My Storify

My Storify, chronicling the tumultuous few days of Mike Vick's injured right hand.

The transformation of ESPN

I'm writing--surprise--about how ESPN has changed over the last few years. When I first started reading ESPN.com around 2001, it was largely text based with pictures interweaved, although these were usually only at the beginning of articles. As the internet grew and, with it, the level of activity available between users and websites, ESPN.com grew with it. Now, every page has a video corresponding with the article, either from the author himself or from a blurb on Sportscenter. Every player that is mentioned in an article has a hyperlink, which displays a short bit of information about that player with access to a full page of stats, news and fantasy information. Even games have become common, with their streak for the cash, bowl picks and NCAA brackets. This works well for ESPN because visuals are necessary for sports to remain popular. Recaps are nice, as well as box scores, but they only tell part of the story. Highlights of games allow viewers to get all of their information quickly, and is also, quite frankly, more entertaining than looking at a traditional box score. The integration with all players, teams and fantasy games makes it easier for the end user and builds popularity for the site. Integration with Twitter and Facebook are only a few of the ways ESPN has stayed current with their audience.

Street art/yarn bombing

While street art has blown up over the past decade, with people on both sides discussing the merits of creating art on public property, yarn bombing is something relatively new (at least to me; I hadn't heard of it until joining this group). Both should make for an interesting story. Here are five sources that will be worth checking out:

1: An article on artinfo.com has some good information on how yarn bombing started and also talks about several of the major players involved. It also talks about yarn bombing day, which has since passed, but contacting organizers might still be a good idea for more info on this subject. (Publication)

2: A video also found in this article shows how Olek, a yarn bomber, knitted a sweater over the charging bull statue on Wall Street over the course of one night. (audio/visual)

3: Magda Sayeg, who many attribute with creating yarn bombing, has a website and yarn bombing group called "Knitta Please." She has contact info on her website, in addition to pictures of her work, and would have to be the number 1 expert source to talk to about yarn bombing. (Expert)

4: This blog post gives a nice overview of yarn bombing, with links to other yarn bombing sites and information about the "yart," in addition to a picture slideshow showcasing some nice examples of yarn bombing. (blog/visual)

5: Finally, there is a book that has been written about the subject that would give me some good research material as I write my story. (research)

Non-credible sources in a credible(?) world

I found this assignment quite difficult when I first read the prompt. What kind of authority am I? What do I know about credibility. One of my great faults is that I am too moderate.....I don't really have much of an opinion about anything. I'm kind of Rodney King-like....why can't we all just get along? So when thinking about what wasn't credible, I wasn't hit with an "aha" moment.

The only sites I could think of that might give me pause were political related and Wikipedia. My childhood was rooted in politics. When I was a little kid, I could name all of the presidents in order and had aspirations of one day running this country. As I grew up, however, I decided that that was simply too much pressure for lil' Kenny, so I decided to dream about something else. Still, my family loved talking politics, particularly my father and step mother. They are both retired military members, and as my dad always told me, military members traditionally vote Republican because of various tax breaks soldiers receive from the GOP. But while my dad is quiet in his political thinking, my stepmom is the complete opposite, with vehement opinions about everything. She adamantly defends any and all moves made by Republican statesmen. So of course, she loves herself some Fox News. Now, I am wary of any televised news, because lets face it: sensationalism equals big ratings. So when I lived with them for a summer a couple of years ago, I got a big dose of Fox News. Every. Day. I had fun debating with my stepmom over certain opinions given by Fox News commentators, but it still irked me how blatantly biased they were. When I started watching other news channels like CNN and MSNBC, I realized that they too were biased--maybe not as blatantly--in their news coverage. 

To me, this has to extend to their websites. I don't have much experience with these sites because I primarily use Yahoo! for my news online, but these biases are a part of these networks' cultures, so naturally this reigns true for their respective websites. I know that Yahoo! probably has its biases too, and I think my preference for that site stems more from the way its laid out than the content itself, which I believe is still top notch.

With Wikipedia, it's obvious: with the ability to have anyone edit it's content, you always have to be aware that something might not necessarily be true. Now, to be fair, Wikipedia does try to safeguard against this with it's sourcing system. Most well-done articles have a plethora of sources from all over the interwebs linking the reader to the information that lies within the Wiki article. If a reader sees these sources, you can have a sigh of relief knowing that things are probably pretty good. However, without these sources, you might have to raise an eye to the content, or dig a little deeper elsewhere to back up what you've read. 

I feel like I'm such a Wikipedia junkie now that I can tell when something is probably true and when something probably isn't. I also love reading the new article of the day when it is first posted while trying to find which section of the article has been vandalized. Nothing like reading an article about a 16th-Century king only to see that his attached bio has been replaced with the word vagina. 

I guess the theme with both of these types of sites is to be wary of what you read. There is definitely truth to be found, but you may have to sift through the bullshit to find what you need. A keen eye will be able to do it; an untrained one won't.

Introduction

I never intended on taking this course; I received the email like everyone else, and although it sounded interesting and relevant to wha I want to do, I already had a packed courseload and didn't have room for it.

Well, things don't always work out as you plan them, so of course one of my classes (Advanced Reporting) didn't have the minimum number of students, and I wound up here.

I think that's turned out to be a blessing in disguise though because I like what I've seen so far. The class has already helped me "get with the times" with a twitter and blogging. Just yesterday, I tweeted during the entire duration of the Penn State football game. It felt.....good!

That kind of ties in to what type of writing I like. I aspire to one day be a sports writer, and my internship with the Pittsburgh Sports Report recently turned into a freelance opportunity. I'm now actually getting paid to watch and write about sports! It's a dream that's becoming reality.

As far as nonfiction writers go, I really only stick to what I know, and that's sports. I love Bill Simmons and his new website, Grantland. I would love to one day write like him. I think his combination of sports, humor and pop culture irrelevancy makes his writing a joy to read, even if he is a Boston homer. Hunter S. Thompson is another good one that many people might say, but it's because he's that good. I actually first heard about him through his work with Espn, then went on to watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas before reading the book.

P.S.: I wrote this all on my iPhone while at work! Isn't the present great?