As members of the state House Judiciary Committee debate the merits of a shield law for journalists and reporters-turned-bloggers in Hawaii, an important political blog on Tuesday became the first Internet-only news operation to receive a George Polk Award.
Talking Points Memo, created and run by Joshua Micah Marshall, was given a Polk Award for legal reporting for its coverage of the dismissal of eight US attorneys by the Justice Department in Dec. 2006. The blog covers US politics, as well as foreign and domestic policy.
Marshall created the site in 2000 as a place to put down his thoughts and track the recount in Florida, according to the New York Times. By bringing together an array of information published by other sources and often relying on readers for tips (and sometimes research), Marshall’s blog seems to signal the advent of a new kind of journalism:
His work differs…from big newspaper or network political reporters. It often involves synthesizing the work of other news outlets with his staff’s original reporting and tips from a highly involved readership. In the case of the United States attorneys, Talking Points Memo linked to many local articles about federal prosecutors being forced from office and drew a national picture for readers.
The site “connected the dots and found a pattern of federal prosecutors being forced from office for failing to do the Bush administration’s bidding,” the Polk citation said.
…
Dan Kennedy, a media critic who teaches at Northeastern University, has followed the site from its inception. What Talking Points Memo does, he said, “is a different kind of journalism, based on the idea that my readers know more than I do.”
Talking Points Memo and its spin-off sites, TPM Cafe and TPMMuckraker, now average 400,000 page views a day, Marshall told the NYT.
A prestigious journalism award and 400,000 hits a day? That’s something any blogger can aspire to.
Last week, a 27-year-old student carrying a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9-mm Glock pistol and two other pistols opened fire in a Northern Illinois University auditorium, killing five others before turning the gun on himself.
Today, a friend brought this article to my attention on CNN.com: students at colleges in Utah, the only state to allow weapons at all public universities, are concealing guns beneath their clothing before heading to class.
Some say they were prompted by school shootings like the one that happened on Valentine’s Day at Northern Illinois, or last April’s massacre at Virginia Tech, where Seung Hee Cho killed 32 students before committing suicide.
The reasoning is that students should be given a chance to protect themselves, especially as more and more school shootings are reported at high school and university campuses across the United States.
Understandably, many of their peers say they feel uncomfortable knowing that their classmates might be carrying weapons. But Utah lawmakers say that students carrying guns have had to go through rigorous checks and that they’re “some of the most law-abiding people in the state.”
I remember Columbine in ninth grade very clearly. The shocking killing of 12 students and a teacher prompted a debate about gun control, especially in schools, which were up until then supposed to be safe places. And for the life of me, I could never understand why some students thought it might be funny to wear black trench coats to school in the days after it happened.
What’s going on here? Is it society? Television? Video games? Are more guns the answer?
It’s sad to think that we might start to see equipping students with guns as giving them a fighting chance as they head off to class.
From Tuesday’s NYT: Princeton is working on a program that would send a tenth or more of incoming freshmen to foreign countries to do social service work before starting their freshman year.
The university would not require the students to pay tuition for their abroad experience and would even offer financial assistance. Princeton may be the first university to formalize a study abroad program for incoming students, experts say.
Princeton’s president, Shirley M. Tilghman, said in an interview that such a program would give students a more international perspective, add to their maturity and give them a break from academic pressures. She called it a year of “cleansing the palate of high school, giving them a year to regroup.”
Many students study abroad during one of their four years in college. I spent six months in Beijing during my junior year, which is the year most people in my school chose to spend away from campus. For those in some rigorous college programs, however, like pre-med students, studying abroad can be difficult to balance with all those requirements.
Also, studying abroad can be costly, depending on where you go and which program you choose.
A Princeton committee is still ironing out the details of where the program would be offered, how much it would cost, the legal issues, what organizations students would work with and how the students would be selected.
When it comes to choosing our leaders, which matters more: character or issues?
I’ve heard people describe Barack Obama as “visionary” and “inspiring,” a leader of the younger generation.
But others have expressed concern on this blog that people, especially young people, are voting for Obama because of his leadership qualities and rock-star appeal — not because of the specific policies he has articulated.
As one commenter put it:
[M]uch like Obama’s campaign itself…I believe younger people are attracted to him for superficial reasons, not for substance. He has not articulated a clear, concise, cohesive plan with details on where he is going to take this country (and, by default, the rest of the world) in the next few years.
In fact, both Democratic and Republican voters may be placing character over issues. As Gerald Seib wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 5:
[T]he election of 2008, thus far, is less about ideology and ideas and more about governing style and leadership ability — intangible qualities on which voters are placing a higher priority than on issues. The tenor seems a reflection of the country’s mood: Many voters are in revolt against the partisan wars and bouts of gridlock that have gripped Washington in recent years, and are seeking effectiveness above all.
We all have our reasons for supporting certain candidates. On the local level in Hawaii elections, it may be as simple as recognizing the person who walked up and down your street discussing community issues with folks, or the guy you’ve known from way back, who was a loyal friend or faithful teammate. Perhaps you really liked their communication skills or their ability to be a team player, and you figured they’d make great leaders because of those qualities.
We aren’t ever asked to justify our votes when we make that decision in the voting booth. You could vote for a candidate because you thought she had a fantastic smile, and your vote would count just as much as the one cast by the person in the next booth who spent hours and hours analyzing the most pressing policy issues facing the United States today. One man, one vote. Regardless of the justification.
So, in this election, which is more important to you: personal qualities, like leadership skills, or what the candidate has said he or she will do if elected?
Does it matter what criteria we use to choose our leaders?
