I am constantly checking the same sites every couple of minutes. I have stayed up into the wee hours of the night playing video games. I feel like I am a good multi-tasker, but now I am second-guessing myself. I question my own critical thinking and problem solving abilities compared to when I was younger and more focused. I am almost scared thinking about what I have become through my exposure to the Internet.

In high school, I never had a Myspace or AIM, but I found other ways to distract myself in the digital world. Now I have caught up in these mediums, and feel like I am dealing with distractions in almost every part of my daily life. I would like to think that I am adapting well, but I feel like my attention span is even worse than it was before. I will need to bring my laptop with me while I watch television just to I can satisfy all of my impulses. It almost sickens me that I spend so much time in the digital world.

One thing that I am proud of, though, is that I did write this post all in one sitting.

Published!

My letter to the editor of the Daily Collegian was just published in the Thursday, February 18 issue of the paper. Here is the link of the letters that were published, and mine is at the bottom. My voice was heard!

My letter-writing experience

Going into this, I had no idea what to focus on. I don't follow a lot of local or national topics, so I don't really have that many opinions on a lot of things. After I saw the letter to the editor in the Globe about multiple sclerosis, it gave me inspiration for a letter about my multiple sclerosis.

I decided to respond to the Globe with a letter of my own. I figured the paper would love to have a college student's opinion, especially with such a personal theme throughout. I don't have too much knowledge of health care reform, so I tried to focus on how I am affected without insurance. I tried not to sound too similar to the previous letter, but I am not sure if I succeeded. I sent that one in on Wednesday, but still haven't heard back from them.

It felt good writing the letter. I felt like I was getting something off of my chest, which I wasn't expecting at all. It was depressing not hearing anything back, however, almost discouraging. What is the point of expressing your opinion if no gets to hear it? It was an odd mix of emotions throughout the whole process.

To boost my confidence, I decided to write a letter to the Daily Collegian. I again didn't know what to write about, but I since we talked about the raise that Chancellor Holub in class I figured that would be topical. I decided to put a little different spin on it and talk about how the Massachusetts state budget might come into play. Then I tried to talk about my situation as an out-of-state student and what effect it might have on my fees. Since the Collegian is a small paper, I thought that it would be easier to get published. I didn't get my letter out until late in the week, so I am not sure whether it will make it in.

I thought the experience as a whole of writing these letters was productive. It made me feel like I was adding something to the conversation, whether it was valid or not. Not getting published was a bit of a disappointment, but it strangely does not discourage me from writing again in the future. I feel like I would do this again if something really struck a chord with me.

My letters to the editor:

1. Sent in to the Boston Globe:
"Dear Editor,

After reading the letter in Monday's Globe by Marsha Zabarsky, it got me thinking about health care reform and my own situation.

I am a junior at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and I also am living with Multiple Sclerosis. I am fortunate to be under my parents' health insurance while I am attending college. We certainly would not be able to afford my medication unless we made serious sacrifices.

I have peace of mind for now, but I am constantly thinking about life after graduation. Will I find a job with a health insurance plan that can afford my medication? It is very daunting to consider life without medication, and I can't begin to imagine what Marsha and other people that have trouble with insurance deal with on a daily basis.

Health care reform is a must, and the sooner that something is done, the sooner a lot of fears can be put to rest. Not just for myself, but for anyone who suffers without insurance.

Ross Bernhardt
Amherst, MA"

2. Sent in to the Daily Collegian:
"Dear Editor,

I am not quite as outraged as a lot are about the raise for Chancellor Holub. It seems absurd that during a recession we give the Chancellor a raise, but he has had to deal with running the university despite the economy.

The only thing that I ask is that he keep the fees for out-of-state students, like myself, right where they are. Governor Deval Patrick's new budget is going to bring more then $20 million into the university. The new budget will hopefully lessen the burden on out-of-state students, or at least keep it as it is. I think it is outrageous to make students from outside of Massachusetts pay so much, especially after an increase in federal funding.

Ross Bernhardt"

The one I sent to the Globe hasn't been published, and I haven't heard back from the Collegian.

Letters to the Editor

I looked at a bunch of letters to the editor over the week. The first link I will share comes from my home-town paper, the Times Herald Record. I thought all of these letters were good from Thursday, January 28. The one that really caught my attention was the last one entitled "Lottery jingle's dangerous." I was not aware of this jingle that played on lottery machines in my state, and it is definitely an intriguing scenario. I know that I would probably go nuts if I won any amount of money in a drawing, so the jingle would be irrelevant. Everybody would know that I had won something! I think the sound effect adds some excitement to the already exhilarating prize. I am just a hopeless optimistic, and I would only assume no one was out to get me and ruin my victory. With the current economy, anything is possible. It is refreshing to see someone looking out for the well-being of others, even as minor as it might be.

This second letter to the editor, from the Boston Globe, hits a little closer to home for me. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis the day before my freshman year at UMass. I am fortunate enough to be in school, and as a result am still covered under my parents' insurance. Without the insurance, I don't know how we would be able to afford my medication. Annually, the pharmaceuticals cost around $20,000. That kind of money just isn't in our budget. I can't imagine not having my medicine, but I only have another year and a half in college. I was excited with Obama's election and the promise of universal health care, but I know it is going to take time. With the super majority now gone, I know it will take even more time. It is easy for me to see how this woman would be a little upset, and I don't blame her either.

Response to Quotes

Journalists stand in a paternalistic relationship to readers: They guide them rather than engage them in conversation. They decide on the legitimate and valuable topics for the agenda based on their estimation of the public's need to know, but don't see the necessity for listening to the public. (Page 18)

The following quote seems to be accurate to me. In most forums of journalism, people don't seem to fully delve into subjects and encourage further discussion. The news outlets simply churn out the news but don't go any further. Readers don't make enough noise about it to change this fact, and are thus subjected to this treatment even further.

It seems that there are two extremes: one in where the media is the king and one in which the readers/public is the kings. There has to be a common ground between the two in order for the most important news to be covered. The readers need to be trusted by journalists and vice versa.

Making news became commercially viable through the selling of audiences to advertisers, instead of newspapers to partisan audiences... The new centrality of advertising income also meant that owners and editors were compelled to abandon controversial, partisan material from their reports, and instead aimed to please as many advertisers and consumers as they possibly could by printing ostensibly "neutral" content and proclaiming their political independence. (Page 38)

This quote I think holds true as well, more visibly in newspapers. Newspapers try to remain more neutral than news channels for the sake of advertisements, and it is at the cost of real investigative reporting. The economic system of newspapers requires advertising, and newspapers are willing to sacrifice controversial voice if it can net them a few dollars. News networks claim there are no biases, but anyone could tell you which ones are liberal and which ones are conservative. Advertisers don't shy away from them. It makes me wonder why newspapers don't take more chances like news networks do as far as giving some opinion.

The Senatorial Election

On Tuesday, January 19, the race for Ted Kennedy's vacated seat in the US Senate came to a very surprising conclusion. Republican Scott Brown defeated the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to shake up the power structure in Washington. I am not from Massachusetts; I hail from New York. I wasn't very aware of the issues surrounding the candidates, but I followed the election on Twitter and on Boston.com.

The networks that I was watching during the election (MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) were only showing the latest results coming in from different districts. They didn't show much commentary from the general public. The Twitter-verse, however, was buzzing with different news and opinions. Not only were they offering the latest voting results, but giving their views as well. Those with conservative views were very excited, and usually ended their tweets with exclamation points and optimism. Liberals were very nervous and skeptical, already showing frustration with how they felt Coakley hurt herself in the election.

Boston.com had a live forum set up four days before the election even began. People were commenting and discussing their views early and often, continuing to do so throughout the election. The site also had readers reporting in about the polling stations in their town. People chimed in about who they voted for and how crowded the station was. The web site also followed Tweets from the candidates, with a widget set up on the page. It was a site filled with user-generated material that helped me follow the election more easily.

The Tweets about Scott Brown still keep flying on Twitter, and my favorite one of late:

"chalupatime Scott Brown is going on Leno, Scott Brown supports backstabbers."