Rainey said over and over again that newspapers, and news outlets in general, must be able to adapt and embrace innovation in order to survive in this new age of technology. Many would believe that print newspapers in an internet dependent generation seem obsolete, but Rainey strongly disagreed. Rained believed that a local printed newspaper in conjunction with an easily accessible website is ideal.

I, and I am sure many other journalism students, found this particularly encouraging. Not only is the local newspaper industry thriving, but it is searching for individuals who are tech savvy. As someone who doesn’t remember life before the internet, I feel as if I’m qualified to take on this innovation process. I’m not sure if I could have heard better news on an early Friday morning.

The new side of journalism is a particularly exciting challenge, and to hear an established publisher just as excited is motivating for myself and I’m sure many other journalism students. It is rather refreshing to hear people embracing the new online generation. Granted, the move will not be simple or easy by any stretch of the imagination. Defeating the outdated stereotype of print newspapers will be difficult. However, forward thinking publishers, like Jim Rainey, will be vital in making this jump.

Professor Kanigal’s enthusiasm for science writing was infectious.  Before Kanigal’s presentation, I had not really entertained the thought of science writing. The idea of writing about new developments on the Mars exploration or discovering a new species of locus gave me the same sickening feeling I used to get when I walked into my physics class everyday in high school. I often wondered if rejected journalists were forced to write these articles as punishment.

Science writing, as Kanigal expressed, requires an unquenchable curiosity and the ability to poke and prod until that curiosity is satisfied. The challenge, however, comes in presenting this information in such a way that the public is just as curious as the writer; the challenge is keeping the masses entertained with topics such as new developments in communicating with patients in a coma or the significance of a failed malaria vaccination. While this may not be as glamourous as a front page article on a new government scandal, it makes the idea of science writing interesting.

But how much experience must a journalist have in order to cover such specific topics? According to Kanigal, scientific writers do not necessarily need a background in a scientific or technological field in order to thrive in the industry. In Kanigal’s eyes, the secret to success is a thirst for knowledge paired with persistance and a will to push and work toward a finished product. “You must be willing to ask questions that you do not understand,” Kanigal explained, “and work and continue to ask until you do understand it.” The field is not asking for experts, but it is asking for individuals who know how to question the experts and make their work more interesting to the public.

The field is new and exciting and deserves much more recognition than it receives. It is individuals like Professor Roger Kanigal will be vital in changing the landscape of scientific writing for the future.

State immigration laws have been a controversial topic across the country since 2010, when Arizona passed SB 1070. The issue of illegal immigration, however, has always been a cause of strife among parties, and in my experiences, often leads to heated arguments rather than civil debate.

Thankfully, both sides put away the claws and discussed the issues and strongpoints of HB 56. I can’t say a part of me wasn’t a little disappointed-heated political debates are always entertaining-but the cordial debate was refreshing. It was a wonderful contrast to the blood-thirsty political debates that have bombarded our televisions for the past few months. And each side presented their clearly presented their arguments, and I for one was entertained. I was extremely impressed with the obvious amount of work that the students put into their arguments. The panel of judges did not hesitate to ask difficult questions, but the students were not shaken.

The judges were unable to choose a winner, with each team receiving two votes. Well, isn’t that somewhat symbolic? Immigration policies with respect to the Constitution have been a heavily debated topic that even the Supreme Court seems torn on. The end result may not be clear or soon, but its discussions such as these that will promote progress and solutions.

Twitter: tool of the elites?

This session was generally discussing twitter and whether it is elitist. It was established at the beginning of the talk that it was definitely selective since you decide exactly who to follow. Overall, I think it was agreed that it takes away the power of some, since everyone is on an equal footing when they start and have the same tools, and gives to others who can follow and contact potentially anyone.

However, it was pointed out that followers is by no means correlated with interestingness or quality of tweets. The main thing for wannabe journos that I picked up on was the importance of connecting and interacting with readers. It was also pointed out that a huge amount of abuse can be stopped with a simple reply pointing out that you’re a real person, or journalist, with feelings! A good tip for the more controversial of you out there.

Suzanne Moore also discussed, rather amusingly, how she has found that women get more abuse as columnists that men. But twitter makes it easier for women to be funny, because there is no one to be intimidated by.

The advice for users from the panel was you can either give your personality on twitter or don’t tweet!

Hyperlocal journalism: Introducing n0ticeboard

Well my pen ran out, so no notes, but it was a very interesting discussion of up and coming “hyper” local sites and how they developed. It seems this is definitely somewhere journalism is heading as people engage heavily with their immediate community.

This was certainly a great PR exercise, but what could an almost-graduate take from it?

I went to three journalism-related sessions so in the next few posts I’ll sum up and try and give an idea of what I gained from each as a wannabe journo.

Digital revolution: how publishing is becoming collaborative

The panel included David Shariatmadari, deputy editor of comment is free, Laura Oliver, news communities team, and  Claire Armitstead, literary editor, and was chaired by the national editor Dan Roberts.

The session kicked off with David talking about how in the last year or so his work has become more collaborative. Comment is free hosts hundreds of discussions which any one can join. The ‘you tell us’ section allows readers to request stories to be covered which the Guardian then commissions its writers to produce. The team also tweet ideas from morning meetings to get readers’ reactions and expertise.

The issue of moderation of comments was naturally raised. The panel discussed how they hope it to become the readers’ responsibility as they are posting their comments publicly, but there will always be a need for moderation especially with sensitive topics.

Laura Oliver explained how it is her job to represent the reader, particularly at editorial meetings and she uses readers’ comments to help her do this. It’s also her job to pass on readers feedback, which is nice to know. Another part of her job is encouraging journalists to interact with readers and their comments.

Unsurprisingly, twitter was brought up! It was named as a dynamic part of interactive journalism which is a key part of journalists’ roles nowadays. So if you’re reading this blog for the right reasons.. You’d better get yourself on twitter, and why not follow me? (Self promotion, why not?)

Claire, the literary editor, said that the web has enabled her section to become global and has been enhanced by readers’ interacting. But she warned of the possibility of journalism coming to a sticky end with so many people having an opinion on everything! Let’s hope not…

Dan, the national news editor, explained that twitter was a great way to get readers’ help on particular stories and get other perspectives. The amount of coverage stories get can also be strongly influenced by what the reader wants, which is really how it should be!

It was also really interesting to hear from Dan about the future of the Guardian:

“The Guardian is becoming much more than a publisher. It’s a big gamble becoming so open and interactive but we’re hoping it will pay off”

He also pointed out that it seems to be working at the moment, and the possibility for advertising revenue makes this not such a crazy gamble.

So what does this mean for aspiring journalists?

• You need to get on twitter, and get good. More to come in the next post
• Interaction with readers, at least for the Guardian, will be a key part of your job
• The moderation of comments will always be important
• Journalism may be on its way out.. But not in my opinion! Gathering people’s opinions and reporting on stories will always be needed *fingers crossed*

More to come on the other sessions I went to: Twitter: tool of elites? and Hyper local journalism: introducing n0ticeboard.com