Posts
Check out the latest issue of the Community Free Press. It continues to be a good little paper, and-- at the risk of sounding cheesy-- I am proud of my association with it.
Someone told me the other day that he always finds good stuff in there to read, which is a really high compliment coming from someone who isn't trying to suck-up.
Fines Massey took over the 'public defender' piece for me after I posted my take here, and delivered a very fine story. He is a solid writer, and a funny guy. I think we're lucky to have him on staff. I was glad to hear that things in the local office are getting better.
Kelsey Garman's 'Maturity Matters' story was interesting, too. So was... and on and on. It's a good issue. Enough said. No one here needs to read a sappy plug.
But then, that's all I had in mind.
Except for this: I am often dissatisfied with how much gets left out of any story I write. This isn't to say that Chris or anyone at CFP is doing anything wrong. The story lengths are good. The topics are fine, too. But, short of videotaping each interview, there is always good stuff that will be left out.
In doing the 'Animal Control' story on page 1, the audience wouldn't necessarily know that I rode around with Nicole Fowler, an animal control officer, for two hours last Thursday. I mention her only in the caption.
I thought it was interesting to know that she still gets attached to some of the dogs, cats, etc. she captures. Of course she would. Now when you consider the shelter has to euthanize over 2,000 animals a year...you can see how her story is interesting, too.
In a town of 150,000 people, stories are everywhere I guess.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Your okay, I'm okay
I ran over a bird the other day. I was turning left and he never saw it coming. Or she never saw it coming. I don't know how to tell what sex a bird is. It might have been a robin.
It landed in-line with my tire. I was turning left and going downhill. There was no time to react. I ran right over it.
That bird might have learned through its experiences to not trust cats. Or dogs. Or people holding big sticks. Or airplanes. It might not have been scared of dogs.
I don't know how birds feel about cars, in general. I would guess that they're not usually afraid of being run over. Considering they have wings. I think cats should have much more to worry about when it comes to automobiles. They have an attitude like they own they road.
I bet if that bird ever feared a car it feared the windshield. That seems like a more likely threat. I don't know if birds talk to each other, but I can imagine a mother bird telling its baby bird to beware of windshields.
I can see little gossip-birds talking to their co-workers on the wire. Talking about the dumb skunks that get run over. Or the squirrels. 'Dumb animals can't fly at all,' one might say. The others on the wire, chuckling and feeling superior. Except for one. The one who knows that anything is possible. He's quiet, but smiles to be nice.
After I ran over it I could see it laying there in my rear view mirror--its feathers sticking up. There is no doubt. I ran over that bird.
It seems that whatever that bird thought it knew about cars didn't matter much. How could it have ever known what was coming?
I told a couple people at work about it. There wasn't much they could say.
It landed in-line with my tire. I was turning left and going downhill. There was no time to react. I ran right over it.
That bird might have learned through its experiences to not trust cats. Or dogs. Or people holding big sticks. Or airplanes. It might not have been scared of dogs.
I don't know how birds feel about cars, in general. I would guess that they're not usually afraid of being run over. Considering they have wings. I think cats should have much more to worry about when it comes to automobiles. They have an attitude like they own they road.
I bet if that bird ever feared a car it feared the windshield. That seems like a more likely threat. I don't know if birds talk to each other, but I can imagine a mother bird telling its baby bird to beware of windshields.
I can see little gossip-birds talking to their co-workers on the wire. Talking about the dumb skunks that get run over. Or the squirrels. 'Dumb animals can't fly at all,' one might say. The others on the wire, chuckling and feeling superior. Except for one. The one who knows that anything is possible. He's quiet, but smiles to be nice.
After I ran over it I could see it laying there in my rear view mirror--its feathers sticking up. There is no doubt. I ran over that bird.
It seems that whatever that bird thought it knew about cars didn't matter much. How could it have ever known what was coming?
I told a couple people at work about it. There wasn't much they could say.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Guessing the News
So much of what we try to do at CFP, I try to do here, and journalists try to do everywhere can be called guessing the news.
In our latest issue at CFP, I wrote about College Station. I talked about the money that went into the new district, and I tried to talk to the people involved. Both, behind the scenes, and on the street.
In a story-idea meeting, we decided this was something ordinary people living in Springfield might care about. We were guessing.
The steps in guessing the news are pretty straightforward.
1. Take an inventory of what's going on.
2. Prioritize.
Often the process is influenced by what the gatekeepers-- those who set and change priorities like editors and publishers-- think their readership, their followers, their customers, even their advertisers, want to see in the final product. In fact, I said "often," but I can't think of a time when this isn't the case.
For example, this post came about after a follower of this blog sent me an e-mail asking about my own process for deciding what I write about, and what hits the cutting room floor-- a sort of early evaluation of my first couple of months as a blogger.
My first instinct was to resist this idea. I'm not sure I've been doing this long enough to matter, and (2) I'm not sure anyone other than Robert Stephens cares.
An aside: I'm flattered to have a Councilman reading my blog, but also, a little unnerved. As a journalist, and I believe Mr. Stephens knows this, I feel there needs to be a wall separating public servants and the press if the press is to truly serve the public. That means no buddy-buddies. We've had a friendly banter, and he's a nice guy, as a member of the public and follower of this blog I respect his input, but I hope he realizes I'm never going to have coffee with him.
Anyhoo, so, what do the unwashed masses want in a blog after all? And how do I decide? I asked myself, and I thought about it. I thought about my own process. My own audience. I thought about the sad sacks who might read this blog, the questionable flim-flams and lilly-livers who land here and stick, the pirates and voyeurs quietly watching beyond the screen, and I decided that more about the process was in order.
For me, I write about the types of things I want to see on the Internet. I imagine that the people reading this are both local and tired of the same old stuff. By same old stuff I mean the blogs that never seem to say anything, bland old diddies (spelling?) about the fam or a recent vacation. Well, I wrote about my vacation too, but more as a heads up-- 'hey, check this place out' (city museum).
I also write Thunderfire, which is similar to, but more awesome than, poetry. By posting it, I'm hoping to give you, the reader of ill-repute, something that is thought-provoking and unsucky. Often, poetry is so pretentious and caught up in admiring itself that only other poets can stand it.
In editorials or blogumns, I try to tap into my more serious side. The part of me that is, dare I say, interested in local politics and news coverage. Here is where I think we have a gaping hole, locally. I want to write columns that are, forgive me Fox, "fair and balanced." Springfield, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't have a columnist. Not a real one in any traditional sense. The News-Leader has a "from the left" and "from the right," but no Overstreet, and no middle-of-the-road, either. Which I think is a shame for a city of this size.
Oh sure, CFP has Bob Mace and Mert Seaton, who each, in their own way, are brilliant. But neither of them is the type of columnist I became impressed by in school. No NYT Sunday morning op-eds. No 3,000 + word novellas on elephant behavior after spending months in Africa. No real research or interviews. "No reporting" as Dr. Andrew Cline might say.
And myself, I have mostly failed at this in my short time as a blogger. Time constraints have stymied my efforts. As has a reluctance to try and interview others as a local blogger. Without the credibility or dedication of a Life of Jason, or the standing in the community of a daily paper backing my efforts, I admit to feeling sheepishly shy. Had I my own Web site with its own revenue, I tell myself, I would conquer the world with my ambition. An ambition, which I hope, is aiming to say something true about our human experience.
And that brings me back on topic-- how do I decide what I think you want to hear. How do I decide what you filthy delinquents, you dirty no-good gorillas, you depraved minnigans (minnies/hooligans) want to hear?
I look in the mirror, and I pick my spots. What else could I do?
In our latest issue at CFP, I wrote about College Station. I talked about the money that went into the new district, and I tried to talk to the people involved. Both, behind the scenes, and on the street.
In a story-idea meeting, we decided this was something ordinary people living in Springfield might care about. We were guessing.
The steps in guessing the news are pretty straightforward.
1. Take an inventory of what's going on.
2. Prioritize.
Often the process is influenced by what the gatekeepers-- those who set and change priorities like editors and publishers-- think their readership, their followers, their customers, even their advertisers, want to see in the final product. In fact, I said "often," but I can't think of a time when this isn't the case.
For example, this post came about after a follower of this blog sent me an e-mail asking about my own process for deciding what I write about, and what hits the cutting room floor-- a sort of early evaluation of my first couple of months as a blogger.
My first instinct was to resist this idea. I'm not sure I've been doing this long enough to matter, and (2) I'm not sure anyone other than Robert Stephens cares.
An aside: I'm flattered to have a Councilman reading my blog, but also, a little unnerved. As a journalist, and I believe Mr. Stephens knows this, I feel there needs to be a wall separating public servants and the press if the press is to truly serve the public. That means no buddy-buddies. We've had a friendly banter, and he's a nice guy, as a member of the public and follower of this blog I respect his input, but I hope he realizes I'm never going to have coffee with him.
Anyhoo, so, what do the unwashed masses want in a blog after all? And how do I decide? I asked myself, and I thought about it. I thought about my own process. My own audience. I thought about the sad sacks who might read this blog, the questionable flim-flams and lilly-livers who land here and stick, the pirates and voyeurs quietly watching beyond the screen, and I decided that more about the process was in order.
For me, I write about the types of things I want to see on the Internet. I imagine that the people reading this are both local and tired of the same old stuff. By same old stuff I mean the blogs that never seem to say anything, bland old diddies (spelling?) about the fam or a recent vacation. Well, I wrote about my vacation too, but more as a heads up-- 'hey, check this place out' (city museum).
I also write Thunderfire, which is similar to, but more awesome than, poetry. By posting it, I'm hoping to give you, the reader of ill-repute, something that is thought-provoking and unsucky. Often, poetry is so pretentious and caught up in admiring itself that only other poets can stand it.
In editorials or blogumns, I try to tap into my more serious side. The part of me that is, dare I say, interested in local politics and news coverage. Here is where I think we have a gaping hole, locally. I want to write columns that are, forgive me Fox, "fair and balanced." Springfield, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't have a columnist. Not a real one in any traditional sense. The News-Leader has a "from the left" and "from the right," but no Overstreet, and no middle-of-the-road, either. Which I think is a shame for a city of this size.
Oh sure, CFP has Bob Mace and Mert Seaton, who each, in their own way, are brilliant. But neither of them is the type of columnist I became impressed by in school. No NYT Sunday morning op-eds. No 3,000 + word novellas on elephant behavior after spending months in Africa. No real research or interviews. "No reporting" as Dr. Andrew Cline might say.
And myself, I have mostly failed at this in my short time as a blogger. Time constraints have stymied my efforts. As has a reluctance to try and interview others as a local blogger. Without the credibility or dedication of a Life of Jason, or the standing in the community of a daily paper backing my efforts, I admit to feeling sheepishly shy. Had I my own Web site with its own revenue, I tell myself, I would conquer the world with my ambition. An ambition, which I hope, is aiming to say something true about our human experience.
And that brings me back on topic-- how do I decide what I think you want to hear. How do I decide what you filthy delinquents, you dirty no-good gorillas, you depraved minnigans (minnies/hooligans) want to hear?
I look in the mirror, and I pick my spots. What else could I do?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Case of the Mounting Cases
Public defenders in the state of Missouri are overwhelmed, and they are not going to get the relief they need anytime soon.
Last year I did a three-part series on our local justice system called "Justice Delayed." (Click here for Part I, Part II, or Part III) Locals leaders all seemed to be saying the same thing: the jail is overcrowded, judges are handling too many cases, and the public defenders are hopelessly understaffed.
This year, legislators passed a bill that attempted to address part of the problem by putting caps on the number of cases public defenders could handle. Once the limit is reached, the defense of people accused of low-level crimes would be contracted out to private attorneys. Governor Nixon just vetoed that bill.
According to today's News-Leader article, Nixon said putting caps only shifts the burden to others in the criminal justice system. Additional funding for the justice system as a whole is what's really needed.
The long and the short is: yes, we need more public defenders, but then we also need more judges, more jail space, and so on. Each part of the system feeds the other.
Public defenders seem to be lowest on the priority list, too. What incentive is there for the state to increase funding for the defenses of the people charged with state crimes?
And it's not just a local problem. Public defenders are stretched-too-thin across the country.
Here, there, and everywhere the issue is the same: either our criminal justice system needs to get bigger through additional funding or we have to start getting choosy about who we want to go to jail.
If the state or federal government makes a push for more jails, defenders and judges, the average citizen should wonder where the money is going to come from. It's got to come from other areas of the state budget, or from new taxes.
So, this was my thought: if raising taxes is not an option with voters, and I suspect it's not, then perhaps we should look at not filling our jails and prisons with drug offenders.
This seems like a good idea as drug laws are, by their very nature, unconstitutional. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should mean I can't tell you what to do with your body and authorities shouldn't govern the lives of consenting adults. As I mentioned in my original post though, for years I've been very conflicted over drug laws because I have seen at least one person's life change after a trip to jail.
Well, you may be wondering (as I was) just how many people are in jails or prisons for drugs, anyway?
According to the Department of Justice, in June of last year there were over 2.3 million people in federal or state prisons or in local jails. On average, local jails were running at 95 percent capacity.
In 2005, over 250,000 of the people in state prisons were drug offenders, which was roughly 20 percent of the total population. This number was actually slightly higher than the number of people incarcerated for property crimes. Violent crimes accounted for more than half of the total number of people in state prison.
What I found was that almost 1 percent of the total U.S. population is incarcerated. And, I think its safe to say roughly 1/5 of those are there for drug offenses.
When I spoke last year to the district defender of Springfield's public defender office, Rod Hackathorn, he said each attorney handles 150 to 180 at any given time. He said he'd like to see the caseload down to around 100 per defender.
If local numbers are like the national figures, then it seems that even a full-scale public groundswell movement to repeal our nation's drug laws wouldn't fix our public defender's problems. That's a shame.
For a moment, I thought I had an idea that could help.
Last year I did a three-part series on our local justice system called "Justice Delayed." (Click here for Part I, Part II, or Part III) Locals leaders all seemed to be saying the same thing: the jail is overcrowded, judges are handling too many cases, and the public defenders are hopelessly understaffed.
This year, legislators passed a bill that attempted to address part of the problem by putting caps on the number of cases public defenders could handle. Once the limit is reached, the defense of people accused of low-level crimes would be contracted out to private attorneys. Governor Nixon just vetoed that bill.
According to today's News-Leader article, Nixon said putting caps only shifts the burden to others in the criminal justice system. Additional funding for the justice system as a whole is what's really needed.
The long and the short is: yes, we need more public defenders, but then we also need more judges, more jail space, and so on. Each part of the system feeds the other.
Public defenders seem to be lowest on the priority list, too. What incentive is there for the state to increase funding for the defenses of the people charged with state crimes?
And it's not just a local problem. Public defenders are stretched-too-thin across the country.
Here, there, and everywhere the issue is the same: either our criminal justice system needs to get bigger through additional funding or we have to start getting choosy about who we want to go to jail.
If the state or federal government makes a push for more jails, defenders and judges, the average citizen should wonder where the money is going to come from. It's got to come from other areas of the state budget, or from new taxes.
So, this was my thought: if raising taxes is not an option with voters, and I suspect it's not, then perhaps we should look at not filling our jails and prisons with drug offenders.
This seems like a good idea as drug laws are, by their very nature, unconstitutional. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should mean I can't tell you what to do with your body and authorities shouldn't govern the lives of consenting adults. As I mentioned in my original post though, for years I've been very conflicted over drug laws because I have seen at least one person's life change after a trip to jail.
Well, you may be wondering (as I was) just how many people are in jails or prisons for drugs, anyway?
According to the Department of Justice, in June of last year there were over 2.3 million people in federal or state prisons or in local jails. On average, local jails were running at 95 percent capacity.
In 2005, over 250,000 of the people in state prisons were drug offenders, which was roughly 20 percent of the total population. This number was actually slightly higher than the number of people incarcerated for property crimes. Violent crimes accounted for more than half of the total number of people in state prison.
What I found was that almost 1 percent of the total U.S. population is incarcerated. And, I think its safe to say roughly 1/5 of those are there for drug offenses.
When I spoke last year to the district defender of Springfield's public defender office, Rod Hackathorn, he said each attorney handles 150 to 180 at any given time. He said he'd like to see the caseload down to around 100 per defender.
If local numbers are like the national figures, then it seems that even a full-scale public groundswell movement to repeal our nation's drug laws wouldn't fix our public defender's problems. That's a shame.
For a moment, I thought I had an idea that could help.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Pain Relief Happens!
Ever curse when you stubbed your toe? Did it make you feel better?
According to research sited in this U.K. story, swearing can increase aggression levels and reduce feelings of physical pain.
According to research sited in this U.K. story, swearing can increase aggression levels and reduce feelings of physical pain.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Surfing Pro
Have you ever gotten online only to realize you really don't know what you are looking for? I know I have. I'll be drawn to the monitor as if by some magnetic pull only to realize there are only about four or five sites I ever regularly visit.
And it's frustrating, right? The Internet offers us endless possibilities it seems, a menu so large that we often dare to only eat what we have already tasted. Instead of surfing the Web, we end up just sticking our toes in the water.
Well, for me, that's changing.
Recently, I've discovered Stumbleupon. And at the risk of sounding like a pitch man, this site is a miracle cleanser. And so much more!
The idea is simple. You fill out a profile by selecting topics you think are interesting. You get your Login and password, and then you can start stumbling. Press the stumble button, and you'll go from one random Web site to another. Each of them fall within the general topics you've picked.
When you find a site you like, simply click the "I like it!" button and stumble will store it in your profile. I've just started, so there's only five sites I've picked so far. Generally, I like funny stuff the most. Like the poetry generator. Or the "how to tick people off" site.
In the weeks ahead, as I find things that I think are really fun, or informative, I'll call attention to them here.
Now when I get online I still won't know what I'm looking for, but I will at least know how to find it.
And it's frustrating, right? The Internet offers us endless possibilities it seems, a menu so large that we often dare to only eat what we have already tasted. Instead of surfing the Web, we end up just sticking our toes in the water.
Well, for me, that's changing.
Recently, I've discovered Stumbleupon. And at the risk of sounding like a pitch man, this site is a miracle cleanser. And so much more!
The idea is simple. You fill out a profile by selecting topics you think are interesting. You get your Login and password, and then you can start stumbling. Press the stumble button, and you'll go from one random Web site to another. Each of them fall within the general topics you've picked.
When you find a site you like, simply click the "I like it!" button and stumble will store it in your profile. I've just started, so there's only five sites I've picked so far. Generally, I like funny stuff the most. Like the poetry generator. Or the "how to tick people off" site.
In the weeks ahead, as I find things that I think are really fun, or informative, I'll call attention to them here.
Now when I get online I still won't know what I'm looking for, but I will at least know how to find it.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Happy Birthday!
Happy 9th Birthday Andrew!
Andrew is smart, goofy, curious, talented, and he wears his heart on his sleeve (which isn't a bad thing). I hope as he grows up and changes, he really never grows up or changes.
Andy, if you are reading this, you should know that your mother and I talked about it, and we decided to keep feeding you for a few more years. :]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)