Essay First Draft

Since the advent of the information technology age, many people have become concerned with the state of civic literacy in America. Due to the watershed invention of the internet, our collective reading and writing habits are inevitably going to change; and because the internet is still in its infancy, there is significant concern about the ramifications of a cultural shift of this magnitude. Many people subscribe to the belief that the internet will eventually inhibit our cognitive and social abilities, that essentially because information is easily available to everyone, one isn’t required to think critically about anything. As Nicholas Carr points out in his article “Is Google Making us Stupid?”, there was trepidation about Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press, as people claimed that the availability of books would weaken people’s minds. This backlash against technology is an obvious parallel of resistance to the internet today. Just as the printing press was a Godsend for an intellectual revolution hundreds of years ago, the internet will make its users more equipped readers and writers. The inherent ease and accessibility of the internet will not restrain people’s minds, it will simply catalyze the spread of information, allowing people to become aware of new ideas which will enhance us intellectually.
The debate about the potential effects of the internet’s assimilation into our culture is perhaps more polarizing than necessary. Chris Hedges articles “America the Illiterate” and “Bad Day for Newsrooms”, along with Carr’s article affirm their belief that America’s overwhelming reliance on the internet has weakened our country’s collective intelligence. Andrew Sullivan’s article “Why I Blog,” and Clive Thompson’s article on “The New Literacy”, on the other hand, have a much more optimistic outlook regarding the internet. The article “Civic Discourse Amid Cultural Transformation” by Calvin Massey agrees with many of the ideas brought up by the less-than-optimistic Hedges and Carr, however he is also an ironically Sullivan-esque supporter of the internet.
Calvin Massey’s article, by in large, explains how we have become part of a “graphic-based culture” as opposed to a “print-based” one, thus his beliefs are almost identical to Hedges in this respect. Massey references how the invention of the telegraph was the beginning of the end to the print-based culture, as it was a much faster and more convenient means of communication across long distances than hand written letters. Massey is not anti-technology, however, as he is quick to acknowledge the benefits that technology has presented throughout history. He, along with Carr, equates present-day technology with Gutenberg’s 15th century printing press. Before the printing press, Massey explains, the only means available for people to learn the Bible was through their priests. After the Bible was printed on a mass-scale, God became infinitely more accessible to the public and priests on an educational level became obsolete. This, however, had ramifications that would have been impossible for Gutenberg to foresee, such as an increase in civic literacy, the Protestant Reformation and even the 18th century enlightenment. Because the internet is so relatively new, one cannot accurately predict all of its future effects on civic literacy. And while we will not live to see all of the effects that the internet has on civic literacy, history shows us that inventions that have increased the flow of information and ideas between people have in general provided more benefits than problems.
In “Civic Discourse Amid Cultural Transformation”, Calvin Massey references New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell. Describing Gladwell as a technologist, Massey says that he offers the idea that technology can indeed replace certain things. Gladwell explained that a process called “collaborative filtering” (208) could replace the need for suggestions by someone in a bookstore based on computer analysis of one’s literary likes and dislikes. Massey explained how he was rather skeptical about the idea that technology could so easily replace human interaction. Gladwell, unlike those who are apprehensive about the internet’s effect on our culture, understands that technology, in many cases, has possibly many unseen benefits. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, Gladwell discusses the relationship between technology in the form of email and personal interaction.

“The Fact that anyone can email us for free, if they have our address, means that people frequently and persistently email us. But that quickly creates immunity, and simply makes us value face-to-face communications – and the communications of those we already know and trust – all the more” (275)

Gladwell’s email example illustrates the idea that technology can enhance one thing while still offering an alternative to it. The internet isn’t necessarily revolutionizing civic literacy, it could instead simply enhance it by offering the public a new place to read and write.
In terms of civic literacy, a leading indicator is the state of journalism. Initially, many people would consider journalism to be in decline because of the floundering newspaper industry. Journalism and newspapers, however, are not totally synonymous. While it is clearly easy to see how badly the newspaper industry is doing, the state of journalism itself is much more difficult to define. As the need for priests was diminished by Gutenberg’s printed Bible, the need for newspapers to find out information is being diminished by the existence of the internet. Gutenberg’s printing press didn’t bring about the elimination of priests or the Catholic Church, it simply changed it instead. This coincides with Andrew Sullivan’s belief that newspapers and the internet can coexist as news sources. For some, such as Chris Hedges, journalism is in decline strictly because newspapers are. Hedges asserts that if newspapers die, journalism will die with them because newspapers have certain characteristics that internet sites lack, such as the possession of significantly more accountability for stories and resources for extensive research and coverage. Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, claims that we are in “a golden era for journalism.” However, the truth about the state of journalism in this country probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
In “Bad Day for Newsrooms,” Chris Hedges never once mentions the idea that the newspapers companies themselves might be responsible for a very small part of their decline. Nothing can really compete with the speed and accessibility of the internet. Watching newspapers compete heads-up with the internet in terms of convenience is heartbreaking because they simply cannot win. It’s almost reminiscent of mom-and-pop stores competing with Wal-Mart. What newspapers must do is offer a product that is different than the internet blogosphere. Hedges mentions how newspapers are shortening their articles to simulate the internet, and what newspaper companies must realize is that people will generally choose the internet over an internet simulation.
In spite of the panic, it is possible that newspapers are just in a downswing. As news becomes less and less newslike there might rise a demand for more traditional, unbiased and responsible journalism. Perhaps the path of journalism is less linear and instead resembles that of a pendulum. Maybe we’re just several years away from a newspaper comeback, where responsibility and credibility will become sought after traits once again. Sullivan equated the coexistence of newspapers and the internet with the coexistence of jazz and classical music. Because the two medium have inherently different advantages, (e.g. the ease and accessibility of the internet vs. the depth of newspapers), Sullivan claims, the internet will simply add to the collective state of journalism just as newspapers do. Using Sullivan’s metaphor, the invention of jazz didn’t bring about the end of classical music, it was simply a different alternative that added to music as a whole. Just as the internet offers different characteristics than newspapers, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The public is becoming better readers and writers because the internet it not necessarily taking away from the print-based culture, it’s adding to it.
According to Chris Hedges’ “America the Illiterate”, our country is strictly divided into two sects, those of the print-based culture and those of the image-based culture. One third of the nation’s population is either illiterate or barely literate, so there is predictably a rather large divide between the enlightened and the unenlightened. Historian Alan Brinkley, according to Massey’s article, stated that colonial America was highly literate relative to Europe. This is a very interesting juxtaposition compared to what Hedges maintains in his article about the country’s current state of literacy. According to both Hedges and Massey, somewhere during the history of American culture we have transformed from a print-based culture to an image-based one. Both writers provide pages of evidence to support this, and personally I completely agree that with their assessment. Simply put, this cultural transformation could not have occurred without the aid of technology, and this is perhaps partly the reason for some of the resistance towards the internet. But the idea that culture couldn’t have changed without technology and the idea that technology changed culture are very similar but not totally the same. According to Massey, the enemy of civic literacy is not necessarily the internet, it’s the diminishing of the print-based culture.
While discussing the history of civic discourse, Calvin Massey asserted that books changed greatly changed the state of communication. He says: “Before the printed word, communication was necessarily social. But books are best read in silence; the conversation is between the absent author and the present reader. Human sociability and reading are incompatible, at least at the same moment in time.” This illustrates one of the inherent limitations of printed books. The internet, however, is not bound to this limitation. Andrew Sullivan, in “Why I Blog”, described how the internet has allowed for writing to become a communicative social endeavor. He claims that roughly one third of his writings are reader-generated, and his article states that many blogs in existence oftentimes write in response to other blogs. This electronic literary “conversation” has clearly benefitted literacy because it has provided for more opportunity for reading and writing that wouldn’t have existed without the internet. Clive Thompson, in his article about “The New Literacy”, states that the internet is a blessing for literacy because of the simple fact that the internet has allowed for many people to essentially “practice” their reading and writing skills. This illustrates how the internet is a nonpartisan in the war on literacy. For the image-based culture, the internet can diminish news stories into headlines, snippits or tweets. For the print-based culture, the internet can provide for extensive analysis, public discourse and almost infinite information. The internet itself is not changing how we read and write; instead, our utilization of the internet is what is changing it.
The ideologies of Sullivan and Thompson seem to directly contradict the beliefs of Carr and Hedges. Who’s right, then? It seems hard to believe that the internet could simultaneously cause the dumbing down and the literary revival of America. The two outcomes, however, do not have to be mutually exclusive. The image-based culture will gravitate towards sites that offer sensationalism and provide no real intellectual growth. The print-based culture, on the other hand, will use the internet as a tool for the gathering information, opinions, and ideas in a fast and convenient way that will benefit civic literacy. Partly because of its sheer quantity and variety of websites, the internet has provided many opportunities for people to read and write that previously did not exist. This opportunity for discourse may not totally change how we read and write, however it will probably enhance it.

Works Cited
1.) Massey, Calvin. "Civic Discourse Amid Cultural Transformation." Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature. 12.1 (2000): 193-215. Print.
2.) Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. First Bay Back Paperback ed. New York, New York: Bay Back Books, 2002. Print.
3.) Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog." Atlantic Nov 2008: 1-4. Web. 27 Sep 2009. .
4.) Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?." Atlantic Jul/Aug 2008: n. pag. Web. 27 Sep 2009. .
5.) Hedges, Chris. "Bad Day for Newsrooms." Truthdig 28 Jul 2008: n. pag. Web. 27 Sep 2009. .
6.) Hedges, Chris. "America the Illiterate." Truthdig 28 Jul 2008: n. pag. Web. 10 Sep 2008. .
7.) Thompson, Clive. "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy." Wired 31 Aug 2009: n. pag. Web. 27 Sep 2009. .

Academic Journal

I found an academic journal about how our changing culture has affected civic discourse. This article will probably coincide with Sullivan and Hedges writings about how civic literacy and cultural change affect eachother.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5LU9g2Sqf4nZWRjOWRlNGMtNTE5MC00NzYwLTg5ZTUtZjYzOTA2ODQyZDE5&hl=en

I Need to Come up With a Better Title For the Last Post

I’ve learned something about me writing after doing these blog posts. Regardless of the topic, I simply cannot come up with a good title. Even the title of my blog is about as lame and generic as you could think of. Fortunately for me the writing we have been doing is analytical as opposed to creative. Because in terms of creativity, “Allan Mathis’ Blog” doesn’t really compete with “Words in the Machine” or “A Temporary Record of my Sporadic Thoughts”, or even “Who Poisoned the Grapes?”. (If you find out Christian let me know.)

The most surprising thing about these blog posts, apart from the realization that I am the least original title-giver ever, is how short exactly 250 words is. With this post being an exception, all of my posts have easily exceeded 250 words. I’ve learned that developing and elaborating on ideas simply takes more than 250 words, or that I may need to work on becoming a more concise writer, one or the other.

I don’t believe that my web habits have changed, with the obvious exception that I’ve spent more time blogging for English classes than I have in the past. While my habits may remain the same as they were before, I am more aware of how the internet has affected my life. Before this class I would read a news article online, now I will read a news article online and think about how the internet has affected the newspaper industry, the potential pros and cons of citizen journalism, and the inherent drawbacks of the marketization of the news industry.

For the most part, however, my attitude toward reading and writing on the web hasn’t really changed. I’m more informed about theories of the likes of Carr, Sullivan and Hedges, but this newfound awareness hasn’t affected what sites I visit or how exactly I should interpret them.

Maybe They're All Right?

(My original take on Hedges "Bad Day" article is the post before this one, sorry for the confusion.)

Thompson, much more than Hedges, believes that the internet has added to civic literacy, especially in young people. I’d agree that the internet has provided many hours of practice for writing, and on an anecdotal level I personally think I would be considerably less of a writer if it wasn’t for the internet.

The ideologies of Sullivan and Thompson seem to directly contradict the beliefs of Carr and Hedges. Who’s right, then? It seems hard to believe that the internet could simultaneously cause the dumbing down and the literary revival of America. The two outcomes, as crazy as this may sound, do not have to be mutually exclusive. Some people, such as those Hedges wrote about, will gravitate towards websites that perpetuate their political beliefs and others that provide no real intellectual growth. For other people, however, the internet will be utilized for the gathering of opposing opinions and ideas in a fast and convenient way that may enhance public discourse.

Because the internet is so incredibly vast, people can utilize it for a variety of things. Sullivan claims that internet use, especially blogging, has added to traditional news sources. Thompson claims that everyday internet use by young people will act as subtle practice for writing. Carr maintains that the internet’s ease and accessibility could potentially have adverse affects and Hedges is just an angry pessimist who thinks that America is becoming more and more illiterate. In his article, however, Hedges wrote less about the internet and more about general illiteracy in this country. To a certain extent, Sullivan and Thompson’s views don’t have to necessarily conflict with those of Carr and Hedges. The newspaper industry is in undisputedly in shambles; however, newspapers and journalism aren’t totally synonymous. Sullivan’s article was on the legitimacy of blogs, and while I agreed with many of his ideas I mentioned how many blogs are of considerably less quality than Sullivan’s and they oftentimes drown out the better ones. Hedges agrees with me here, but he fails to mention that quality blogs, such as Sullivan’s, do exist and can be considered legitimate journalism.

Thompson’s beliefs and Hedges beliefs don’t completely contradict each other either. Thompson’s claims were about younger people while the majority of those Hedges was referring to were working class adults. It is possible then that overall literacy is declining in our culture while at the same time the internet has benefitted the writing ability of younger internet users. Obviously, in order to write an article like Hedges’ or Thompson’s one must take a side of an argument. The real world, however, is not always so black and white.

The State of Journalism

Well it’s very nice to know how optimistic Chris Hedges is about our country’s future.

In all seriousness, the idea that newspapers are a dying breed is a scary one indeed. I’d personally be very troubled if newspapers were to die, unfortunately it seems impossible to know exactly where the truth lies on the state of journalism in America. Chris Hedges believes that newspapers and democracy itself are dying. Andrew Sullivan, however, believes that we are in a “golden age of journalism.”

What I’m personally afraid of is the thought that Hedges may be right. If newspapers ceased to exist, citizens would get their news from either cable television or the internet. Both cable tv and the internet have some quality news sources, unfortunately they are the minority who are constantly drowned out by the partisan rancor from everyone else. There are obviously quality bloggers, such as Sullivan, however I’d agree with Hedges that the vast majority of political bloggers are people who are extremely partisan and consider fact and their personal opinion to be synonymous. Hedges states, “Those who rely on the Internet gravitate to sites that reinforce their beliefs.” He is absolutely correct with this, but this is not a characteristic unique to the internet, it is also true about cable news. I seriously doubt that there exists a well-informed liberal who watches Fox News as his or her primary news source, just as I don’t think that any well-informed conservatives watch MSNBC primarily either. Essentially, if everyone just watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart then we will be the most literate, thoughtful, and introspective country in the world. (And I’m being serious, mostly.)

In his article, Hedges never once mentions the idea that the newspapers companies themselves might be responsible for a very small part of their decline. Nothing can really compete with the speed and accessibility of the internet. Watching newspapers compete heads-up with the internet in terms of convenience is heartbreaking because they simply cannot win. It’s almost reminiscent of mom-and-pop stores competing with WalMart. What newspapers must do is offer a product that is different than the internet blogosphere. Hedges mentioned in “America the Illiterate” how newspapers are shortening their articles to simulate the internet, and what newspaper companies must realize is that people will generally choose the internet over a simulation of the internet.

Are we living in, as Sullivan describes, a “golden age of journalism?” Probably not; however I don’t necessarily subscribe to Hedges doom and gloom beliefs either. Maybe, and I base this convoluted theory on nothing substantial, but maybe newspapers are just in a downswing. As news becomes less and less newslike there might rise a demand for more traditional, unbiased and responsible journalism. Perhaps the path of journalism is less linear and instead resembles that of a pendulum. Possibly we’re just several years away from a newspaper comeback, where responsibility and credibility will become sought after traits once again.

Or maybe Hedges is right and our country is headed to Hell.

The Death of Intellectualism

The American public, according to Chris Hedges, is strictly divided into two sects, the enlightened and the unenlightened. One third of the nation’s population is either illiterate or barely literate, so there is predictably a rather large divide between those who of the print-based culture and those of the image-based culture.
For the most part, however, this divide is largely covert. The general consensus on what divides America the greatest would be race, religion, socioeconomic status or political affiliation. I’d have to agree with Hedges, however, that it is the print vs. image divide that has alienated this country the most.
Hedges references in his article how political campaigns must pander to those who do not think critically about issues, that campaigns are not contrasts of ideology but contrasts of images. These are embodied by slogans of things like “change” and “country first.” The 2008 presidential race lasted for almost two years and at no point during it was the debate ever entirely focused on policy or ideology. Hedges asserts that this is because we as a nation are unable to think critically about ideology, so instead we comfortably align ourselves with candidates that we come to identify with. The unenlightened (or who Hedges refers to as “the image-based culture”) often don’t vote at all, which is exemplified by the fact that only 56.8% of the voting age population in this country voted in the 2008 election, and that was a relatively high number for our country.
For me personally, the most disturbing thing about the 2008 campaign was the anti-intellectual movement spearheaded by the Republican Party. Barack Obama was continually referred to as an “elitist”, as if somehow being elite was in some way negative. I’m not sure about other voters but I personally want the president to be smarter than me.
Hedges refers to the idea that political debate is often used less to inform and more to entertain. This is clearly shown in seemingly all cable news programs. Oftentimes in cable news shows he who yells the loudest wins the debate, with rational thought taking a backseat. Political discourse has thus turned into a shouting match, coming to a ridiculous head during the current health care debate. Those who stand up and yell at their elected representatives are not the enlightened, the informed or the well-read. They are the semi-literate. They see the fact that our country’s demography and economy are rapidly changing, exemplified by our president’s skin color, and become fearful of their place in America. Hedges, who is a very outspoken critic of the religious right, states that this fear oftentimes leads to people turning toward Christianity for comfort. Barack Obama foolishly said that these people “cling to guns and religion”. What was not said enough about that mishap, however, is the fact that he is totally right.
Carr mentioned in his article that Google may perhaps be making us stupid. Instead I believe that it is our culture that is making us stupid. The thought that intellectualism is looked down upon in this country is a scary one. The idea that Barack Obama’s intellect and exceptional educational background could effectively be used to smear him during the campaign is equally fearsome. Ignorant people have always lived in America, just like every other country. Now, however, ignorance is almost being celebrated. The new culture of anti-intellectualism that’s emerging in this country makes one wonder if America will be able to maintain our strength and influence in the future. This scares me, but at least I now know what the anti-health care protestors feel like.

Lazy, Not Stupid

Carr’s question in the title of his article is asking if Google is making internet users dumber. Carr’s answer to that question, to a certain extent, is kind of. He states that clearly the ability to retrieve information via the internet very quickly is obviously a good thing and he maintains that he is not an anti-internet “nostalgist” in any way. However, he does point out that he finds himself not being able to completely immerse himself in texts like he did pre-internet. The whole point of his article is that while the internet has done wonders for those seeking information, he feels that there may be adverse effects as well. Other than that, however, I couldn’t tell you what the article was about because I’ve spent too much time on the web in my lifetime.

Carr says rather eloquently said “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” While during his normal readings he might not dive as deep as he feels he used to, he is at least going much faster. The internet, for better or for worse, is not going away. The key then perhaps is to utilize the internet for its ability to retrieve information extremely fast while finding a way to maintain an ability to still read other medium. Searching the internet to find a piece of information and settling down to read a novel do not have to be mutually exclusive, regardless of what Carr said.

As of now, the internet is a Godsend for information, communication and entertainment; and the internet habits of my class are indicative of this. Many of us spent our time learning things that would have been astronomically more inconvenient to learn otherwise. Many of us spent time connecting and communicating with people that would have been more difficult otherwise as well. Has Google made us stupid? I’m not sure, but I would like to think not. I feel as though the real question is if Google has simply made us lazy. People of my generation have not had to endure the time-consuming rituals that researchers did prior to the internet, so we have naturally become conditioned to expect instant gratification in terms of retrieving information. This, I don’t feel, means that we are stupid. Just lazy perhaps.

The film that Carr referenced in his article, 2001: A Space Odyssey, if a film about the possible dangers of technology. I don’t mean to totally dismiss Carr’s idea about the internet, and I’m not saying that there are absolutely no problems with becoming accustomed to using the internet either. I find his article interesting and alarming, however I have some reservations. There is no scientific data proving one way or another if surfing the net will lead to changes in cognitive ability, so I naturally have to take his theory with a grain of salt. In 2001’s first scene, an ape utilizes technology in the form of a crude bone weapon to gain dominance over the other males. While we are obviously past this technologically, I don’t feel as though we are at the point of computers taking over our lives like later in the film. Has the internet done no bad for us whatsoever? Or is the internet simply bad in general? Like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between, however I intend to wait before I make my final judgment.

"Coming to Terms" with post no.5

Joseph Harris’ definition of reading and writing are far more involved than more standard definitions of the words. Harris says that intellectuals don’t just read to know what the writer is saying, they also read to know what the author is trying to accomplish, and I find this very interesting. Before reading his book, I never really thought that there could be more than one goal in mind while reading a text. Harris claims that whenever you read, you automatically translate the text into your own language. This idea is especially applicable when rewriting texts, because in order to “come to terms” with a text you must understand what is being said and why.

Harris’ main point in “Introduction” and “Coming to Terms” is that the goal of writing is to respond to, or as he prefers to call it, “forward” someone else’s ideas to form your own. When writing in response to something the ultimate goal is to push forward what has been said before, possibly in a whole new direction. That is, when writing a critical response to another text, the goal is not necessarily to totally disprove the original text but to offer your own insights to essentially extend the conversation. “Forwarding” evokes a sense that writing is something done between people in a very interactive manner. The notion that writing is a “social practice” coincides with some of Andrew Sullivan’s theories about blogs.

One of the unique things about blogs, according to Sullivan, is the fact that blogs could be considered interactive journalism. Sullivan says that roughly one-third of his writing is reader-generated, giving a sense that the readers are more involved with what is being written. Rewriting/revising texts, according to Harris, is also a social and interactive practice. Sullivan commented that blogs are inherently social because of the ability to add hyperlinks to other blogs, allowing for a variety of opinions to be shared on a given topic. So basically, the discourse that takes place in the blogosphere is a parallel to critiquing other writers’ texts. Harris and Sullivan are seemingly totally different writers who write about totally different things. In spite of their dissimilarities, they can at least agree that writing is more social than it is generally considered to be.

Facebook: The Great Connector

Post 3 has taught me an interesting thing. If you take 20 18-19-year-olds from different places across the state or different parts of the country, and put them in an English class together, you will find that they at least one thing in common. They all have Facebook accounts.
It’s pretty interesting that regardless of who you are, to be a young adult in America today you must have a Facebook account. What’s even more interesting, which I’m finding out right now, is that despite of Facebook’s unreal popularity, Microsoft Word 2007 doesn’t recognize it as a word. Just thought that was strange, that’s all.

Regardless of who you are, if you use the web you probably do so for a variety of reasons. This is shown by the p3 exercise. Many individuals in my English class used the internet for various reasons. These include entertainment, information, or even information about entertainment. Saying what one does on the internet doesn’t really define one’s personality. Saying where one does it however speaks volumes about their personality.

What was interesting about post 3 is the rather simple notion that one’s internet habits help define who they are. If you are interested in celebrity gossip, the fact that you visited Perez Hilton’s site is indicative of that. If you like music, the fact that you visited Pandora or the iTunes store illustrates that as well. For me personally, I love sports, and the fact that I spend ESPN.com’s website reflects that aspect of my personality.

P3 has shown us that we all have unique internet habits, just as we all have unique personalities. Where I go and what I do online and how much time I spend there, while perhaps similar to many others, is really only unique to me. The P3 exercise shows how we are all different, but all very much alike at the same time. While we have our unique combination of websites that we visit, at the end of the day we all still have Facebook, too.

Only a Few Months Until Basketball Season

Here are my internet habits. These were recorded from Sep 4-5.

Day 1
8:56 - Read MSN article about companies that have bad reputations for some reason or another. I didn't know that Nestle tried to sue Ethiopia or that Citigroup bought a $50 million jet after recieving bailout cash.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/the-bad-boys-of-business.aspx?GT1=33002

9:03 - ESPN.com - A football player from Oregon punched someone from Boise State! HA! What's great is that he was involved in a pre-game "sportsmanship" event. Couldn't be funnier.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4444898

9:09 - Just checked my bank account balance online, it's great that I'll never have to balance a checkbook because of technology. Who ever said the internet was making us lazy?

9:11 - Made an ill-fated attempt at research for a humanities mega-paper due in a couple weeks

9:39 - I checked facebook, saw nothing interesting, and got offline.

11:17 - I just emailed my biology professor telling him that the bio major that's running the SI meetings decided not to show up without telling anyone. Kids these days!

11:21 - Read article by my favorite sports columnist about something barely related to sports

11:47 - Offline

3:35 - Facebook

3:45 - Listened to podcast by my favorite sports columnist on something thats only slightly more related to sports

7:36 - ESPN.com/Facebook - seems to be a recurring theme

7:53 - Offline for the day

Day 2
9:47 - ESPN.com/Facebook - it seems like I can't go too long without checking these two sites expecting to see something new and interesting, however most of the time I'm left disappointed.

10:02 - Twitter - read tweets from my favorite sports columnist that actually involve sports!

10:05 - Back over to ESPN.com - found article predicting outcomes for next year's NBA season, the article underwhelms me but at least its something to read. Only a few months until basketball season!

10:12 - Offline

2:17 - I came home and saw that my dad left a game of Bejeweled up on the family computer. I made sure he wasn't looking and started playing. I lost relatively quickly and began to hope that his old age will help him forget that he still had a game open.

2:35 - Read Courier-Journal online and laughed at the positive spin they're trying to put on UofL's football season.

2:51 - Checked both my personal and UofL email accounts and saw nothing new. No one loves me.

3:01 - Facebook. Again.

3:15 - Did some more research for my humanities mega-paper that's coming up. The paper is a critique of a scholarly article on anything we've done in class. Fortunately for me, we've watched The Godfather in class, so that's fair game. I love college, I get to write a paper on a film I've watched 150 times. Found this video while doing my "research": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX8XY5aNSk

3:35 - ESPN.com, again.

3:46 - Offline for awhile

11:34 - On facebook and feeling slightly embarassed that I go to UofL after witnessing the football game. I do some research on Indiana State, to try to find out if they're as bad as they look. The Verdict? They are. Indiana State has lost 52 out of its last 53 games. So basically, Indiana state, arguably the worst football team in the country, was beating Louisville at one point tonight. I spend my facebook time telling anyone who will listen that we need to go out as a mob, grab the pitchforks and torches, and demand that Jurich fires Kragthorpe. Only a few months until basketball season.

11:47 - Watch ESPN360.com, which is a lovely little website where you can watch live sports from your computer. Perfect, now I know I'm going to waste even more time watching sports. I watch LSU play the University of Washington because I forgot what a real football game looks like. I still smell like the Krap I just witnessed at Papa John's stadium.

12:00 - Get offline and try to go to sleep. Only a few months until basketball season.

In Response to Sullivan

Way back when, before my cable company found out that my family was getting HBO for free, I would never miss an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Now I’m not saying I agree with Maher’s ultra-leftist ideology, I just find his show entertaining and I respect how he’s willing to speak his mind about anything. I found out who Andrew Sullivan was because of his frequent appearances on Real Time, and before I ever read his blog I respected him because of his thoughtful rationale on current events. Sullivan, whenever he would be a guest on Real Time, would be the moderate voice of clarity who (in my opinion) consistently appeared more intelligent than Maher or whatever token conservative was on the show that week. After seeing him on HBO repeatedly I googled his blog and was very impressed with his writing. So when I saw the name Andrew Sullivan on the tentative schedule of assignments handed out on the first day I was excited initially for two reasons: one, I respect Sullivan’s opinions and the issue of blogging vs. traditional journalism is interesting to me; and two, I was willing to bet that I was the only student in the class who had ever heard of Andrew Sullivan before. But who knows, maybe I was wrong about the second part.

To me, Andrew Sullivan represents everything positive about blogging. He is an immensely talented writer who uses the internet to connect to readers in free and instantaneous fashion. There is even speculation that President Obama is a dedicated reader. Sullivan says he blogs because it’s a more exhilarating, personal form of journalism. He expresses how blogging is not taking the place of more traditional journalism instead it’s adding to it. He also talks about how blogging is relatively unfettered compared to other forms of journalistic writing. All in all, he explains why blogging is good. And, all in all, I agree with him.

When blogging is utilized by someone such as Sullivan, it is a great means of communication between writer and reader. Unfortunately, most bloggers are not Andrew Sullivan. One of the things that makes blogging great is the fact that it is inherently populist. To post a blog, one does not need press credentials or a degree in journalism. Unfortunately, that’s the downside to blogging as well. There are many great writers on the web who use blogging as their method of writing, as Sullivan points out. There are also many less-than-great writers who ultimately clog up the blogosphere. This overload of blogging unfortunately somewhat drowns out quality discourse put forth by writers such as Sullivan. That being said, I do consider blogging done well to be an effective and legitimate form of journalism.

(When I finished typing this I realized I went way over the word count, sorry.)