Danny Lawhon 1/25

In the ever-evolving world of journalism, I guess it's not too surprising that the buzzword — more often than not — is change. This profession is one that continually adapts both on micro and macro scales. We adapt by reporting the new events that come with each day. We adapt by retooling our craft to take advantage and utilize the newest and most efficient technological methods. We adapt, too, at times, simply by responding to and implementing the best of reader feedback. Change is a continual process.

When viewing the widespread changes at the Missourian from the past few months, it seems the business is growing and evolving by becoming more compact in nature. The average physical size of many newspapers (ours included) has been reduced. The Web provides virtually limitless amounts of space for stories; nevertheless, many stories are served to the public in numerous transparent bursts as opposed to the longer storytelling methods of old. Is this a result of the battle for the public's precious few moments of free time? Is this at all an effect of the public's growing distrust toward mainstream media?

The evolution of journalism isn't at all a negative process. It's just a particularly rapid, forward-thinking metamorphosis. And though it takes some getting used to, it's not really all that different from the work we've done before. In the two stories I've written or helped to write this week, I think I've begun to understand the adaptations required of us. It's about immediacy, surely. But it's being more transparent about the work we do as well. And the way we do our job won't remain the same for long. Just like evolving what you're working on to cover new developments in a story, which seemed to continually happen with the fan blogger story this week, or even dropping everything you're doing to cover something of urgency — as in my contributions to Gov. Blunt's announcement this week — so, too, must you allow your methods of reporting and writing to evolve with the times, embracing change as best you can.

As for my progress, I'm satisfied. As mentioned, I contributed 6-8 inches to the Blunt story and wrote what felt like a resolution piece regarding the university's dispute with a fan Web site. It contained the "what's next" angle that I thought several outlets couldn't get by rushing news of the story to print. Again, I'm content with my work so far. I've started research on a story involving the firms funding and managing some of our Study Abroad programs, so we'll see where that takes me next week.