Will most likely produce a draft tomorrow, after sifting through my recording.

I’ll announce later where you can read my write-up about it.

Now I will get back to relaxing to some dubstep while enjoying some Swedish snus.

I even found some time to turn up at a release party for a new bar in The Valley— Elixir Rooftop Bar —which I had planned to write about. Getting absolutely hammered while having an awesome time. But alas, I had another deadline hanging over my head.

Maybe another time.

In a few weeks I will however be free from academia for a brief period, so I can focus on having a social life again, and producing some new columns. Writing about topics that I truly enjoy.

I have a few ideas buzzing around in my head, which I have luckily jotted down.

I have also started to jot down how often my parcels from abroad are inspected by the Australian customs, and by how much they are delayed. For now it is just to humour my own curiosity, but as most journalists know, those that enjoy investigative journalism, this might turn into a write-up — depending on what I find out of course.

There are still a few academic deadlines looming over me, but after submitting an essay earlier today I decided to take the day off. Might even take tomorrow off too. It is kind of an grey area, that I should probably be working, but on the other side, I honestly can not remember last time I took a whole day off.

For weeks I have been researching and writing non-stop, only a few scattered hours here and there where I could slack off for the sake of not going absolutely bonkers.

Time to relax a bit more and clean my extremely cluttered desk. Might find something interesting lurking there, a new colony or something.

Later…

Email, Still A Sonofabitch techcrunch.com/2013/05/11/the…—
MG Siegler (@parislemon) May 11, 2013

It is not email that is the problem, it is you, and the truth hurts, that is the problem.

@parislemon Email replaced Phone Tag, for which I am forever grateful.—
nojo (@nojorising) May 12, 2013

Phone Tag is one of the main reasons I loathe using the phone.

If you end up playing Phone Tag, you are both wasting each other’s time and non of you really know why you are trying to reach each other.

Stop blaming something that is inanimate!
Instead, learn to communicate more effectively and accurately!

Yeh, good luck with that.

As a journalist I can see the appeal of what Chad Whitacre calls an Open Interview. But unless you are a journalist, you might find it difficult to understand why this can be an issue to adopt as a standard.

First of all, journalists filming, or doing live, interviews is not a new concept. Ever watched TV lately? Need I elaborate more on that now? Other than pointing out the obvious it does already exist.

Second of all, sources often rely on journalists to keep some secrets, respecting a source’s honesty when off-the-record is requested. Not just for the sake of protecting a source, but also proving to them that you can be trusted. That you are not yet another bastard journalist that will spill the beans so you can get all the fame for it.

When possible I record the interview— asking for permission to do so first of course —for the sake of accuracy. If asked, I always point out the recording is for my use only, without intent to be published. Therefore, even if the interview is recorded, the conversation will be much more relaxed than it would be if it were live-streamed.

Before people decide that Open Interviews should be the norm and those who do not do them has something to hide, we need to understand it is not all about your obsession to access everything. Because this debate reminds me of the good old fallacious response when someone complains about the lack of privacy, that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, presuming if you want to hide something, you have been a naughty boy.

Just imagine if you are about to blow the whistle about something huge, and revealing your identity might cost you your career, or maybe even your life. Would a journalist that is pro Open Interviews be your first to contact, or would to turn to a journalist that is known to keep a tight lid on things to protect his/her sources?

https://twitter.com/AustralianLabor/status/319936708588212226

I then asked them twice (maybe even three times), via Twitter, whom these countries are, that are so envious of Australia’s new superannuation.

One would think that something that great would easily, and proudly, be backed up with sources. But alas… All I heard, yet again, were the crickets chirping.

PM Julia Gillard managed to make another ridiculous claim last night on Q&A on ABC. Arguing that compulsory voting is the best form of voting, using USA, with its non-compulsory voting, as an example how it does not work because their gun laws are so flawed.

Completely ignoring the fact that most European countries also use non-compulsory voting. Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands, to mention only a few, seem to doing pretty well without forcing its residents to vote.

No wonder Australians seem to hate and distrust their own politicians so much when they make such broad and sweeping claims without providing any evidence.

The only thing compulsory voting provides is pretty statistics.

The first snus of the day went from being a nice ritual to something that I just had to get through — not a good sign.

It was then with relief I opened a tin of regular snus Friday last week. However, now that I am close to running out of snus again, due to a very late shipment, I toy with the idea of maybe using strong snus instead — at least just now and then.

The thing that I discovered with strong and extra strong snus is that it kind of fills you up pretty well with nicotine. As in, the urge for another hit comes way later than with regular strength snus.

It is still something I need to contemplate for a bit. Weighing up my options, as one have to do in a country that tries to lock rest of the world out under the guise of protecting its citizens.

I’ve jokingly called Australia, United States of Australia, but it might be more correct to call it, Democratic People’s Republic of Australia.

A government should protect its citizens, no doubt about that, but not at the cost of the citizens’ freedoms.

When I finally purchased Tweetbot I suddenly, and finally, enjoyed using lists. How you access them in Tweetbot is very easy and an intuitive way to de-clutter your stream. Also a great way to follow different news sources without having to sift through 30 tweets to find a tweet from a friend.

However, the greatest feature that Tweetbot offers is the mute function.

I know it sounds strange that you want to mute people you follow or certain words, etc they might post, but even if Twitter encourages brevity in one post, too many are too eager to post a lot of rubbish.

Even now and then some of your favourite tweeters gets an onset of tweetarrhoea. Just hit mute for a day, a week, a month or forever, if it seems as if they suffer from chronic brain farts.

With that sad, if there is a market for such a function, it makes me wonder a bit. Do people actually tweet too much, or do we follow too many twaits? Or is it a little bit of both?

Not that it really matters now when you have such a wonderful feature. Too bad it does not extend in to the real world. So many people that I would mute IRL.

It has become extremely easy to spot when I am back in the trenches of academia. Daily musings becomes rare in this space. Instead it becomes very random and unpredictable — unwillingly so.

Not to mention, my journalistic work will also suffer— unwillingly —for the sake of academic deadlines.

This post serves more of a heads-up that it is now with greater certainty that I am unable, or have less time, to give this blog attention the next coming weeks. I have several academic essays I need to finish during that time — smashing out, the end sum, about 7,000 words. That is of course the end product, excluding drafts.

As usual I will get through it, and hopefully I can squeeze in the odd post here and there, for the sake of writing something different and to avoid making my [written] voice sound too academic and stale.

Traditional media has become so obsessed with breaking news it opens them to a greater risk of inaccurate reporting. As long as you are first, you will presumably have the most viewers. Corrections can be dealt with later when all the facts are on the table.

This seem to be driven by social media that often is first to report on something — some regular person in the midst of an incident with a smartphone and a few social network accounts.

After the last Boston bomber was caught, social media caught a lot of flack for its inaccurate reporting. Arguing that the speed of the information ignores the vital practice of fact-checking and verification of sources. Something traditional media also got a bit flack for too, as some were too eager to source their reporting from social media.

This reminded me of what was a very annoying occurrence when Web 2.0 was introduced, letting anyone leave a comment on a blog post, a news article or a YouTube video. The first comment that read, “First!”

I can not help comparing the ‘First!’ comment with the reporting— by both traditional media and social media —of the Boston bombing. It is similar in the way that ‘First!’ only reflected the intent of the person publishing such a comment; providing no context nor any meaning other than to be first.

Just because someone is first with something does not mean it has any value. Something both traditional media and social media must understand and practice.

If I hear an alarm from a building close by going off, should I start reporting that on Twitter as if it is a robbery in progress? Of course not! If I think it is important to publish, I should only report that I can hear an alarm, then later add why the alarm was set off, when I have all the facts.

When a story breaks on Twitter I often follow it there, but I am very careful with whom I gather information from and whom I retweet. After working as a journalist for a few years now, I find myself being extremely selective when retweeting, because I do not want to pass on incorrect information — nor do I want to provide publicity to someone with incorrect information.

Social media is able to provide a platform for journalists and the public to reach out to everyone with instant information. That means the flow of information becomes more rapid, but that does not excuse reporting inaccurate information. Of course, you can redact it later, but that does not change the fact it is already out there, making its way through the grapevine and possibly held on to as truth by some.

You also have the risk of feeding conspiracy theorists if your incorrect information is very juicy and controversial, then being accused of covering up information for the nasty government with your redaction. A lose/lose situation for everyone — especially for your integrity as a reporter.

Again we witnessed traditional media and social media swerve and crash last week, but we also witnessed how both of them managed to barely survive from the crash, eventually correct themselves in the aftermath — this time.

If we do not relax this obsession of being first, eventually it will backfire on us all when we do it too often and the damage becomes too great. Imagine the impact it would have if social media were available during the first radio broadcast of the play, War of the Worlds.

It is said that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” but that does not mean that when you have a pen in your hand you should flail it around and stab everyone in sight, just because you can and want to be the first one to do it.

There is no honour to be the first one with inaccurate information.

Being able to pass on content and information to journalists is not really a new concept. The media has always accepted information from the public, via ‘phone, letter or email. Now some newspapers have taken the step further, allowing users to submit content and information anonymously, via an encrypted page.

GuardianWitness undoubtedly must be an amazing tool for journalists at the Guardian. Not only can anyone pass on content to journalists via their iPhone or Android ‘phones, they can also do it while they are in the thick of it. Letting the journalists sit safely at their desks, only having to verify the content received — then write a news story based on that content.

When taking a look at the comment section of the article announcing GuardianWitness, it is difficult to ignore that, what seems to be, the majority is sceptical of this tool. Especially because those providing content will do it for free. Where some commenters point out that you are free to not provide content via GuardianWitness. Which in turn is rebutted with pointing out that Guardian themselves have been very critical of making people work for free in other articles.

The most laughable comments are those who assume that contributing content using tools such as GuardianWitness would be great to add to your CV. It kind of is, if you intend to show to a possible employer that you are more than willing to work for free.

I'll admit it — I have mixed feelings about #GuardianWitness. Why? It's somewhat difficult to compete with someone willing to work for free.—
Dokter Waldijk (@DokterW) April 16, 2013

It is not a secret that as a young journalist, you might have to work for free in the beginning to prove yourself and to be able to build a portfolio. However, there is a limit attached to that — the longer you work for free, the easier it is for a current, or a new, employer questioning why you suddenly want to be paid for your work.

Which is why I find it very dangerous when well-established journalists encourage citizen journalism. I truly admire the eagerness of citizen journalists, but when it comes to [journalistic] professionalism they often fail miserably — from what I have observed. Too often have I seen citizen journalists being more sensationalist than the MSM, jumping to conclusions and latching on to conspiracy theories — which they often gladly criticise the MSM for.

It is of course a luxury to be your own boss, not having an editor breathing down your neck, telling you that your write-up is either unethical, biased or down-right defamatory. There is a reason for this, and that is to ensure that your reporting is, even if it is an opinion piece, accurate, balanced and most importantly, factual.

The last couple of years has shown us that journalism has become even more volatile, making it very hard to break in to the field if you want it to be your full-time [paid] job. It also does not help when even journalists themselves manage to claim that journalism is not a profession, it is just a craft or a hobby that you are really good at.

With the creation of tools like GuardianWitness, it provides an amazing asset to already well-established journalists, but it leaves those journalists trying to break in to the field in a difficult situation — because now they must compete with hordes of people willing to supply content and information for free.

An academic clocks in when the semester starts and clocks out when it ends. In between that period of time we work hard — research, gather information, collect data, read copious amount of pages and write our fingers raw. What we get in return is knowledge and some kind of standardised grade based on nothing but bollocks.

This is also a time my production of news articles and columns decline drastically. If a lead for a news story goes cold it is easy to explain to your editor, as s/he has been there themselves and understand your situation. Letting you pursue another story with a stronger lead — no worries.

Academia is not that forgiving. Either you complete your assignment and receive a subjective mark, or else you fail — forced to go back to start without collecting your cash. Told you will learn from mistakes, but never given a second chance.

All you can do to stay sane is to cling those moments you should be researching, but decide that it is okay to take a short break from academia. So exhausted that even reading a book by your favourite author makes you sigh. Only tempted to watch TV with a blank stare.

It has not killed me, so I can only assume it has made me stronger. If I only could explain what I have become stronger in.

At least I have snus (Swedish moist tobacco enjoyed orally) and beer. Indulging in some good old escapism.

NB: This was written as an exercise in roman-à-clef. No editing — just a stream-of-consciousness.

Getting things sorted in hope to move did not work out as anticipated. What ensued after that disappointment shall not be spoken about — nor repeated!

After waiting most of the day I had to come to terms that my snus would not arrive today. Getting fucking sick of this bollox! Feels like I am living in a convict colony some kind of dictatorship where contact to the outside world is very limited. Sounds familiar?

Of course that was not enough buggery, I had to endure more. Having the pleasure to purchase an iOS app that did not work as advertised. Luckily Apple was kind enough to refund me — thanks Apple.

If I decided to write with great detail about what I have mentioned, I would most likely have to spend an hour or four, as the word count would probably be somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000.

When going to bed last night I realised I had not finished writing the Dokter’s Weekly Report. Which in turn means I also forgot to publish it.

A while back I did mention I was toying with the idea of putting the Dokter’s Weekly Report on the back-burner for a bit — now that I am back battling with academia again. By neglecting the report completely last night, I will take that as a sign to do so — ignore it for a bit until I have more time on my hands.

What I might do instead is to write a shorter version of the Dokter’s Weekly Report with no specific date, where I pick a certain article I write a longer comment to. Instead of picking several articles, and tweets, each week and adding short comments to them.

This is the beauty— not really —of being an adult. You suddenly have to— presumably —do a lot of things, based on the— faulty —logic that they have to be done. Or else something really bad will happen to you. Even of you do not know what that is or why.

Which is why I often find myself, even when trying to relax, that I am not really doing exactly that. The time where I would exclusively sit still, only listening to music, is extremely rare nowadays. Because if I am not working on a 2000-word academic essay, I am scrambling to finish a column — and if I am not doing either of those things, I am busy with tedious chores.

It does not surprise me that there is so much focus on how to be most effective with your tasks and so many articles talking about procrastination. What all these helpful guides and informative articles seem to ignore very graciously is the fact we as a society have created this delusion that doing nothing— taking a break longer than five minutes —is not an option anymore.

Got five minutes to spare? Then you must be procrastinating or not prioritising your schedule correctly. Because what you should do is to wake up in the morning, start working, have dinner, work a bit more if you can and then sleep — lather, rinse, repeat.

As if we are living in some kind of feudal system again, where you only exist for the purpose of working.

Kind of ironic, how most of us as teens longed for the day we become adults and could free ourselves from our parents — moving out to enjoy the freedoms we thought they had. Only to find out that you really are not that freer. Which might explain why some people become more cynical and disgruntled in their older days — as I have become.

Holidays should be by default double-length as an adult. If you have a week off, the first week is expected to be used to catch up on various adult crap, the second week is meant to be used to do absolutely nothing.

Not only are you now expected to have a degree in journalism, but before someone even considers hiring you as a journalist, you are expected to already have a portfolio to show them. This means that most of the time, instead of working at one specific newspaper, you end up having to work a bit here and there — which has its pros and cons.

In the beginning the most common payment is experience and maybe even a byline. Seeing your own name in print is the best confidence-booster for a young journalist.

The downside of this is that it is often exploited. When you have finished your internship you are lucky to end up with a paid gig at that very same paper — so I have been told. Even worse are those who base their business model on only hiring journalists for free — being very open that you will never receive a pay cheque from them — ever.

It of course looks good to have a portfolio where you have had a constant flow of published work with a byline, and that it has been varied — now that journalists are expected to have a broad skill set.

That is however not why I decided to write this piece. Because it is not until you resign— if you can call it that —from one of your unpaid gigs you find out if your work was really appreciated.

I have resigned twice in my career as a journalist. Both provided me with two very different responses.

The first time I did it I received a very nice email back, where I was thanked for my contribution and that I am more than welcome to return.

The second experience was less than impressive. It started to go downhill even before I decided to say goodbye to them.

For over a month I had not received any responses to my two recent write-ups for them. Usually I would receive feedback and a notification within a week that the write-up was published. This time, all I heard was crickets chirping. Additionally I had grown tired of writing the same stuff over and over again, so I eventually decided to send them a very friendly and polite resignation email.

Chirp, chirp.

That was the thanks I received for writing for free for that publication. Sure, I got published, received amazing feedback and had a byline, but in the end I did not receive a thank you — all I received was silence.

As a young journalist you are often told— not exclusive to journalism mind you —to be professional, polite and generally swallow your pride so you can— if you read between the subtle lines —be a brown-nose. Never question, always do what you are told. In other words, forget your ideals and become a silhouette.

This is something I have an issue with. I do not mind acting professional and humble, to show I am very capable of doing the job and acquiring a lot of experience — before I start making demands. But I am not interested in keeping this cheeky and ungrateful culture alive. If I am going to contribute for free— where my only payment is experience and a byline —I expect that my bonus payment, when I decide to leave, is at least a bloody thank you.

Or if they want to keep me, send me a check I can cash in.

With that said, I still do a few free gigs here and there. Not because I have to, but because I want to and am addicted to journalism.