While Ohio University is in the midst of a hiring freeze and anticipated budget cuts, Tom Hodson recently started his new position as interim director and general manager of WOUB.

Hodson, the former director of the Scripps school, will now face a new task of taking on the financial difficulties WOUB is facing.

He is replacing former director, Carolyn Bailey Lewis, who applied for state disability retirement in early October and is expected to hear the official ruling this week.

Hodson, who was notified Nov. 26, 2010 by Dean Gregory Shepherd of the College of Communications regarding his promotion, only had one month to develop a “game plan” before officially beginning his new job on Jan. 3.

Shepherd asked Hodson to take on the new role because of his “unique set of skills and experience (and)strong association with the broadcasting business, but also great experience as an academic leader,”  Shepherd said.  All of which play a factor in Hodson’s goals.

During his month of planning, Hodson identified three main goals to focus upon during his time as interim director.

The first of his goals  is “making sure the center [WOUB] is financially solvent and on a good financial footing,” which is “a major challenge with dwindling service resources.”  This includes maintaining the center’s six TV and six radio stations.

Hodson plans to research what money is available for WOUB and identify cost saving efficiencies while planning to “keep the same services or figure out how to improve service but at a lesser cost than in the past.”

For starters, Hodson plans to use much more website-based distribution to reduce cost.

He will also be researching some national Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) content to determine how cost-effective they are compared to more locally produced shows.

With the next fiscal year beginning in July, WOUB will not know its budget allocation until March at the earliest.  From there, Hodson expects to spend from March to June tailoring the budget.

“The budget is a huge issue, with so many unknowns,” Hodson said. Historically, the annual budget is around $5 million, although it’s expected to decrease this year with anticipated budget cuts.

WOUB receives the majority of their funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) who helps underwrite the cost of the PBS content.  The problem WOUB is currently facing this year is PBS changing their formula for programming fees, and the money received from CPB are from essentially interlocking formulas, Hodson said.  Meaning both will need to be determined before WOUB will have any idea of the upcoming budget.

WOUB receives funding from grants, donations and directly from the university just as other units of OU. This  is dependent on all the sources of revenue the school is receiving.

Also on Hodson’s to-do list is the integration of the center with the five Scripps schools to help make it possible for students to receive academic credit for certain jobs performed at WOUB.

“[We] want to promote use of student and faculty together,” Hodson said.

Approximately 250 students work through WOUB without receiving academic credit, though some do earn a small amount of money, an aspect Hodson wishes to improve.

“[We want to] give students real professional experience with academic credit,” Hodson said.

Most work done at WOUB is categorized under volunteer enterprise when used to update professional portfolios.

It is already a work in progress since Hodson has started reaching out to the schools to integrate them more toward an academic mission. He will also be working with classes and talking to directors to see what common ground they currently have.  Currently, Hodson said there is some linkage between academics and WOUB but nothing very productive.

Eventually, Hodson hopes to update and modernize the approach the center takes to news and entertainment and bring it more into the 21^st century.  With technology having changed  more in the past five years then in the past 60, it presents a major problem, Hodson said.

“I am especially interested in seeing WOUB become an even more important player in the education of our students, providing them cutting edge experiences in all aspects of media production and delivery,”  Shepherd said, indicating it will be a problem that Hodson can solve.

Some of the more modern and cutting edge techniques are surprisingly more cost-efficient, Hodson said.  For example, “It’s much cheaper to populate a website than to do a live television program.”

Although the budget will have an effect in the development of the center, “The budget won’t keep us from modernization,” Hodson said.

Meanwhile, Hodson is unsure if he will fully become the permanent director and general manager at WOUB.

“I have an uncertain time frame here,” Hodson said.  “These are times of change and excitement in the media professions and we are dedicated to ensuring that our students graduate with the abilities to lead the way.”

The discovery story of Ted Williams is one that could inspire just about anyone. It offers hope to the homeless man, searching for means of survival. It offers encouragement to the healing addict, that there is life after dependence. But what does it offer to the journalist, laboring day after day, who finally made an impression?

It was a long night of studying when, from across the room, my friend pulled up a video someone had e-mailed him. That was the first time I experienced The Voice. I was shocked — as most were — when I saw the face issuing the words, sounding just like the professional dialogue of a radio host.

A reporter from The Columbus Dispatch allegedly had the first video copy, the same one that many of us first saw on YouTube. There are many sides to the story surrounding the exposure of Ted Williams’ talent, but underneath all of the politics lies a powerful story.

I bet I can tell you the first thing that came out of just about everyone’s mouth when they first caught wind of this story: “Wow, what a lucky break.” But when I think of this story, I see that it can be boiled down to more than any fabulated coincidence. In fact, it is this kind of story that many of us will someday strive to find. In turn, this is the standard of work that can offer new inspiration to our studies and our time spent in the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism.

Some controversy has risen following the release of this divisive story. Many believe that Williams caught a break that he didn’t deserve, considering his sticky past that has been called to attention. Apparently, this was a past that Williams’ newly found fame could not shake. Just days after his video hit the Web, news circulated that he had broken his alleged sobriety. In response to this controversy, Williams checked himself into rehab.

In my opinion, this validates the fortune he came upon. Given the opportunity, it seems that Williams will try to turn his life around, and he deserves that second chance, no matter what luck or talent may have brought him to it. The point I’d like to stress here is this: If one journalist’s inkling can bring this much favor to a man who has an exceedingly shaky track record, imagine the possibilities when applied elsewhere. This single account shows us all the effect that any one piece of journalistic work can have.

Setting aside the personal convictions anyone may hold on this topic, it is an anecdote alive with morals that journalism students should be thinking on mulling over. Such ethically challenging stories are the ones that keep our field in constant flux, reminding us to set our own standards as well as our own priorities.

If this can get you thinking on one thing, let it be your motivations for your future career.  What will be your incentive to flourish as a professional communicator? If you’re still riding on, “Because I like to write,” maybe it’s time to dig a little deeper. Stories like the discovery of Ted Williams prove that if we set out to use our talents to make a difference, we may hold the power to change lives.

With the new methods of journalism emerging (or rather, merging), many  aspiring journalists wonder exactly where the industry is heading, what works and what doesn’t.  For magazines, the production options appear to be determined simply by what works financially while still achieving specific goals. The campus publications at Ohio University provide insight into this magazine production world.

OU’s print magazine, Backdrop, distributed throughout campus since winter of 2008, uses various sources of income to produce an issue.  With print copies distributed each quarter, approximately 30 percent of the magazine consists of advertising, which is how most of its funds are acquired, said Annie Beecham, a 5^th-year senior and publisher of Backdrop.

Backdrop also holds fundraisers, , receives aid from the Student Activities Commission (SAC) and $20 quarterly dues from the magazine’s members, Beecham said.

When it comes to expenses, Backdrop’s main cost is printing the actual magazine, consisting of 48 pages.

“Sometimes if we have events we need money for, odds and ends, or if we print flyers, that can add up,” Beecham said.

Elizabeth Sheffield, Scripps senior and editor-in-chief of Backdrop, said that these smaller costs are often out-of-pocket expenses.

Beecham also commented that Backdrop breaks even with every issue and maintains the constant expenses for each  quarter.

“It’s not how much can we spend, so much, it’s how much is it going to take,” Sheffield said.

Backdrop also has its content available online.

“There’s no incentive to hoard the information and make it only available in one location. Since the students don’t have to pay for the magazine, the objective is to make it obtainable regardless of any obstacle,” Sheffield said.

Beecham added that page length extensions are to be added when the funds are available.

“I’ve been really happy and kind of surprised that, while everyone harps about this economic crisis that we’re going through, that we’ve really done as well as a non-profit organization,” Sheffield said. “Even though we live in a college town and in one of the most impoverished counties of Ohio, I’m impressed that we manage to do this and that it works every time. We’d be lying if we said it was easy, though.”

Conversely, OU’s first fashion magazine, Thread, uses similar financial approaches, but with slightly different goals in mind.  Utilizing a strictly online medium, Thread faces different challenges.

“The main reason we wanted it to be online was to expand our readership from just here in Athens,” said Jamie Ratermann, founder and editor-in-chief of Thread. “We get not only Ohio, but all over the United States, and we’ve gotten overseas (readership).”

Ratermann added that the concept of an online magazine “is still a new idea.”

Publishing costs for the magazine on the website are approximately $200 to $300 per issue. Styling is an important part of the magazine, since it is a fashion publication, Ratermann said.

Last quarter, Thread began adding advertisements in the magazine, which help  pay for a large quantity of the costs. The magazine also plans to use SAC funding this quarter

“I’ve looked into printing costs for other things, and I know that printing costs can get up to thousands of dollars,” Ratermann said. She added that with publishing twice a quarter and having no page limits for the magazine, online publishing is more financially efficient.

Ratermann said  that the recent integration of print and online, because  many people don’t desire to purchase print anymore,  is what makes Thread successful and “effective for students who might not have the cash.”

Ratermann also commented that being online is helping model magazines such as Vogue, and that “the application (of online) is where we’re headed.”

The university’s magazine publications, while differing in content and publication processes, demonstrate that the goals of a magazine can be achieved, whether they are to provide full-access or go global.

What makes a good story successful? Every story needs to have a unique tone and be timely and accurate. As journalists, it is our job to provide news and information to the public from a perspective they could never imagine. But how far will one go to send the message?

Today, the stereotypical journalism careers that the industry has built a foundation on have albeit changed. More specifically, the jobs that comprise sports journalism have tethered to alternative tactics for attracting a large audience.

Sports reporters have learned how to get to the bottom of the barrel and uncover a variety of perspectives of a story. Such words like “investigate” and “harsh questioning” are increasingly becoming synonymous with sports reporting.

When publishing a story, the most important job of the journalist is to be truthful, ethical and fair. When covering sports, it’s a no-brainer. How tough can it be to cover some fast-paced news and report the scores from some of the best moments of the night? However, the job has unleashed a new side to these reporters that has shown me exactly what not to do when it is my turn to take their place.

Sports journalists have now gone too far when uncovering stories that may or may not exist. The three that shock me the most are the Derek Anderson press conference outburst, the Mike Gundy press conference rant and a few unnecessary sports-related scandals

During a press conference with Kent Somers, Arizona Cardinals quarterback, Derek Anderson, responded to harsh criticism regarding his attitude during a game.

“Every single week, I put my freaking heart and soul into this,” Anderson said during the press conference. “…I don’t want to go out there and get embarrassed on Monday Night Football in front of everybody.”

Derek Anderson ultimately had an outburst, but most people were more interested that he snapped at Somers, rather than answering what was being asked. The reporter stated he was trying to be nice, which is code for, “I am going to ask you something that will attempt to tear down your image so that I can get a good story.”

Somers intent was to find the true reason why Anderson was laughing on the sideline with a teammate, before the team was about to suffer  a defeat.

“What me and Deuce (Lutui) talk about on the sidelines is nobody else’s business.” Anderson said.

It seems that this was the final straw for sports reporters attacking athletes for small things. Putting their personal lives on national television so that they can get an interesting and shocking story is wrong.

One story that brought a blow to the sports world was the Reggie Bush scandal. Bush, running back for the New Orleans Saints, engaged in illegal recruiting, thus facilitating his decision to relinquish his Heisman Trophy. This particular scandal was the spark for sports journalists to prove they hold potential to seek provocative stories that uncover a beneficial truth.

The solution is simple: Be fair and don’t engage in what you wouldn’t want done to you. There is a reason why we learn these things in pre-school. People tend to lose sight of what is important in life and will trample anyone to fulfill their needs and wants. Take the separate instances of good and bad sports reporting to decide for yourself what is appropriate, before the value of a good story is lost. Sports are one of my many passions, and to many people of this nation, it is a bonding tool of friendship and an opportunity to accomplish something great. Sports are amazing asset to a culture, and sports figures are people to be treated fairly and not used as catalyst stones for the common journalists’ flame. What makes a good story is the character behind it and the warming words left behind by a professional journalist.

In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting involving Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, debate sparked regarding the inaccurate reports of Gifford’s shot to the head. The social media employed as the news broke generated an ethical debate regarding social media as a breaking news platform.

Twitter, a microblogging site whose users have increasingly blurred the line between personal commentary and legitimate news coverage, served as the breaking news outlet of choice for sources reporting the Tucson shooting that left Gifford in critical condition.

According to an article on online news source  Regret the Error, National Public Radio erroneously reported the death of Gifford in a tweet that was later sourced by outlets such as The New York Times and The Huffington Post.

According to the article, NPR broke news of the Tucson shooting on their website and via Twitter shortly following the incident.

In response to the speculation that NPR catalyzed the series of false reports, NPR News Executive Editor Dick Meyer issued a statement on Jan. 9 in his editor’s note.

“Already all of us at NPR News have been reminded of the challenges and professional responsibilities of reporting on fast-breaking news at a time and in an environment where information and misinformation move at light speed,” he wrote.

The Tucson shooting has shed light on the power new media have on journalism in how it is reported, read and distributed. Recent events demonstrate the easy facilitation of breaking news through social media.

Perhaps the overriding debate is not who initially reported the Tucson event, but how it quickly spread through the Twittersphere. The platform that initially created a forum for personal blurbs is now providing up-to-date news reports.

When taking into consideration the ever-increasing number of followers of NPR News (386,618) and the 2,847,935 followers of The New York Times, the power a single outlet has on influencing an entire community of readers is made clear.

The challenge, as previously stated by Meyer, is the rate at which an event develops. With the click of a mouse, a 140-character tweet can reach thousands of followers in the same amount of time it takes for new reports to alter a story significantly.

As is demonstrated by the misreport on Gifford’s condition following the shooting, the problem lay in the rate at which the news traveled. Twitter is a powerful tool that will increasingly affect journalists’ careers. While this social networking platform may continue to be utilized by media outlets, it is wise to consider the repercussions of posting to a medium that caters to such a vast audience.

A constantly transforming field, new media applications  cause journalists to question where the future of journalism is going.

Ipads, iPhones, Nooks, Kindles and other “tablet” and mobile devices are changing the way journalism is structured and how it functions. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

“New media has certainly changed the way we provide news and interact with the public,” said Kelley Finan, senior manager of external communications at Ohio University. “Perhaps the biggest change is that new media has evolved journalism from a one-way communications vehicle to a two-way vehicle.”

There is no better example of this two-way vehicle than the increasing popularity of interactive application  functions. Apple announced on Thursday, Jan. 6, that they are in the production of creating an App store, similar to iTunes. This will create easier access that is more conducive for customers to search and buy apps available for  the iPad or iPhone.

So what does this mean for journalists?

“New media is visible, vocal, interactive and easily accessible,”  Finan said. “News can come to you whether you’re sitting in your living room, on the subway or out jogging. News and media outlets need to respond to this new expectation,” Finan adds.

Since  the iPad includes apps from  popular news sources like The Associated Press, The New York Times, BBC, National Public Radio (NPR), TIME Magazine and Pulse News Radar, media outlets are grasping onto the idea of interactive news.

This creates a common viewpoint that because of apps and the availability of news in our everyday lives, journalists will morph from content creators into content guiders, picking and choosing specific news from different sources to display for the public.

“Journalists of the future have different tasks,” said Bernhard Debatin director of tutorial studies in journalism. “No longer are they the only gatekeepers.  There are too many gates now.  Journalists will be more secondary gatekeepers; they will be sense makers.”

That is exactly what some of the more successful apps in the market are doing, abdicating their role as the creator of news, and becoming a different sort of “gatekeeper.” The App called Flipboard takes RSS and news feeds from Twitter and other media sources and compiles it  to create a pseudo-magazine that enables viewers to flip through it.

However, while the popularity of free news apps, like Flipboard, is  rapidly increasing, the average amount of purchased news apps has declined.  The most popular apps are, consequently, the free ones, and journalists are going to need to pick up from there and decide how to make a profit if this is the future of journalism.

“Good journalists should be paid for good content, but they can’t impose that after the fact,” said Hans Meyer, professor for the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. “They can’t take what was free and charge for it. But now, they can charge $5 every month instead. We want what we are used to, and the good publishers are going to do that,” Meyer said.

Another popular app called NewsE from NewsE.com, found success offering multiple perspectives on news stories. They created an iPad app within their first week.

“It (NewsE) is one of the best, if not the best, apps,” Meyer said. “The interface is simple. It’s easy to find videos — they’ll send you emails, and it’s completely free. They don’t even collect media data. Their app for the longest time was the top ten.”

The issues of “free” and “easy to use” seems to be the frontrunners of what is popular, but that is not always easy. Not always easy? Possibly reword.

Magazines are trying to find their place in this new interactive media world. Some magazines offer a lower subscription fee for their app versions of $8-$10  a year, but finding a way to make profit is still plaguing the industry.

“A lot of the big magazine companies are negotiating with Apple for the iPad to keep 30 percent, and they keep subscriber data, but they can’t do that,” Meyer said. I’ll have to think about the punctuation here… “They need it.  If they don’t they’ll be in big trouble, that’s where it’s heading.”

Even local news is making a scene through app functions. Fwix offers customers the ability to plug in their ZIP code and delivers them local news stories from that area.

Companies are now trying to catch onto the local niche, but with that comes controversy. Patch, financed by America Online, has bureaus scattered through different cities with reporters delivering local news to the editor in the closest large city.

“Some researchers think Patch is evil,”  Meyer said. “We just have to watch what they are doing.”

Apart from creating new media outlets for journalists, the technological advances of the iPads and applications can generate new tools for journalists in the future.

“I think it will be interesting to watch if the iPad comes out with a camera. It can be a really effective journalism tool where you can edit photos and videos,” Meyer said.

If anything, these new media advances further demonstrate that journalism is a constantly changing field and requires journalists to be continually aware and looking for the next great leap towards the future medium.