National News Correspondent Talks Tragedy and Truth

Holly Moody, Reporter

There is some news coverage we will never forget.

While many Americans experienced the tragic events of the September 11 terrorist attacks through their television screens at home, CBS chief national news correspondent and 60 Minutes contributor, Byron Pitts, was on ground zero gathering the facts of a story that told how thousands lost their lives.

Last Tuesday, Pitts discussed his experiences with covering world tragedies and the importance of reporting the truth with Ohio University’s Society of Professional Journalists members via Skype.

Specifically, Pitts shared details about his Emmy award  winning 9/11  coverage and what went through his mind  on that day.

Having just basic information prior to arriving at the  scene, Pitts said he  was unsure about what to expect and  unaware that this incident was a    terrorist attack on the  U.S until later that day. He began taking notes, with  the  assumption that people would make it out of the building  safely.

“We saw what looked like a giant white piece of paper  floating to the ground,” said Pitts. “We realized it was a  woman in a dress”.

From 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, human death isn’t an unfamiliar sight to Pitts. Over the course of witnessing 47 deaths in his career thus far, Pitts has become used to watching tragedies occur right before his eyes.

While many may think that Pitts would become emotional in these traumatic moments, he says he does not let his feelings come between him and the story.

“Journalists much reach a balance,” said SPJ president Taylor Mirfendereski.

Pitts aims to always report the truth and humanize his stories, so that viewers can identify with them in some way. He said that humanizing stories makes the American audience appreciate traumatic situations and creates a deeper impact.

“He inspires me to do things like that,” said Broadcast Journalism major Brianna DiPilato, “—reporting hard news that informs and effects people.”

Pitts’ experiences with reporting have not only taken place on American soil. He has traveled across the world, reporting on natural disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti and has been recognized for his work under fire in Baghdad.

He also gave advice about the balance between showing the reality of situations and showing respect in other countries.

“Be careful and listen, don’t pretend to know what others’ lives are like,” said Pitts.

Many students that sat in on Pitts’ discussion identified with his goals as a journalist and what he thinks the foundations of reporting are. In turn, Pitts identified with students as he spoke about working his way up in the journalism industry.

“It’s called making your bones at CBS,” said Pitts. “You have to do certain things to be seen a certain way.”

Today, Pitts continues to report for CBS globally while staying true to the foundation of journalism.

“Honor the truth, that’s my job,” said Pitts.

Varied experience key to choosing JSchool track

Column • Alex Felser

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Do I want to follow the JSchool sequence of News Writing & Editing, Online Journalism or possibly Magazine Journalism? What about Broadcast Journalism?

How am I supposed to decide?

Thankfully, being a freshman, I will not have the challenge of selecting a specific type of news sequence to follow.  With The JSchool switching from seven sequences to two tracks, I will now be able to pick between a Strategic Communication Track and a News and Information Track.

However, I will still be presented with the tough decisions of what classes to take within a broad major, which is why I’ve become involved within the school to try to explore a bit.

Yes, I like news. So I ask myself these questions: What kind of news? Do I have the face for radio or the face for TV?  Do I perform well in front of a camera or should I stick to writing news straight from Microsoft Word?  Are my writing skills better than my speaking skills?

Luckily, Scripps has so much to offer I can try it all, even as a freshman.

It is not a lie that college is a time for changes, and it’s true that one can completely change his or her persona when trying to decide what to study.

Being more of a “slacker” in high school, I had no idea that nine weeks into my freshman year, I would already be involved in five different organizations.  From writing for The Post to trying out my radio voice on WOUB, I’m slowly learning all aspects of media.

It honestly never hit me how involved I was in the school until I was asked by a fellow student to do a video interview after she heard from friends that I was a highly active freshman. (You can find the interview on YouTube if you’re really that bored).

I had to ask myself, ‘Am I really so involved that someone wants to interview me about it?’

Then I looked at my phone calendar to see that I have meetings every week on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, all for different organizations.

I’m still in my first quarter of college, but with everything I’ve done, I feel like I’ve been here for years.  The most rewarding aspect of college organizations is that you aren’t treated as a freshman when you start out.  Everyone gives you the same level of respect and opportunities as everyone else, while mentoring you along the way.

I took the advice of upperclassmen and signed up for plenty of organizations, and it’s hard to describe how much more confident I feel in the J-School.

Although I am still undecided regarding the type of journalism I want to study, I am, as many alumni like to say, “getting my feet wet” in many areas.

As a freshman, I don’t feel like I have to limit myself by scheduling classes only on a certain path but can take classes ranging from video broadcasting to news writing, giving me experience for anything I may need when I begin looking for internships and jobs.

Yes, my schedule may be hectic, but I still go to these meetings and plan on doing so until I can ultimately decide what I want to do — and, who knows, maybe next quarter I’ll try out a completely new organization.

So, my advice if you’re still undecided in Scripps: Do what I’m doing.  We all get those e-mails constantly from Debra DePeel telling us about a meeting here and there. Be adventurous one day, pick one that sounds interesting and go.  What is one hour out of your night?  You’re going to be here for four years anyway.

 

Internship listings

Listings • Cameron Glover

Media outlets should avoid election bias

Column • Matt Rancourt

Do you want to know what I think?

Because you’re about to read my column, you probably do.

But would you feel the same way if this were supposed to be a hard news story?

If you had thought this was going to be a report about election results (or some other relevant topic) when you clicked on the link, then you would have probably been more than a little irritated to find yourself reading a commentary about political bias in the media.

After all, most readers don’t enjoy the feeling of being blatantly misled.

When it comes to the media, however, the deception isn’t always so obvious.

For example, if you happened to tune in to ABC’s Good Morning America on Friday, you probably saw its “Morning Mix” segment. On the surface, it may have appeared to be nothing more than a roundtable discussion about Tuesday’s election results.However, if you were listening closely to some of the things the panelists were saying, you probably realized rather quickly that it was far from a balanced exchange.

It was a liberal free-for-all.

First, someone made the assertion that “the party of no is going to be the party of uh-oh. ‘Cause they’re not going to get anything done” in reference to the Republican Party. Then, it was suggested that John Boehner spends more time in the tanning booth than he does on the job.

And, of course, they concluded with the obligatory shots at Sarah Palin’s intelligence.

Keep in mind, again, that this is a Good Morning America segment we’re talking about here. I’m sure there were a number of viewers expecting a fair, intelligent analysis of the election results. Instead, they got The Daily Show – minus Jon Stewart and all of the other entertainment value.

I hope the conservatives watching weren’t too disappointed with the biased coverage … hey, wait a minute. Fox News is still on the air, right?

Yeah, never mind, there weren’t any conservatives paying attention to ABC. They have their own network to watch – that famously “fair and balanced” one. Because, you know, Bill O’Reilly was never really a registered Republican. And Sean Hannity doesn’t really win every argument with Alan Colmes.

Those are just rumors – probably started by liberals.

Now, here’s this week’s question to ponder: “Who would be more likely to cheat at cards – Bill Clinton or Al Gore?”

That’s a tough one. I think the correct answer is “C – Both: because all liberals lie, cheat, steal, and kick puppies.”

And you know what the sad thing is? Not only is that an actual Fox poll question, I also probably just got it right.

So, add that to an ever-growing list of examples of conservative media bias on the part of Fox. Also, feel free to bring up the Good Morning America panel to anyone who tries to tell you that liberal media bias doesn’t pop up just as often.

The fact of the matter is that journalists have been allowing their personal opinions to influence their work for far too long. In addition, the media on a larger scale has trouble with providing unbiased news coverage because editors, producers and publishers often weed out content they find displeasing.

It’s time for everyone to step up and start doing their jobs correctly.

The public has a right to accurate, thorough news reporting. This means that every possible angle and each conflicting view needs to be covered reasonably well. If you want to have a panel discussion about the election results, don’t pick three Democrats for the panel. Keep one Democrat and add a Republican and an Independent.

As for Fox, I’ve already thought of a new, more relevant poll question for them: “How many times will Ralph Nader find his way onto the presidential ballot?”

Personally, I think my initial estimate of 25 might actually be a little low.

Anyway, the point is that bias should only exist in media outlets that readily admit to favoring a particular idea or viewpoint.

If Fox wants to become a conservative network, that’s fine. Just stop using the slogan “we report, you decide.” Because half the time, Fox has already decided, and it’s left to the audience to agree or disagree, rather than formulating their own opinions.

And that’s what this all boils down to.

As journalists, our job is to inform the public. That’s it.

We are not here to tell people how to think, how to feel or how to act. An informed public can do all of those things (and more) on its own.

Of course, if an informed public cares about what you think, then I guess there’s nothing wrong with writing a column or two.

But, hey, maybe I’m biased.

Journalists need not worry about blog takeovers

Column  •  Matt Rancourt

I’m one of those people who are not really big on books.

It starts with textbooks, of course, which are both mind-numbingly boring and obscenely expensive. Honestly, the next textbook that I enjoy reading will also be the first.

Then you have novels, which can occasionally grab my attention for a little while, but usually lack the entertainment value necessary to hold it for long.

I only enjoy non-fiction books if they cover an interesting subject, and nobody reads reference books unless he or she needs to reference something.

So, yeah, books aren’t really my thing.

That being said, I am far from illiterate. I just prefer to read from a different type of medium, namely one that provides news.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of options to choose from in this regard.

For starters, since I am majoring in journalism, I am somewhat obligated to read my fair share of newspapers and a magazine or three. And let me tell you, I find it very difficult to start my day if I haven’t had the chance to sit down and peruse the morning paper.

But in spite of that, the bulk of my reading material comes from the Internet.

This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, especially when you stop to consider the number of recent polls indicating more and more people now opt to go online for their news coverage. In fact, since you’re reading this column, that just so happens to be what you’re doing right now.

I have found, however, that while I am surfing the Net looking for news to read, I often find myself venturing somewhere entirely unexpected.

Into the blogosphere.

If you haven’t been there yet, then I suggest you visit. It’s not a very hard place to locate, and when you do, you’ll find a number of talented writers who are capable of providing both solid news reporting and insightful commentary.

Actually, in a number of cases, you will find that a blogger is good enough to pass for a professional journalist.

Naturally, this scares the heck out of many in our industry.

For example, a few days ago, I was reading an online editorial written by a science journalist. In it, she discusses her belief that bloggers are devaluing the field of journalism. She mentions how the presence of so many “citizen journalists” who are willing to work for free has led publishers to cut back on the number of paid reporters that they employ, which in turn lowers the quality of news coverage that readers receive.

Ironically enough, all of these concerns were posted on her blog.

So what she is also trying to say is that she thinks that it is only OK for journalists to have blogs. Apparently, nobody else is qualified enough to use them.

That view, in my humble opinion, is a bunch of (spit).

I have read work from quite a few bloggers demonstrating they would be just as effective in covering the news as the people my local paper actually pays to do the same job.

Trust me, there are plenty of qualified bloggers out there.

For publishers, it then becomes a matter of simple economics. Again, why pay someone to do a job when someone else could get the work done just equally well and for free?

So it looks as if there are going to be a whole lot of journalists filing for unemployment in the near future then, right?

Nope.

Not a chance.

You see, what a number of journalists (including the author of the aforementioned editorial) are forgetting in formulating these doomsday scenarios is that bloggers lack a few of the key components required to be successful in our field.

They may have writing talent, but they often lack reliable sources for their stories.

Do you think there are very many bloggers invited when President Barack Obama holds a press conference? Do you think he would ever grant a one-on-one interview to someone who writes solely for a blog?

Me neither.

Speaking of reliability, do you really think that readers can count on bloggers to provide it? If the U.S. captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow, do you really think the first place people would go to read about it would be a blog?

Me neither.

There are so many other things I could get into that bloggers lack – a dedication to ethics, professional training, etc. – but I think I’ve proven my point.

And that’s the reason I don’t put much stock in the whole “bloggers are devaluing the field of journalism” concern.

It’s because bloggers are not a part of the field of journalism. They may contribute on occasion, but it’s impossible for them to devalue a profession they don’t truly belong to.

As long as society desires news coverage, trained journalists will have jobs.

We shouldn’t look at bloggers as threats, but as potentially helpful allies (uncovering leads and sources, providing story ideas, etc.).

These people can’t take our jobs.

If they truly wanted to do so, they would probably be enrolled in a journalism school too right now.

Of course, then they’d have to buy books.

Defenseless rationale abounds in debate of Juan Williams firing

Column  •  Wesley Lowery

I’m getting tired of talking about Juan Williams.

After 10 years as National Public Radio’s senior news analyst, Williams was fired, via telephone, after he told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes.

To further complicate matters, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller went on to make, and apologize for, condescending remarks about Williams — the lone on-air voice of color at the country’s most well-known radio entity.

Maybe it’s just me, but after weeks of kind-of apologies from NPR executives, columns from “media experts” coast to coast and the first few stops on Williams’ “I just got fired” media tour, I’d love to see the issue buried for good.

Don’t get me wrong — the media frenzy makes sense.

Anytime one of our own is canned for coverage or commentary, it’s only natural that, as journalists, we can’t help but to debate the ethical merits of the firing, speculate as to what details are being left behind closed doors and even mourn the loss.

But reading the two-column “debate” about William’s firing in last week’s issue of INC opened my eyes to just how misinformed some of my colleagues are about basic journalistic ethics.

OUSPJ board members Kevin Zieber and Ian Bowman-Henderson found little to disagree about in their point-counterpoint last week.

Both conceded Williams’ comments weren’t bigoted.

And then both went on to praise NPR’s horribly illogical and ethically-inconsistent firing, calling it “overdue” and praising the network for firing a commentator who “deliberately added to the public’s healthy-enough-as-it-is ignorance.”

Unfortunately, neither columnist must have paid attention while Williams was speaking.

Zieber argues that Williams “failed to be a good journalist.”

How so? Is having the audacity to appear on a conservative news channel while being on the payroll of a leftist outlet such as NPR a lapse in journalistic judgement?”

He calls the firing “not entirely unforeseen or unnecessary” but doesn’t ever say what exactly Williams did that was out of line.

Bowman-Henderson at least gives some example of what he perceives as Williams’ ethical shortcomings. According to him, Williams spewed falsehoods onto the airwaves and into the homes of poor, unsuspecting Americans — knowingly validating prejudiced, intolerant views.

So what were Williams’ overtly racist and ethnically insensitive statements? Here’s what he said in response to a prompting asking if the US has a “Muslim dilemma”:

“Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality. I mean, look Bill [O’Reilly], I’m not a bigot, you know the kind of books I’ve written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think you know they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam.”

He later added:

“Because if you said, wait, Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals – very obnoxious – you don’t say first and foremost we got a problem with Christians. That’d be crazy.”

Read that over again. Williams was not “speaking his mind” or “speaking for the people.” He was simply speaking truth.

There is no more of a “Muslim dilemma” than there is a “Christian dilemma” in the United States, and generalizations made about entire groups are not acceptable.

Unfortunately, no human, no matter how politically correct academia has trained us to be, is immune to prejudice. We all profile and categorize large groups of people based on the actions and attitudes of others.

Williams, like many post-9/11 Americans, gets momentarily nervous when sharing a plane with people appearing to be of Middle-Eastern descent.

Vocalizing that prejudice was not bigoted, nor was it unethical. You see, Williams never said his momentary fear was ideal, correct or fair. He simply stated that it exists.

As journalists, our vow is to truth and transparency. By crucifying a journalist transparent enough to expose his personal prejudices — and committed enough to truth to explain the flaws in his subconscious bias — are we not undermining the very ideals we claim to hold dear?

Williams used a personal anecdote to exemplify the Islamophobia running rampant through our country, not to glorify it.

By admitting his prejudice on the air, Williams was taking what could have been the first crucial step toward a real conversation about perceptions — fair and unfair — held about Muslims in the United States.

Instead, he was silenced.

A real commitment to truth requires rising above those prejudices to see the world through a lens that is fair to all sides of every issue — promoting dialogue that acknowledges that many Americans hold not-so-politically correct views.

Combatting Islamophobia — or any form of racism, for that matter — requires disclosure of the ugly truth the prejudice does, in fact, exist in all of us.

In his statements on Fox News, Williams was doing just that.

Internship Listings

Listings • Cameron Glover

Adaptive journalists rewarded with increased job security

Story • Alex Felser

Job security is a common fear in today’s journalism market, as one specialization is no longer the key to gaining and maintaining a job.

Last week, Editor and Publisher Magazine laid off many employees whose knowledge was more general that specialized. The workers consisted primarily of writers whose job was to track down experts and use their information in stories. Editor and Publisher Magazine changed its direction, as the company is attempting to comprise a smaller staff consisting of experts in their individual fields.

“It’s a strategic change,” said Robert Stewart, director of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. “You have to be able to bring a special skill and good energy to the table.”

Multiple specializations play a key role in job security right now, Stewart said; journalism students at Ohio University have always been required to have a specialization.

Job security can be defined in many different ways.

Knowing how to start a business and media enterprise is more important in today’s market, as today’s jobs consist of many aspects and tasks, Stewart said.

“[Students should] want to come out [of Scripps] with strong skill sets and a great attitude,” he continued, adding that social media skills, video production and editing, and online savvy are all key skill sets expected in the current job market.

Many Scripps alumni have no problem vouching for that statement, having tasted the reality of job searching post-college.

Garrett Downing, a recent Scripps graduate, received a job from Channel 5 in Cleveland as a web producer, illustrator and publisher of the daily online content. Downing finds himself partaking in a variety of work at Channel 5, from writing and editing stories to packaging content daily for online and on air.

Confidence is the key to job security, he said — “the confidence to get up and go to work and still have your job.”

Downing said he maintains good job security because he enjoys where he works and the people he works with and constantly works hard to prove he is a good person to keep around.

To prepare him for the field, Downing said he took a “deceiving sequence that was more of a multi-media degree based of internships.” He also minored in economics and film management and said it was a good choice to take other classes for general experience.

“[It has] been useful, not day to day, but always good to understand how the world and market works and have a better perspective on everything,” Downing said.

Another Scripps alum, Ryan Lytle, who was named the top graduating online senior from Scripps in June, is currently the education web producer for U.S. News & World Report.

Lytle, who transferred into Scripps his junior year, took on three internships in a year and a half and said he doesn’t regret doing any of them. Those internships were the key to his success and job security,  he said.

“There are only certain things you can learn in a four-credit-hour class, and as journalists, you need to learn a lot on your own,” he explained, adding that he considered his internship with The Today Show to be his best undergraduate experience.

To help prepare students for the jobs in today’s market, Scripps requires them to take a year of foreign language and to specialize in another subject area. These requirements all touch on subjects that could play a part in a job someday.

With the quarters to semesters change taking place, Stewart said he strongly supports Scripps’ switch from seven in-depth sequences to two broad tracks, since he has found companies no longer ask for a person to be specialized in one area but to be able to work in multiple areas.

“(There is) not a better option than Scripps,” Stewart said. Regarding the future market, he recommended more students to be thinking about how to create their own paychecks .

”If you only do the minimum, even if you get straight A’s, you haven’t done enough,” he said. Involvement with both internships and student-run media outlets on campus are important, he added.

Real-world internships, such as Downing’s experience at The Washington Post and the Las Vegas Sun, made him comfortable jumping right into the action once he graduated.

“Employers are looking for experience, not your best class grade,” Downing said. “Get involved; do as many things as possible. If you don’t work or don’t get experience, it’s your own fault. A great portfolio will always outweigh a great GPA.”

Jillian Mapes, a 2010 Scripps alumnae, agreed that classes come second to first-hand experience. Mapes currently works as a Billboard Magazine editorial assistant for Billboard.com in New York City.

“Parents don’t understand one B doesn’t really matter, and that the real learning is firsthand, as no one cares about a GPA in journalism,” she said.

However, classes do help when it comes to learning the basics or perfecting certain skills, she added.

As for job security, Mapes found a different view on judging personal security than other alumni. She said her co-workers don’t specialize in one area but are useful all around the company. An employee should welcome responsibility and should “own,” or be in charge of, at least one part of a publication, she added.

“If you aren’t in charge of something, you are easily replaced,” Mapes said. “Anyone can be a copy editor.”

Lytle agreed, saying he finds “personal brand is everything,” as you must have “weight behind your name.” He recommended making a personal website to post any strong articles and to use it as a digital business card.

“Do what you can while you’re in the company to make yourself irreplaceable,” Lytle said.

In only his third week of work, Lytle feels comfortable with what he is doing and the skills he can offer the company.

“That’s the business of journalism; you have to be wiling to adapt,” he said. “You might be secure at one point in time, but at the end of day, they are all businesses and need to make money for people to keep jobs.”

Scripps Alumni come ‘home’ for Homecoming Weekend

Story • Aja Goare

Homecoming weekend 2010 welcomed back a handful of alumni from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, with the likes of Emmy Award-winning American news correspondent Martin Savidge, director and general manager of WOUB Center for Public Media Carolyn Bailey Lewis, managing editor for news for The Columbus Dispatch Allen Miller, award-winning news and documentary producer Chris Guarino and Associate Director of Ohio University Hugh Martin.

The alumni were enthusiastic about being on campus again, and WOUB packed the Radio and Television studio with a current, Scripps-student audience. The WOUB Newswatch segment, “The Changing Media Landscape”, consisted of a panel of the aforementioned alumni, along with current WOUB staff who spoke on hot topics in communications, such as social media and the future of communications.

Students questioned the panel with interests such as what, exactly, is considered reporting nowadays. Panel members responded with medial outputs such as video footage, blogs, and even Twitter.

“(Some people think) the traditional rules of journalism don’t apply, that a tweet doesn’t hold as much weight or significance because it was shared on some social network… but a report is a report,” Savidge said.

Students also had concerns about the future of journalists and the ever-changing forms of reporting. The views of the alumni varied from Savidge to Miller.

“(News) must be instantaneous, it must be now… mobility is the secret… the audience must be able to take it with them on whatever device they have,” Savidge said.

Miller had a more hopeful outlook on the future of newspapers.

“We don’t have a reader or viewer problem- we have a revenue problem… (Newspapers) will probably be around a lot longer than what the naysayers think,” he said.

The relevance of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, was identified and unanimously agreed upon as a substantial part of communications today, and will continue to be so in the future. They encouraged students to learn all they can about current media tools and, simply, “good story telling.”

“(As journalists), the goal is that we can communicate,” Savidge said to close the show.

This Newswatch edition can be seen at www.woubb.org/tv.

Facebook: The pros and cons of a guilty pleasure

Story • Matt Rancourt

The past couple of weeks have stunk.

Do you like midterms?

Me neither, but I had two of them.

Enjoy projects? How about essays?

What a coincidence – I don’t either. So I wasn’t thrilled to have to do two of each.

Care for whining?

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Sorry about that.

Needless to say, spare time was rather difficult to come by. And when I did have some, guess what I did with it?

No, not study for that frighteningly long political science test.

Start on that literary analysis essay?

Please.

What I wound up doing was something far less productive.

I Facebook-ed.

That’s right. That accursed social networking site has claimed another victim.

I knew there were more important things to be doing, but for some reason I just could not focus on them until I had come up with another clever status update. Or changed my profile picture for the thousandth time. Or wondered about why a website would ever feel the need to include a “poke” function.

I was out of control. Facebook had given me a channel to utilize my latent procrastination talents. At one point, I thought about deactivating my account just so I could get something done.

But then I reconsidered.

After all, while Facebook may not always be the greatest thing for one’s GPA, it does offer a number of potential benefits to an aspiring journalist.

The following is a very short, non-comprehensive list of Facebook pros and cons, given in no particular order, which I composed while I was supposed to be studying John Locke’s views on the state of nature.

Pro: Unsurprisingly, it’s fantastic for networking.

I know, I know. Duh, right? Who would have thought that a social networking site would be useful for social networking? Well, that’s just for the average person.

For a would-be journalist, the benefits are far greater than you might think.

Say you meet an Ohio University graduate at some sort of event. Now say that this person also happens to have a few connections in the field you hope to enter. Perhaps they work for a large magazine or a TV station.

Anyway, shortly after you meet, the person sends you a friend request on Facebook. Suddenly it becomes much easier to maintain your new contact. You can comment on a few of their status updates. You might also post a message or two on their wall, perhaps a “happy birthday” (Facebook does conveniently remember birthdays, after all). Basically, you do just enough to make sure this person doesn’t forget about you.

Then, after a month or so, your contact leaves a post on your wall saying that they have a job available at the magazine/TV station that they think you would be perfect for. You ace the interview, but they don’t offer you the position because…

Con: Potential employers can see everything that you (or someone else) may have ill-advisedly posted on Facebook.

…they take a look at some of the pictures you have on your profile page. You know, those ones your friend tagged of you passed out on the bathroom floor cuddling with a tequila bottle.

And instantly, you’re no longer “what the company is looking for.”

Oh well, better luck next time.

Pro: It provides a great forum for you to show off your work.

Visibility is important to a journalist.

With Facebook, you can provide links to just about anything you have ever done. It could be an article in an online publication, or a blog post you’re particularly proud of, or footage from one of your televised interviews, or even just a really good photo that you took. It could be just about anything, really.

As soon as you start posting things, they’re going to start popping up in others’ news feeds.

And who knows? Your Facebook friends might be so impressed by your work that they become regular readers/viewers.

Maybe one of them even mentions you to someone they know in the industry, and you suddenly find yourself in the running for a job. Stranger things have happened.

Just make sure you’re untagged in any and all pictures involving tequila bottles before your first interview.

Con: A Facebook account does not double as a Twitter account.

I actually don’t have a Twitter feed, because I find it rather similar to the Facebook status update function – it just seems kind of redundant.

However, as we learn very early on in Scripps (and can see within the industry), journalists nowadays are generally expected to use both sites.

So apparently, if I want to increase my chances of being successful, I’m going to have to start “tweeting” just like everyone else.

And then I’ll have just what I need – a new way to procrastinate.

Great.

If anyone wants to follow me on Twitter, I think I’m going to start by providing live updates as my GPA sinks.