Mel Sundquist’s portfolio

Published in the Daily Herald on June 9, 2007.

I have a deep, lurking fear that not only is the newspaper industry ailing, but might find its end in the 21st century.

The competition — television, radio and the Internet — and some of their obvious advantages keep me awake at night, afraid that America’s newspaper industry will be comatose by the time I’m ready for it.

When I think of the American Revolution, the civil rights movement, any of those textbook “American” moments in history, I automatically imagine the brave reporters that made sure the news was printed, before typewriters, television and Bill Gates.

Perhaps it’s just my own personal bias against broadcast journalism and the unreliability of the Internet, but I can’t imagine a world without the daily newspaper. It is a beacon of the First Amendment, free speech with a responsibility to the people, not to big corporations or oneself.

As a young American, I feel an innate, somewhat selfish responsibility to the country’s future — not for progeny or future generations, but because I’ll be living it.

In general, I’m all for progressive ideas. Technology can change society in a good way. But I can’t get myself to the point that I see the news media industry working primarily over the Internet as a good thing.

I admit it, I used the Internet to research this very article. I read columns that, if they were printed only, I would never have come in contact with. I realize that this widespread exposure is a good thing, but what about the industry’s rich history and tradition? Shouldn’t we fight to keep this part of American culture alive?

Also, why watch broadcast news when it spends more time on the weather than it does on the doings of the local police department or the conflict in Darfur? Or, if weather is what you’re interested in, why watch an entire newscast to get to tomorrow’s forecast? With a newspaper, you have more control over what you read and what you skip over.

But you have that same control on the Internet, you say. Perhaps the Internet gives the new amateur media, such as bloggers, too much freedom. Anyone with a bit of tech savvy can create a legitimate Web site that seems unbiased and knowledgeable but instead promotes one’s own opinions, not the facts.

Congress has tried to limit free speech on the Internet through the Communications Decency Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court twice, saying that it was suppressing First Amendment rights. It is almost impossible to keep the Internet honest. Libel laws are more lax for Web sites than for newspapers.

When dealing with smaller Web sites, not owned by companies such as MSN or AOL, there isn’t the factor of money to make writers stick to the facts. Also, anonymity protects them from persecution on a large scale.

The Associated Press gives services to 5,000 radio and TV outlets along with 1,700 newspapers. That’s almost three times as many radio and TV stations as newspapers. Stories of mass layoffs, anemic circulation numbers and decreased funding run rampant through the newspaper world while TV and radio are in their prime.

How can we save the industry from disappearing? As readers, I hope that you’ll stay in contact with your local papers. Tell the editors what you pay them to do. You have a power over newspapers that you don’t have over television, radio, magazines or the Internet. You can influence newspapers — remind editors that you’re still interested and you won’t let your local paper whisper itself into bankruptcy and oblivion.

Despite these longings for the days of a booming newspaper industry, I realize that I, along with the rest of the journalistic community, need to recognize a changing industry and evolve with it, making adjustments where they are due, for not all ailments are fatal.

Print journalism is evolving, but not necessarily toward extinction. We can keep the newspaper industry, that beacon of free speech and democracy, alive. At least until I retire.

Published in the Daily Herald on February 3, 2007.

Imagine a high school club that intends only to educate the student body and the community, promote tolerance, create a safe environment for open discussion, and fight discrimination and harassment in our schools.

Sounds ideal, right? At worst, it is definitely more useful than, say, the “Order of the Phoenix Club” (yes, it is real). What could possibly be wrong with Utah high school students becoming more open-minded?

If such a club were called “Republicans and Democrats United” or “The End to Racial Discrimination,” Utahns would most likely approve of it. But when a handful of Utah high schools approve the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance, the opposition spreads like wildfire.

In the Legislature, Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, has proposed a bill putting draconian limits on the creation of all high school clubs in order to suppress the GSA. Keeping an eye on student’s extracurricular activities is certainly a good thing, but Tilton’s bill goes well above and beyond what is necessary. When a group of students must create a constitution and budget report, report the content of all meetings to the administration to get together and, say, play dodge ball (a new trend in high school clubs), something is definitely wrong.

Tilton’s bill lists many reasons why a school’s administration can shut down a club. Most of these reasons are fair, such as if the club promotes criminality or bigotry. However, this clause inadvertently allows administrators to shut down clubs for basically any reason they see fit. This is obviously unfair.

Many, like Tilton, have voiced their fear that the Gay-Straight Alliance is a means to “recruit” students, as if there were a quasi-cold war between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In reality, this club is meant to bridge the gap between the two communities. Not only does the GSA promote tolerance of homosexuals, but of different races, religions, ethnic groups and classes. There is no “recruitment” involved, just active promotion of forbearance.

However, if the French club teaches students French, then what does the GSA do? What exactly goes on in the GSA’s meetings? The organization’s Web site includes many suggestions for activities, including picnics, sports, arts and crafts, and senior graduation parties. These activities are meant to create a place for anyone who feels socially removed or can’t find a place to fit in, most obviously because of their sexuality.

If a student feels out of place in his or her school, and there is a club that would welcome them to fun activities with open arms, we should not repress that organization. Certainly, these fun activities are meant to reel in more club members, but not to make them question their sexuality. They are created to educate and encourage understanding.

The GSA originated in San Francisco; there it played a large role in organizing “ground-breaking” legislation that “prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” as stated on the GSA’s Web site. Once again, we provided the yin to California’s yang, by presenting legislation that could possibly dissuade students from becoming more tolerant, and perhaps promote discrimination. If any bills should be passed on this subject in Utah, they should follow California’s example.

It is often difficult or even embarrassing for high school students to advocate change. Teens are faced with this challenge no matter where they grow up; not just in Utah or other conservative states.

The GSA is an ideal medium for students to practice their political influence, allowing for students to educate not only their peers but their teachers on controversial subjects. By being active in this club, students can fight against homophobia, sexual discrimination and harassment, a rare opportunity in Utah.

Too often one’s experiences in high school cause them to reject unfamiliar views or opinions. Any institution in our high schools, no matter how controversial, that urges students to open their minds, become more tolerant or learn about different walks of life is exactly what our community needs.

Tilton’s bill would destroy any chance for the GSA in high schools and in doing so would quash many high school student’s hope for social acceptance.

Printed in the Daily Herald on September 16 2006.

Despite the popular belief that high school is solely about reading, writing and arithmetic, it is actually a set of hallways where teenagers go to desperately try to grow up, and become “important.”

Gaining this grown-up significance is marked by certain status symbols — college classes, good grades, jobs, involvement in clubs, achievement in sports or performing arts, sitting at the popular places during lunch, or even the fierce indifference toward these.

However, the most prominent tangible evidence of this gained importance is a cell phone. Being influential enough to have the need to be easily contacted at any time is an exciting responsibility.

But how many “important” teenagers actually must have a cell phone in school? If it is essential that they are contacted during school hours, the caller can just phone the school’s office and their message will be relayed promptly.

Do we allow students to maintain their pride, and keep the cell phones, or do we ban the gadgets from school, which would dispose of classroom interruptions and the constant problem of theft?

Let the students bring their grown-up toys to school, but remind them that theft is not the school’s problem, and that any sort of phone-related classroom interruptions will be followed with specific consequences.

As for iPods and the like, the policy should be similar. When the student’s ears should not be full of teacher’s words, why not let them listen to their music?

Schools should just be sure to inform the students of where and when headphones are not allowed, and the consequences for breaking these rules.

For most students, writing an essay in peace is a practical impossibility. To have music in your ear, a music that speaks to you and keeps the right side of your brain awake, will produce a superior paper.

There is a delicate balance between allowing students to express their individuality and keeping a school safe, efficient and disciplined. Through explicit explanation by teachers and administrators of the boundaries placed on the freedoms technology brings to teenagers, the line will remain unbreached, and entropy, at least on a grand scale, will not ensue.