For this week's blog post, I read an article from the AP about declining revenues for the New York Times. According to the article, the NYT's August revenues "slipped 8.7 percent as its classified ad sales continued to slide." August 2007 revenues ($218.5 million) were more than $19 million higher than the August 2008 revenues ($199.4 million). The article explains that revenues have continued to decline, because of the growing popularity of the internet and the fading interest in newspapers. Advertisers have followed this trend, and many non-computer based publications have suffered because of it. According to the article, total ad sales for the New York Times dropped 14.1 percent; at the same time, online ad sales for the paper have increased 7.9 percent.

For those of us either working in or hoping to find jobs in the field of journalism, this is an important issue. Where is the field headed? Will it be possible to find a job 10 years from now? 5 years from now? or even 1 year from now? Will a journalist's job be to make frequent updates on a blog? Or will the printed word make a comeback? How should we prepare? All of these questions are important and worth asking as we get closer and closer to hitting the job market.

How do you define a "journalist"?

I came across a story today on the topix.com Journalism News page titled "Jon Stewart: Comedian or Journalist?" (http://www.nbc10.com/entertainment/17394383/detail.html). This caught my attention because I began reading Chapter 5 of the "Elements of Journalism" book, which opens with a brief story of a partisan ex-political activist, William Safire, becoming a writer for the New York Times in the 1970s. This created a big stir, because people began to question how a presidential speech-writer could suddenly refer to himself as a journalist.

"What was it, then, that separated Safire from a partisan, activist, or propagandist? The question is increasingly pertinent to the delivery of news and information in the new century," the book states. "As the media landscape broadens and evolves to meet the needs of a more inclusive and activist public created by the social movements of the 1960s and the recent democratization of the content production, what makes something journalism?" (115).

This story about Jon Stewart makes it evident that we are still grappling with these blurred lines in the field of journalism today. For instance, as we have discussed in class, blogging is becoming increasingly popular -- do we refer to bloggers as journalists? And if so, are true "journalists" at risk of being undertaken by regular citizens who can communicate news and events in much the same way that we as journalists do?

This particular story attempts to identify Stewart as either a comedian or a journalist, and states that his identity is different depending on who you ask. While it is true that "The Daily Show" is a comedy program, it also delivers news, which creates a thin and often blurred line between comedy and journalism. Many would argue that his show is not true journalism in the sense that it mixes comedy in with the news -- it certainly is not the kind of news you would see on a regular newscast. The story also says, "This is the third presidential election in which Stewart has been at the helm of 'The Daily Show,' which has helped the 45-year-old host become one of the most respected journalists on television, according to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey." Should we view Stewart as a journalist with the authority and ability to comment on politics, or simply as a comedian making light of politics? Should he be taken seriously as a "journalist" if he incorporates humor into the news?

And, the more important all-encompassing question, what makes someone a journalist, and what makes something journalism? Is it becoming more and more difficult to define?

Ethics in Journalism

One of the biggest issues in the field of journalism is ethics. Journalists constantly feel the need to try to assert themselves as moral, ethical, and trustworthy providers of important information. Yet despite all of the work that the majority of journalists do to gain the public's trust, it appears that readers are still skeptical. This skepticism grows every time a reporter makes a poor, unethical decision. For today's blog, I read an article from the Colorado Independent's Cara Degette that criticized Rocky Mountain News reporter Berny Morson for making an immoral decision in his coverage of a 3-year-old boys funeral.
According to Degette, Marten Kudlis, the boy whose funeral Morson covered, was killed last Thursday in Aurora, Colorado, when a car crashed into an ice cream shop where the boy was waiting in line. Kudlis' funeral took place yesterday; instead of writing a tactful piece about the funeral after it happened, Morson decided to 'tweet' the funeral. Using Twitter--an extremely informal, online communication system that Degette describes as being useful for "pals" to "text easy and quick messages...like 'Hey, just saw the coolest shoes at the mall"--Morson gave live updates on the boys funeral. The following is what was posted on the Rocky Mountain News website:

RMN_Berny: family members shovel earth into graveWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:40 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi calls end to ceremonyWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:28 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi chanting final prayer in hebrewWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:27 a.m.RMN_Berny: earth being placed on coffin.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:22 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi recites the main hebrew prayer of deathWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:20 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi zucker prayingWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:18 a.m.RMN_Berny: coffin lowered into groundWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:18 a.m.RMN_Berny: people gathering at gravesideWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:14 a.m.RMN_Berny: procession beginsWednesday, Sep. 10, 11:01 a.m.RMN_Berny: cars queueing up to follow hearseWednesday, Sep. 10, 10:59 a.m.RMN_Berny: pallbearers carry out coffin followed by mourners.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:48 a.m.RMN_Berny: people again are sobbing. rabbi again asks god to givemarten everlasting life.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:46 a.m.RMN_Berny: video shows marten blowing out candles on birthday cake,marten with dog. last images are of headlines.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:44 a.m.RMN_Berny: video of marten is projected on screen.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:32 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi says marten is close to god now.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:31 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi says marten loved to be tickled. calls the death anightmare. no words can sooth us, he says.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:28 a.m.RMN_Berny: family member says marten is with grandmother who diedlast year. ‘ marten we loved you,’ he says. People sobbing.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:22 a.m.RMN_Berny: family member remembers marten.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:20 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi says we will always remember marten and he will livein our memory.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:18 a.m.RMN_Berny: rabbi recites 23rd psalm.Wednesday, Sep. 10, 10:16 a.m.

In our text, we see that "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth;" however, we also see that "[Journalism's] first loyalty is to its citizens." Such down-played, informal coverage of a little-boys tragic death is unethical. It is this type of behavior that furthers the distrust between journalists and the public.

RMN "Tweets" funeral of 3-year old boy killed in ice cream shop

The Colorado Independent reported that RMN (Rockey Mountain News) 'Tweets" the funeral of a 3-year old boy killed in an ice cream shop. "Tweets" refers to the social networking service Twitter, which allows friends to text easy and quick messages to each other. The RMN used Twitter to live blog the funeral today of Marten Kudlis. Kudlis was killed last Thursday when Francis Hernandez, an illegal immigrant, crashed into a Baskin Robbins store where the boy was waiting to get ice cream. Because the reporter live blogged the funeral he was only able to write quick straight forward sentences. The technology did not allow for any empthy or any emotion whatsoever. The RMN reporter texted phrases such as,

RMN_Berny: family members shovel earth into grave
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:40 a.m.
RMN_Berny: rabbi calls end to ceremony
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:28 a.m.
RMN_Berny: rabbi chanting final prayer in hebrew
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:27 a.m.
RMN_Berny: earth being placed on coffin.
Wednesday, Sep. 10, 11:22 a.m.

Although bloggging is leading journalism in new directions, we must stop and think about the way we convey ourselves when using a technology that limits human emotion. A text/chat blogging service should not be used to cover a funeral. It is extrememly rude to take a very emotional experience like a funeral, or even a wedding and sum it up with text messages.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/7717/rmn-tweets-the-funeral-of-3-year-old-boy/

The changing Newsroom

http://www.journalism.org/node/11961

The article raised a number of questions regarding the change taking place in the way news works, and the way reporters and editors work. Based on the results of a series of interviews and elaborate surveys completed by senior newsroom executives, the article states that todays reporters have "less knowledge of their community." This forced me to wonder how important it is for reporters and thus the news that they report to the community to be personal, to be connected to those they have delivering the news to. Many could argue that the job of a reporter is to connect with society, to know what they want to hear and what they are all about. But now that reporting itself and the interests of society seem to be changing, at times even conflicting, how important is it? Very little about the media remains intimate with the public anymore because the public no longer seems terribly concerned by it. Everything moves so fast these days, and the public seems to be more concerned with receiving news as fast as possible than receiving news that reflects a reporter who has truly taken the time to know the community or the issue at hand. This raises another issue. With the internet offering immediate news, and immediate responses to questions, how can reporters in the newsroom compete? Obviously much of the news on the web is not created not by professional reporters but self-made newswriters, and much of the information is not checked for corrections, so true reporters need to get the right information out there as fast as they can. But when news is delivered immediately via web, how can reporters take the necessary time to fact check and be as detailed as possible in their articles while still competing to deliver news as fast or nearly as fast. And how can editors make the necessary time to edit and fact check? As the article demands of readers at the end, with todays new types and expectations of news, "what is being gained, and what is being lost?"

The Lee Abrams Experience: How to hear the man who would transform Tribune

http://www.cjr.org/feature/the_lee_abrams_experience.php?page=4
This article is roughly about Lee Abrams and how he his changing so many different tribunes around the country, supposedly for the better. This in a sense could be a good thing, but at the same time is being looked at by news room vets as the end of journalism as everyone knows it. One of the most interesting things in this six page magazine article is the fact that in the past year, news papers have been folding in on themselves, forcing layoffs and downsizing all around. This relates pretty well to what we talked about in class the other day, with the face of journalism changing, and forcing everyone else to follow suit. Part of this cut in journalism jobs is blamed on such things as Craigslist which takes away from newspaper ads, and the housing bust. The article continues on with how more Tribune Companies are aquiring loads of dept and are forced to have more lay offs, while at the same time Abrams is quoted to say that he thinks "News and Information is the NEW Rock n' Roll". Either way, the article is good to look at and get people thinking about where journalism is going and what can be done to help. After all, we are the future of this profession.

Jersey's Largest Paper Goes Without AP Today -- Protest or Test?

It's admirable to see a paper attempting to send a message to the AP for raising their prices, but it is moronic from an editor's standpoint to omit articles that will better the paper. From a sports (I know I keep making everything about sports media, I'm trying not to) standpoint, if you're a New Jersey paper and are leaving out a story in your sports section about an out-of-town team that would be of interest to Yankees or Mets fan, you are doing a disservice to your readers and risking losing some. Remember that your fight is with the AP, so try a tactic that will hurt them more than you or your readers. Leaving out stories that may be of importance weakens a paper's legitimacy and, to a degree, cuts readers out of the loop. I don't care if it's for a day or for a year, it's never a good idea to put out a lesser product.

College station gives "average" Iraqi voices global reach

I checked out this article on a college radio station for my worth a look. The radio program called War News Radio focuses on giving Iraqi citizens a voice amidst the war. The reasoning behind the idea for this program was that it was felt that much of the media surrounding the war was from the standpoint of the US and the military, but hardly any view or opinion was heard from an Iraqi citizen.
I think this article definitely takes the bias debate to a different light. We have made the comment that many articles out there do not offer enough opinion on both sides of the story. Well, what about when this includes an entirely different side or rather different perspective of the world? We have been in Iraq for years and, sure, we’ve heard negative and positive sides about the war – but they’re all from an American perspective. What about the Iraqis whose homes are right in the midst of the fighting? Don’t their opinions count at all? Being American we already have this unconscious bias set in, but being told new stories through the eyes of a person outside the US – such as an Iraqi – would give a completely different view to an article. It would also bring an awareness to many news stories that perhaps at first we felt were unimportant but to many foreigners is a huge deal.

As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903727.html?sid=ST2008091000081&s_pos=

This article from The Washington Post is basically about how rumors in regards to the upcoming election are believed to be true before facts are verified. For example, Obama's tax plan outlines that families which earn less than $250,000 will be exempt from the tax plan. McCain, however, is continually stating that the plan will raise everyone's taxes. Because of this, 51% of voters thought that Obama would raise their taxes, which isn't true, as taxes will actually be cut for most families. Likewise, 41% of senior citizens believe that their income taxes will go up. The income taxes for senior citizens who make less than $50,000 a year will go down.

Similarly, Obama has said for months that McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. What McCain actually said was that the troops would only be there if the country was at peace.

The article also discusses Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" which she once supported, but has since jumped ship after she lost support. There had been $223 million sent to Alaska for the bridge, but more than 50% of it has been spent on other projects.

The reason I chose this article was because of a quote by Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Politcal Report: "We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth." This ties into the reading which was assigned for yesterday's class (Tues, Sept. 9) about truthfulness in journalism. Although there have been a lot of articles written that simply re-state what people have said without checking the speakers facts or the reliability of their sources, this article was calling out false claims, such as Obama falsely saying that McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

No questions, please; Palin sticks to her script

This article really shocked me because of what it says about today's media. The article states that Palin refuses to speak to any reporter or media station (unless it's off the record). The article hints that the reason for her silence is because she is heated by the way the media has portrayed her and her family. The article stated that the next time Palin will agree to an interview is when "she feels comfortable doing it."

This is appalling because it makes the media look evil. It raises the question "can we really blame Palin for refusing an interview when all reporters seem to do is use her own words against her?" The fact that Palin will only speak to reporters "off the record" really makes us look bad-- and even worse, untrustworthy.

This relates to our class discussion of how journalism is evolving. Past candidates used the media as a way to get their message across and earn the respect of the public. Now candidates have to prepare speeches weeks in advance so they don't say something wrong that the media will display on the front pages.

How can journalist inform the people about candidates when WE are also the ones scaring the candidates away from the podium?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20513

Cholera Outbreak in Iraq

I understood that Iraq and Baghdad in particular were having issues with rebuilding their home because of the current conflict. What I didn’t realize was that sanitation was so bad that there have been cholera outbreaks which have subsequently led to two deaths. To me, cholera conjures up the idea of an epidemic in a historical sense. Because we know the pathogens and that this is a quite preventable disease reflects just how bad the situation in Iraq truly is.
The article explained how Jordan is weary of relations and trade with Iraq which could create stigmas and prejudice behaviors to Iraqi’s who are obviously in need of help from neighbors. In addition to seeking refuge in Jordan, Iraqi’s have also gone to Afghanistan and Pakistan that have been warned against the threat of a cholera epidemic.
I thought that this was a well constructed article because fingers are not being pointed towards particular political figures but rather the entire war. The article does however explain certain attitudes of health organization within Iraq and the World Health Organization and basically addresses that this is a major public health issue.
As American’s I think there is definitely the tendency to tune out when it comes to issues with Iraq because it is always present and there are so many gray areas that one becomes frustrated with the problem. However, I think that this article is worth a look so to speak, because as annoying or tedious as the war is, America has made a major footprint in the country. Cholera is only a precursor to greater health problems that the country is going to face if basic sanitation is not dealt with.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-cholera,1,2918568.story

For this weeks "Worth a Look" I chose the story "The Media's Olympics." The link is here: http://www.journalism.org/node/12484
This story focused on where the media focused it's attention in the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. As we all know Michael Phelps was the star of the games, but it was amazing to me statistically how little any other Olympic athletes were featured in the media. The article stated that Swimming and diving filled 38% of the news coverage and that was four times the next nearest sport and other than gymnastics and track and field no other sport received even 1%. My question for the media is why is this? Why did the media chose to focus all of it's efforts and time on just one major focus. Granted Michael Phelps broke numerous records and is a truly amazing athlete, everyone at the Olympics is an amazing athlete, that is why they are there. We have been talking about bias in class and I think looking into a story like this is a great example of bias.
Misty May and Kerri Walsh won their 112th consecutive game and the Gold Medal in China, but still their accomplishments were not covered nearly as intensely as Michael Phelps. I think as journalist students we need to ask ourselves why this is? Is it because they are women? Do people just not care about beach Volley Ball? What makes swimming so special?
Another interesting question we could ask ourselves would be, how did we in the U.S. cover the Summer Olympics opposed to different countries coverage? Did other countries spread their coverage out over all of the different sports? We as journalists are responsible for covering things equally and as the statistics prove in this article that is not what was done. By giving such little attention to other sports we hindered the country from seeing/focusing on all of the great accomplishments at the Olympics and only focusing on very few.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20512

I thought that this article highlighted a very real issue: if the First Amendment grants the freedom of both speech and press, how can any institution [in this case, political] draw a line over which journalists should not cross? Despite the fact that the cartoon, published in LareDOS, and alternative newspaper, cast Mayor Salinas in a poor light, it is the right of the paper to present him in this fashion. However, should the publication be allowed to "criticize" him for the role he had in approving "the lease or sale of city airport property for a mall on land that includes the Casa Blanca wetland"? Having not seen the original article, it's easy for me to say that the journalists who wrote it should have played the part of a neutral party, rather than criticizing the mayor. Regardless of the role that the paper played, it never should have been removed from city hall; by removing the publication, Mayor Salinas was effectively removing the rights of the First Amendment.

On page two of our reading, Kovach and Rosentiel write that "We need news to live our lives...protect ourselves... [and] identify friends and enemies." When a publication is pulled from City Hall, what do the citizens have to rely on? Mayor Salinas clearly violated the First Amendment when he was caught on video removing the papers; no matter how badly he was presented in the article, his own actions dug him into an even deeper ditch.

Along the same line, I think it's very important to ask what happens when news is distorted? Can citizens really rely on news to draw lines between friends and enemies? Likewise, what happens when news cannot be reported for safety reasons [i.e. military tactics, etc.] Does this "half news" really provide citizens with enough information to draw real conclusions about who their friends and foes should be? In relation to LareDOS, news presented with a liberal/conservative bias obviously shapes opinions differently. With all of these factors, I think it's important to think about how we as journalists can be counted on to be trustworthy.

Following NPR's Example?

This story caught my attention with its positive focus and its focus on NPR. With so many media websites and blogs pointing to what the industry does wrong, we need an example of credible news sources exemplifying strong journalistic techniques. As we are told repeatedly, the opportunities for error in the media industry are many (showing bias, getting the facts wrong, not utilizing the resources we've been given, not informing the public about issues that matter....). It's nice to see that some media types agree on credible sources to follow.

The focus on health care during this election season demonstrates rule number two in the journalism handbook: loyalty to its citizens. Their research showcased weaknesses in the system, but provided effective models for change in European countries. With the obvious weaknesses, should journalists be pressing candidates even more on proposed changes? Hopefully information revealed in a nonpartisan manner will involve more people in informed discussions about issues like health care.

Because it is nonprofit, NPR may just as well represent journalism in its purest form. Is it because they have no financial motivations that their coverage succeeds in appearing truly balanced and substantive? How can we emulate NPR's focus in the commercial sector? It's clearly difficult, with a mass audience more interested in the latest exploits of Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers' purity rings, and the status of A-Rod and Madonna's relationship. But all media can at least look to NPR as an example of how to exhibit all of the elements of journalism.

Deadline on "Free" Press in China

This story stood out for me. Over the summer, I read a critique of the Olympic games in Beijing. One of the writers pointed out the very difficult environment the Chinese authority create for a journalist. Now with the center of the media world focused on Beijing, the People's Republic of China "relaxed" the restrictions for the press for the duration of the games. However as Richard Lapchick reported for ESPN that was not the case. The latest story now is, despite the optimistic hopes of some, the PRC will reinstate their restrictions on journalists mid-October.

Several of ABC's announcers (I want to say Bob Costas and Matt Lauer) mentioned how the games presented the PRC with the chance to announce it's arrival as one of the world powers. I find that frightening. Frightening that a government can impose such authority over the presses while upseting Tibetan monks (they're monks, for God's sake! It's in their job description to be calm and peaceful!), and still become a global power, to the point where the rest of the world will be answering to them soon.

Kovach and Rosenstiel quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, "No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will." They conclude with, "A free press thus became the people's first claim on their government" (17). How then is the press and the people to respond to China's restrictions? What is the next step as far as global free press and how are we to go about getting there?

Should limits be imposed on "business" expenses?

I chose to blog about this story from the Poynter website, which discusses Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's large expenses on "business" trips. Since we have been talking about Palin a lot in class, the headline caught my eye. According to Al Tompkins, Palin charged $43, 490 in travel expenses to the state because her "duty station" is in Juneau, Alaska but she often works out of Anchorage so she can claim any spending in Anchorage as a business expense. I thought this might be a good article to talk about in class because Tompkins also addressed this trend as a common problem throughout the country, not just for Palin. Palin simply gets all of the bad press for it because she has been suddenly thrust into the national spotlight, but governor's in New York, Texas, and Wisconsin were all claiming similar travel expenses on their business trips. I was plesantly surprised to find out that the title ("Palin Claims Per Diems While Staying Home") wasn't entirely fitting and that the article actually provided some valuable information about our country's state executives.

With the amount of time we have spent in class talking about the amount of publicity Palin has been getting (good and bad), I thought that this article, which covers the entire spectrum of an issue people have been chastising Palin about, would be a good point for discussion. Also, on an unrelated note, I thought the end of this post would be a good place to plug my blog in for anyone interested in Michigan football or Detroit sports.

Young Adults Overwhelmed by Election News

For this week's "Worth A Look," I chose a story published by Northwestern University, which I found on Poynter Online through the "Jim Romenesko's Media News" link. Here is a link to the story:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/09/mmcstudy.html

I chose to blog about this story for a few reasons. First, the headline caught my attention because I certainly can sympathize with young people feeling overwhelmed by all the election coverage in the media -- after all, this topic dominates our news at the moment. As a young person, I do feel that it can be a bit overwhelming to sift through it all and attempt to take a stand or formulate an opinion; whether it be about a party, a presidential candidate or a running-mate/potential vice-president. And, while it is said that young people are the most important voters and have the most at stake and the most to say, this article posits that many young people are steering clear of 2008 election news on the internet because they feel bombarded with information and choices. I also chose this story for another reason: I feel that it relates to our reading thus far and our discussions of the elements of journalism -- specifically, element #2: "It's (journalism's) first loyalty is to citizens."

Bearing this in mind, journalists have a duty and an obligation to bring the news to the people. It is our job to inform people about that which they need and have a desire -- and also, have a right -- to know. If you look at this story in terms of this important element of journalism, it creates an interesting dichotomy between telling the people what they want and need to know, and telling them too much -- in essence, overwhelming them with information. While it is true that the majority of us, as Americans, feel a desire and a need to know what is going on with the election, is there a line to be drawn? Is there a such thing as too much information, just as there can be too little information? Is there a point where enough is enough; where we are being fed more than we need to know about the candidates, their running mates, and so forth (for instance, all the controversy about Bristol Palin's pregnancy)? Are Americans perhaps growing tired of all the election hubbub and therefore getting to the point where we almost don't care anymore? And, being both journalists AND citizens, do we look at this differently from those two standpoints? In other words, as journalists, do we feel the intense media coverage of the election is okay because it is "necessary" information, but as American citizens do we feel that it is overwhelming and just too much to process?

Should we have to bring papers to class?

Found this story on Romenesko at Poynter Online and thought it was especially appropriate for our class. Some NYU J-students don't think they should have to bring hard copy newspapers to class, and would rather do their news reading on the internet and iPhones. The third section titled "Getting beyond print" is what Poynter was primarily linking.

I don't know honestly know what to make of the writer. She claims to be a supporter (and "maven") of new media, but then says she is surprised to learn that people get paid to write blogs. I get the feeling when she sees the word "blog" she thinks Livejournal, instead of, say, the Huffington Post or other more news-oriented Web sites.

I do agree with her that forums like blogs and technology like iPhones need to be included in the discussion as a medium for journalism. But saying that the New York Times is a "a big waste of trees" is dumb. (Well it's dumb until they perfect the electronic newspaper)

But is does bring up a good point for those of here at UNH. Do you think it's worth paying to have the New York Times in class?

I personally think there's a wider breadth of national and international news than what we get in the Boston Globe, but am kind of annoyed that I'm also paying for news that I have absolutely no use for (i.e. NYC news and City oriented restaurant and Arts sections)