Our professor just sent an e-mail detailing what we're doing for the next week, and it is an insane amount of work. Since I'm spending the weekend in the country with Allister's lovely family, that means double work before I leave and after I get back.
But you know what? I have motivation. Because tomorrow I am going to Leicester Square to camp out for the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part one!
I intend to do my very best to touch Daniel Radcliffe. Not inappropriately, but in an appreciative sort of way.
It's going to be a very work hard, play hard kind of week. The best kind.
Stay tuned for creepy papparazzi-esque pictures of any celebrities I manage to get near!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Irony and Tigers
After yesterday's post, I was fairly committed to writing something frivolous and entertaining today.
Then a friend posted this essay by Alice Gregory from n+1 on Facebook. Sorry everyone!
I don't agree with all of it, but it really seems to capture the anxiety-ridden frenzy plaguing many 20-somethings today.
Especially as a journalist, I am constantly under pressure to rack up the most Twitter followers, the best optimized blog, the strongest merger of professional and personal life on Facebook. They call it social capital, and I definitely understand its benefits, but it's "exhausting." As Gregory writes:
I have the sensation, as do my friends, that to function as a proficient human, you must both “keep up” with the internet and pursue more serious, analog interests. I blog about real life; I talk about the internet. It’s so exhausting to exist on both registers, especially while holding down a job. It feels like tedious work to be merely conversationally competent. I make myself schedules, breaking down my commute to its most elemental parts and assigning each leg of my journey something different to absorb: podcast, Instapaper article, real novel of real worth, real magazine of dubious worth. I’m pretty tired by the time I get to work at 9 AM.
And one more passage:
The internet’s most ruinous effect on literacy may not be the obliteration of long-format journalism or drops in hardcover sales; it may be the destruction of the belief that books can be talked and written about endlessly. There are fewer official reviews of novels lately, but there are infinitely more pithily captioned links on Facebook, reader-response posts on Tumblr, punny jokes on Twitter. How depressing, to have a book you just read and loved feel so suddenly passé, to feel—almost immediately—as though you no longer have any claim to your own ideas about it.
I realize the irony in the fact that I'm writing about this on the internet, and I read it on the internet, and found it through a social network that the essay lambasts.
And you're probably assuming from the last two blog posts that I am becoming anti-Internet, and will retire to a Walden-style cabin and reject these 21-century distractions. But we both know that won't happen.
Like everything, the internet has its pros and cons. Without Skype or this blog or Facebook, I would certainly feel so much more disconnected thousands of miles away. I love the internet (a strong statement). But that's because it allows me to stay in touch with all of you!
****
Okay, that's enough about that. In other news, this article from MSNBC was posted by my cousin Libby and totally makes me feel good about my tiger adopting decision.
I'm looking at my little stuffed tiger and the pictures of the real one in Nepal and hoping she's safe!
****
Now for something frivolous and entertaining! If you've made it this far, thanks for sifting through my angst! Hopefully this will put you in a better mood.
It makes me so excited to go to Israel and see Libby (not my cousin but almost my sister), and then to head home for the holidays and see my parents waiting for me at baggage claim!
My dream is to be involved in or be coincidentally around for one of these flash mobs. It will happen someday, I'm sure.
I hope you're having a wonderful week so far!
Love,
Jess
Then a friend posted this essay by Alice Gregory from n+1 on Facebook. Sorry everyone!
I don't agree with all of it, but it really seems to capture the anxiety-ridden frenzy plaguing many 20-somethings today.
Especially as a journalist, I am constantly under pressure to rack up the most Twitter followers, the best optimized blog, the strongest merger of professional and personal life on Facebook. They call it social capital, and I definitely understand its benefits, but it's "exhausting." As Gregory writes:
I have the sensation, as do my friends, that to function as a proficient human, you must both “keep up” with the internet and pursue more serious, analog interests. I blog about real life; I talk about the internet. It’s so exhausting to exist on both registers, especially while holding down a job. It feels like tedious work to be merely conversationally competent. I make myself schedules, breaking down my commute to its most elemental parts and assigning each leg of my journey something different to absorb: podcast, Instapaper article, real novel of real worth, real magazine of dubious worth. I’m pretty tired by the time I get to work at 9 AM.
And one more passage:
The internet’s most ruinous effect on literacy may not be the obliteration of long-format journalism or drops in hardcover sales; it may be the destruction of the belief that books can be talked and written about endlessly. There are fewer official reviews of novels lately, but there are infinitely more pithily captioned links on Facebook, reader-response posts on Tumblr, punny jokes on Twitter. How depressing, to have a book you just read and loved feel so suddenly passé, to feel—almost immediately—as though you no longer have any claim to your own ideas about it.
I realize the irony in the fact that I'm writing about this on the internet, and I read it on the internet, and found it through a social network that the essay lambasts.
And you're probably assuming from the last two blog posts that I am becoming anti-Internet, and will retire to a Walden-style cabin and reject these 21-century distractions. But we both know that won't happen.
Like everything, the internet has its pros and cons. Without Skype or this blog or Facebook, I would certainly feel so much more disconnected thousands of miles away. I love the internet (a strong statement). But that's because it allows me to stay in touch with all of you!
****
Okay, that's enough about that. In other news, this article from MSNBC was posted by my cousin Libby and totally makes me feel good about my tiger adopting decision.
I'm looking at my little stuffed tiger and the pictures of the real one in Nepal and hoping she's safe!
****
Now for something frivolous and entertaining! If you've made it this far, thanks for sifting through my angst! Hopefully this will put you in a better mood.
It makes me so excited to go to Israel and see Libby (not my cousin but almost my sister), and then to head home for the holidays and see my parents waiting for me at baggage claim!
My dream is to be involved in or be coincidentally around for one of these flash mobs. It will happen someday, I'm sure.
I hope you're having a wonderful week so far!
Love,
Jess
Monday, November 8, 2010
Does an objective press exist?
Or maybe the better question is, can it?
One common link I find between the press in London and the press back home is a political identity that's associated with each newspaper or television station. The only exception to this is perhaps the BBC, which is the strange and wonderful thing they refer to here as a quango. The BBC aside, some of these associations are more deserved than others, some are in spite of efforts by the publications to appear non-partisan, but nonetheless they exist.
Today in lecture we had a representative from the UK Press Complaints Commission (PCC). She took us through the PCC's Editor's Code of Practice, a.k.a. the journalist's handbook on how not to get fired. Very useful stuff :)
I was somewhat surprised to find that the first tenet of the code, Accuracy, contains this sub-clause:
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
In other words, you're allowed to take sides, you just have to own up to it and keep it in the opinion pages.
This got me thinking--obviously press objectivity has been in serious doubt for some time, and it's always going to be a gray area, but how many of our news organizations (both in the U.S. and abroad) will own up to their particular slant? You can judge a paper by the candidates it endorses, but a paper can say it endorses them for the greater good of the people and not for towing a party line. Are those slants something these organizations are internally aware of, or an identity that really is projected upon them by the public?
Probably a mixture of both, but I can't help thinking that as soon as you attach a certain political label to a news network or paper, they are almost fiscally obligated to follow it.
In the age of the 24-hour cable news network and online newspapers grasping for just a few page clicks, if you don't have a specific niche audience, you die. It therefore makes sense to keep catering to the people who come to you expecting a certain line of commentary or way of presenting the news, because you still have employees to pay and advertisers to satisfy.
The easiest target for this line of thinking is of course, FOX news, but they are certainly not alone. Say what you will about their "fair and balanced" coverage, but what they are doing is making them money.
Then the question becomes whether you associate these political leanings with the opinions of an organization's employees and owners, or if you attribute it to the sum of its parts.
For example, Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX, Sky News and several prominent global papers) publicly supported Barack Obama, but recently donated $1 million to the Republican party. Tit-for-tat, is that balanced?
Or, the more recent question has been whether journalists as individuals are allowed to have political preferences.
Keith Olbermann's imposed hiatus on Friday is just the latest in a run of journalists being reprimanded for their political associations, as the New York Times pointed out today. It seems that more and more journalists have recently suffered professionally for political affiliations.
Is that a bad thing? If you believe in a non-partisan news media, definitely not. But how long can the non-partisan media continue to exist?
People like to read and see things that re-affirm their mindset. That's why niche media seems to be more successful now than the major networks.
But as people seek websites and newspapers and cable news that present one side of the story, the path is cleared for extremism and ignorance. I'll be the first to admit that I don't really enjoy reading commentary from perspectives I don't agree with, and it's much harder for me to seek them out.
I do believe a fair and balanced press can exist, I'm just not sure it can compete.
One of our tutors told us that if we got into this business to give the people what we think they need instead of what they want, we should get out now. But ratings and readership indicate that maybe what many people want is an unbalanced press. As certain networks and publications become more and more partisan, the few objective outlets that exist continue to lose out.
And I can't help but think that the actual ones who lose out are the people.
***
Disclaimer: This is just my opinion! If you totally disagree, leave a comment below and let's talk it out.
One common link I find between the press in London and the press back home is a political identity that's associated with each newspaper or television station. The only exception to this is perhaps the BBC, which is the strange and wonderful thing they refer to here as a quango. The BBC aside, some of these associations are more deserved than others, some are in spite of efforts by the publications to appear non-partisan, but nonetheless they exist.
Today in lecture we had a representative from the UK Press Complaints Commission (PCC). She took us through the PCC's Editor's Code of Practice, a.k.a. the journalist's handbook on how not to get fired. Very useful stuff :)
I was somewhat surprised to find that the first tenet of the code, Accuracy, contains this sub-clause:
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
In other words, you're allowed to take sides, you just have to own up to it and keep it in the opinion pages.
This got me thinking--obviously press objectivity has been in serious doubt for some time, and it's always going to be a gray area, but how many of our news organizations (both in the U.S. and abroad) will own up to their particular slant? You can judge a paper by the candidates it endorses, but a paper can say it endorses them for the greater good of the people and not for towing a party line. Are those slants something these organizations are internally aware of, or an identity that really is projected upon them by the public?
Probably a mixture of both, but I can't help thinking that as soon as you attach a certain political label to a news network or paper, they are almost fiscally obligated to follow it.
In the age of the 24-hour cable news network and online newspapers grasping for just a few page clicks, if you don't have a specific niche audience, you die. It therefore makes sense to keep catering to the people who come to you expecting a certain line of commentary or way of presenting the news, because you still have employees to pay and advertisers to satisfy.
The easiest target for this line of thinking is of course, FOX news, but they are certainly not alone. Say what you will about their "fair and balanced" coverage, but what they are doing is making them money.
Then the question becomes whether you associate these political leanings with the opinions of an organization's employees and owners, or if you attribute it to the sum of its parts.
For example, Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX, Sky News and several prominent global papers) publicly supported Barack Obama, but recently donated $1 million to the Republican party. Tit-for-tat, is that balanced?
Or, the more recent question has been whether journalists as individuals are allowed to have political preferences.
Keith Olbermann's imposed hiatus on Friday is just the latest in a run of journalists being reprimanded for their political associations, as the New York Times pointed out today. It seems that more and more journalists have recently suffered professionally for political affiliations.
Is that a bad thing? If you believe in a non-partisan news media, definitely not. But how long can the non-partisan media continue to exist?
People like to read and see things that re-affirm their mindset. That's why niche media seems to be more successful now than the major networks.
But as people seek websites and newspapers and cable news that present one side of the story, the path is cleared for extremism and ignorance. I'll be the first to admit that I don't really enjoy reading commentary from perspectives I don't agree with, and it's much harder for me to seek them out.
I do believe a fair and balanced press can exist, I'm just not sure it can compete.
One of our tutors told us that if we got into this business to give the people what we think they need instead of what they want, we should get out now. But ratings and readership indicate that maybe what many people want is an unbalanced press. As certain networks and publications become more and more partisan, the few objective outlets that exist continue to lose out.
And I can't help but think that the actual ones who lose out are the people.
***
Disclaimer: This is just my opinion! If you totally disagree, leave a comment below and let's talk it out.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Flowers, Fireworks and Serious Fun
Yesterday was the best day ever. Okay maybe not the best day ever, but it was pretty up there.
I got up bright and early to report to Normand Park in the borough of Fulham, where we kicked off our "Focus on the Crocus" bulb-planting campaign. We were positioned right near a fitness center, so kids coming in and out from swimming lessons helped us plant about 1,000 bulbs.
It was SO. MUCH. FUN. Being on a university campus, I spend a lot of time with 20-somethings (who are great), but it was so nice to be able to hang out with kids and help them get their hands dirty.
We also raised nearly 80 GBP for the PolioPlus campaign, and the Rotarians spoke to the parents about the campaign while we planted. When the croci pop up in February, the purple will hopefully be a reminder of Rotary's efforts to eradicate polio thus far. Here are a few snapshots courtesy of Nat:
After the event, a few of the other volunteers and I grabbed lunch at a lovely vegetarian restaurant in Fulham, and I headed back to Islington. But there wasn't much downtime, because another of the Ambassadorial Scholars invited us to Battersea Park to watch the fireworks for Bonfire Night.
Bonfire Night, or Guy Fawkes Night, was actually Friday, but I wasn't feeling well so I wasn't really up for it. No matter, because Saturday was spectacular. Kara and I met up with Angela, the scholar, and some of her friends from Westminster University, and watched the giant bonfire and some really great fireworks. The fireworks were timed to pop music, and everyone was singing and drinking mulled wine and just having a great time. Check out how big this fire was:
We were pretty fired up (pun intended) after the show, so we migrated to Covent Garden for much-needed food and drink. We ended up at a bar called Freud (after Sigmund himself) and met up with some more Westminster people. After that, around midnight, we headed to Fabric, one of the largest nightclubs in London.
I haven't been dancing in some time, so Fabric was the perfect way to end the night. Or enter the morning. I finally got back to my room at 5 a.m. for some much-needed shut-eye.
It was a weekend filled with wonderful new people and all the fun we could possibly pack in. I am so exhausted, but so happy!
I hope all of you had a great weekend, too!
Love,
Jess
I got up bright and early to report to Normand Park in the borough of Fulham, where we kicked off our "Focus on the Crocus" bulb-planting campaign. We were positioned right near a fitness center, so kids coming in and out from swimming lessons helped us plant about 1,000 bulbs.
It was SO. MUCH. FUN. Being on a university campus, I spend a lot of time with 20-somethings (who are great), but it was so nice to be able to hang out with kids and help them get their hands dirty.
We also raised nearly 80 GBP for the PolioPlus campaign, and the Rotarians spoke to the parents about the campaign while we planted. When the croci pop up in February, the purple will hopefully be a reminder of Rotary's efforts to eradicate polio thus far. Here are a few snapshots courtesy of Nat:
After the event, a few of the other volunteers and I grabbed lunch at a lovely vegetarian restaurant in Fulham, and I headed back to Islington. But there wasn't much downtime, because another of the Ambassadorial Scholars invited us to Battersea Park to watch the fireworks for Bonfire Night.
Bonfire Night, or Guy Fawkes Night, was actually Friday, but I wasn't feeling well so I wasn't really up for it. No matter, because Saturday was spectacular. Kara and I met up with Angela, the scholar, and some of her friends from Westminster University, and watched the giant bonfire and some really great fireworks. The fireworks were timed to pop music, and everyone was singing and drinking mulled wine and just having a great time. Check out how big this fire was:
We were pretty fired up (pun intended) after the show, so we migrated to Covent Garden for much-needed food and drink. We ended up at a bar called Freud (after Sigmund himself) and met up with some more Westminster people. After that, around midnight, we headed to Fabric, one of the largest nightclubs in London.
I haven't been dancing in some time, so Fabric was the perfect way to end the night. Or enter the morning. I finally got back to my room at 5 a.m. for some much-needed shut-eye.
It was a weekend filled with wonderful new people and all the fun we could possibly pack in. I am so exhausted, but so happy!
I hope all of you had a great weekend, too!
Love,
Jess
The Elections from Abroad
I spent election night at the Frontline Club with the London American Expat meetup group. The Frontline Club is a hot spot for London journalists, so my colleagues and I were right at home. I went with a couple of other Americans on my course, along with an Italian, an Irishman and an Australian.
When we arrived around 9 p.m. local time, the place was fairly packed. As the results from Kentucky and Indiana came in, the mood seemed to go a bit sour. Most of the Americans I talked to at the event were hoping the Democrats would make a strong showing.
Of those I talked to, there were mixed feelings about Obama, though nearly everyone admitted they supported him strongly in 2008. There is a general fascination over here with the Tea Party, and, of course, with Sarah Palin.
As the projections continued to come in, the crowd began to dwindle. I was one of the last to leave, around 2:30 a.m. local time, because I was waiting for results from Iowa. What surprised me most was that at 2:00 a.m. only five people were left, and only two of them American (myself and the guy who organized the event).
The organizer said in 2008, they held an election watch party and 4,000 people came. He estimated that for this watch party about 125 came. The midterm elections may not provide as much drama as a presidential year, but it's a shame they don't draw the same interest.
The night itself was very interesting, and my apologies to those who expected better live tweeting coverage. I became so wrapped up in conversation with different people (American and non-American) that it became difficult to stay connected on my phone. All things, considered, a good problem to have.
When we arrived around 9 p.m. local time, the place was fairly packed. As the results from Kentucky and Indiana came in, the mood seemed to go a bit sour. Most of the Americans I talked to at the event were hoping the Democrats would make a strong showing.
Of those I talked to, there were mixed feelings about Obama, though nearly everyone admitted they supported him strongly in 2008. There is a general fascination over here with the Tea Party, and, of course, with Sarah Palin.
As the projections continued to come in, the crowd began to dwindle. I was one of the last to leave, around 2:30 a.m. local time, because I was waiting for results from Iowa. What surprised me most was that at 2:00 a.m. only five people were left, and only two of them American (myself and the guy who organized the event).
The organizer said in 2008, they held an election watch party and 4,000 people came. He estimated that for this watch party about 125 came. The midterm elections may not provide as much drama as a presidential year, but it's a shame they don't draw the same interest.
The night itself was very interesting, and my apologies to those who expected better live tweeting coverage. I became so wrapped up in conversation with different people (American and non-American) that it became difficult to stay connected on my phone. All things, considered, a good problem to have.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election night!
Well, at home it's still election day. But I'm gearing up to cover the midterm results live from London, where a group of expats is gathering at the Frontline Club to watch the votes come in.
Wanna know what the Brits and Americans abroad think of our vote? Follow my first attempt at live-tweeting at www.twitter.com/jjabels.
There's another Tube strike going on here tonight, so I should be starting coverage around 9 p.m. UK time, or 3 p.m. CST.
If you're reading this and you're American and you haven't voted, please go vote!
Full updates tomorrow, after I sleep a little :)
Love,
Jess
Wanna know what the Brits and Americans abroad think of our vote? Follow my first attempt at live-tweeting at www.twitter.com/jjabels.
There's another Tube strike going on here tonight, so I should be starting coverage around 9 p.m. UK time, or 3 p.m. CST.
If you're reading this and you're American and you haven't voted, please go vote!
Full updates tomorrow, after I sleep a little :)
Love,
Jess
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Weekend in Photos
Who's a slacker when it comes to blogging? You're right, it's me!
Before I start apologizing about not blogging, I'm just going to skip past that and go straight to the recap.
Friday:
Allister and I met for lunch at Borough Market, a gourmet food hot spot that smells like cheese that's so fancy you're supposed to ignore the fact that it smells so bad. It also houses my all-time favorite dessert, banoffee pie, and a super cheap steak sandwich that made it the perfect way to start the weekend. We grabbed our market fare and ate it on the steps of a nearby cathedral that's probably several hundred years older than America. Standard. A few snapshots:
Steak sandwich smothered in (what else?) ketchup.
Allister waits for beefy goodness.
The British invented a lot of great things, but banoffee pie is probably the best.
Saturday may have only been October 30, but since hardworking graduate students can't really go out on a Sunday night, we did Halloween a bit early. One of my colleagues hosted a costume party, which was really fun, and I dressed as a flapper. I quickly found out that the term flapper does not exist here, so some people didn't even think I was dressed up! Either way, it was a good Halloween.
Sunday was recovery day. I slept and worked, not much to report.
****************************
Today was heavy on classes but also heavy on fun. Liz and I took a lovely walk down to St. Paul's Cathedral as the sun was setting, then we made our way over to Fleet Street, the former hub of the London press. Liz had to head back to class, so I wandered across Millenium Bridge to the Tate Modern, where I met up with another Rotary Scholar and we perused the third floor. Mary Dwyer, I really missed you during this trip--I needed your art expertise :) Along with some fantastic works from favorites like Matisse, Kandinsky, Pollock and Rothko, I really enjoyed seeing a few artists I'd never encountered. Here are a few that really struck me:
Dod Procter, Morning , 1926
Juliao Sarmento, Forget Me, 2005
******************************
St. Paul's and Millenium Bridge from the bank by the Tate
After the Tate we walked home through London at night, and it was beautiful. We crossed the Thames over Millenium Bridge, up through St. Paul's and Holborn, then I came home to my cozy dorm. All in all, a fairly perfect fall day.
Hope everyone had a happy Monday!
Love,
Jess
Before I start apologizing about not blogging, I'm just going to skip past that and go straight to the recap.
Friday:
Allister and I met for lunch at Borough Market, a gourmet food hot spot that smells like cheese that's so fancy you're supposed to ignore the fact that it smells so bad. It also houses my all-time favorite dessert, banoffee pie, and a super cheap steak sandwich that made it the perfect way to start the weekend. We grabbed our market fare and ate it on the steps of a nearby cathedral that's probably several hundred years older than America. Standard. A few snapshots:
Steak sandwich smothered in (what else?) ketchup.
Allister waits for beefy goodness.
The British invented a lot of great things, but banoffee pie is probably the best.
Saturday may have only been October 30, but since hardworking graduate students can't really go out on a Sunday night, we did Halloween a bit early. One of my colleagues hosted a costume party, which was really fun, and I dressed as a flapper. I quickly found out that the term flapper does not exist here, so some people didn't even think I was dressed up! Either way, it was a good Halloween.
Sunday was recovery day. I slept and worked, not much to report.
****************************
Today was heavy on classes but also heavy on fun. Liz and I took a lovely walk down to St. Paul's Cathedral as the sun was setting, then we made our way over to Fleet Street, the former hub of the London press. Liz had to head back to class, so I wandered across Millenium Bridge to the Tate Modern, where I met up with another Rotary Scholar and we perused the third floor. Mary Dwyer, I really missed you during this trip--I needed your art expertise :) Along with some fantastic works from favorites like Matisse, Kandinsky, Pollock and Rothko, I really enjoyed seeing a few artists I'd never encountered. Here are a few that really struck me:
Dod Procter, Morning , 1926
Juliao Sarmento, Forget Me, 2005
******************************
St. Paul's and Millenium Bridge from the bank by the Tate
After the Tate we walked home through London at night, and it was beautiful. We crossed the Thames over Millenium Bridge, up through St. Paul's and Holborn, then I came home to my cozy dorm. All in all, a fairly perfect fall day.
Hope everyone had a happy Monday!
Love,
Jess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)