jueves, 29 de marzo de 2007

In Search of the Good Stuff

Somewhere along the way everyone’s tastes stray from what are the “hits” and go into “niches”. We are all interested in different things at different levels. When there was limited shelves, channels, and airtime, the depth at which we could indulge our deeper level interests was limited to what was available on the limited shelves, channels, and airtime. So people had to take what they could get and settle for less. Jeff Jarvis, in his post entitled Wither Magazines? Says, “General-interest anything is probably cursed. For the truth is that interest never was as general as editors and publishers thought it was, back in the mass-media age. Old media just assumed we were interested in what they told us to be interested in. But we weren’t. We’re proving that with every new choice the internet enables.” Once we realize that the deep stuff that truly interests us is out there somewhere, we begin trying to find something that helps us find the good stuff, as each of us defines good. And as the democratization of technology and distribution becomes more and more wide spread I know that more and more good deep stuff that I like is out there somewhere for me; I just need to find it.
Trying to find the good stuff is easier said than done. Google helps you get closer and Wikipedia helps you define it, but it still takes a lot of work. Most of the time you find corporate websites that give you recommendations based on their own agendas for making money. What you really want to find are people with the same interests as you who can recommend to you what is good. They are much more trust worthy than companies. 1,000,000 heads are better than your own at finding what you really want. Jeff Jarvis talks about this concerning his relationship with magazines, he says, “But I’m just too busy reading — or listening or watching — fresher, more focused, more personal, higher interest content on the internet. But some of that is still from or around magazines. I still have a relationship with these brands, only not always in print anymore. And even when I do still read the magazine in print, I want a relationship with the magazine — and, more important, my fellow readers — online.” That’s the trick; get recommendations from the people who are interested in the same stuff as you.
For example, I like music a lot but I am very picky with what I will listen to. But I know that the good stuff is out there somewhere waiting for me to discover it; it has to be. I go onto Myspace and listen to random bands in search of something good and rarely do I find anything of worth. My favorite bands have links to other bands in their “top 8 friends” but that provides weak results. When a band has 20,000 friends, who can you trust? At Amazon.com when you look at any product it gives you a column on the left hand side of peer generated lists of what they would recommend for those who like the product that you are looking at, but these are all really random and many times not very concise. These techniques are close but no cigar. How do I know how deep I am? Have I found everything within my niche that would be of worth to me? There has to be still more out there and I’m thirsty for it. And trying to find the good stuff goes beyond music; I also need help finding the coolest new independent digital movies, insightful blogs that talk about what I’m interested in, books worth reading, ect.
The solution would be to be part of a community of people with the same interests as you who can recommend to you what they like. Maybe a personal Facebook-like page where I blog and where members of my community blog as well. Together we sift through the vastness of cyberspace and recommend to each other where the good stuff is that we find. There would have to be someway to make it so that not just anybody could make recommendations in the community; they would have to pass a test or be referred by someone else or something. We could have our own “cool kids only” community where only the people with the best tastes-our tastes-are invited to contribute. Maybe something like this already exists?
This is what companies are being encouraged to do through radical transparency as explained in the April issue of Wired Magazine. On the topic of radical transparency, Jeff Jarvis once again says, “The point is that what you really want to do is open the windows on either side of your house and let the people standing around talk directly to each other, with or without you. You do your job, still, creating some stuff that people want to gather around. But then you enable them to share more. And now you have a new role — helping them.” So help me already.

miércoles, 28 de marzo de 2007

What is culture?

When the Berlin wall fell down America was the first one out the gate to jump on the globalization train. Some countries are right behind America and others still haven’t left the starting line. Why was America first? Because right off the bat America was the most prepared, with a democratic government and free market capitalistic system already in place, which is essential to be successful in the new fast paced global world. So when it came time for America to do business with other countries they were never on even playing fields. America is much more advanced and experienced with capitalism and business than other countries. So when America puts a Wal-Mart in Mexico all the other similar Mexican businesses go belly up because they can’t compete with the advanced American businesses model. It’s survival of the fittest and only the strong survive in this new world. This may look like America is taking over and ruining cultures, but really it is the more advanced American businesses that are out performing the weaker foreign businesses.
What is culture anyway? Wikipedia defines it as the patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Most general, the term culture denotes whole product of an individual, group or society of intelligent beings. It includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems and characteristic behaviors and habits of the selected intelligent entities. In particular, it has specific more detailed meanings in different domains of human activities.
Understanding and recognizing your own culture is difficult because you live in it everyday. Its like how the last discovery fish ever made was water. It’s only after you go to a different country that you recognize how your country does things differently.
I think too often what people call culture may just be traditions caused by a lower standard of living or their type of government. Maybe this explains why it is so hard for me to define American culture. When I’m asked what a common dish in America is I have a hard time finding an answer. It has to do in part with the fact that America is made up of a country of immigrants, so it’s a big mix of everything, but maybe it’s because we don’t have as many eccentric habits caused by poverty or deep rooted attitudes that are caused from oppressive governments.
Globalization threatens the distinctiveness and cultures that locate and anchor people in the world. But what is the different between culture and living standards? In Mexico you can buy drinks in a plastic bag instead of a cup; is that culture, or is it their lack of money? Surely they would serve drinks in cups if everyone could afford it. Are the public busses that are falling apart part of the culture, or is it because they can’t afford new ones? If the standard of living rose 100% in Mexico, what so called cultural things would disappear? People would still eat tacos but instead they would eat them in nicer restaurants instead of in the street. You wouldn’t be able to buy pirated stuff all over the place because with more money Mexico would have stricter piracy laws. What really defines culture? Where is the line between culture and the amount of money you make?
What is the difference between government and culture? Many cultures are based off of communism or socialism and they say they are losing their culture but maybe what they are really losing is they perceived right to have generous welfare from the government. Are they losing their culture or do they not want to adapt to a world where they have to go to work 40 hours a week like those capitalistic Americans? If the socialist governments switched to democracies, what so called cultural traditions would be lost?
In the Mexican culture they are very close to their families. They also believe that in the American culture families are not as close as theirs. They think this because in America when you turn 18 it isn’t unusual for the 18 year old to move away from home to go to college or go to work. If someone is 25 years old and still lives at home with Mom and Dad that person is considered to be a loser or a nerd. But it is not uncommon for Mexicans to live at home well into their twenties, usually not moving out until they are married, and even then they may still live with their parents after marriage. When you tell a Mexican that in America you move out at age 18 they think Americans aren’t very close to their families and that Americans are just workaholic capitalists that can’t wait to forget about family to start making money. But do Mexicans live at home for so long because they are close to their family’s, or is it because it makes more sense economically? As more young Mexicans start to adapt to the capitalistic economy I bet that they will move out of home at an earlier age.
When you take away the traditions that are caused from a lowered living standard and a socialistic government what’s left? Losing differences in cultures if sad but it almost seems inevitable. Its bad not just because foreign vacationers will feel like they can never get away from home, but because those things that we associate with home that anchor us in the world will be lost and therefore we will feel lost as well.

martes, 20 de marzo de 2007

Job Security Weakens the Soul

There are a lot of people complaining about globalization these days. They are complaining about globalization but really they are mad because they can no longer be lazy and rely on others for support. Today, everyone thinks that somebody owes them something. They want to blame America for their problems but they really have no one to blame but themselves and their lack of work ethic. They think working in a company for a certain amount of years means you deserve job security. Being born into a certain country means you deserve special benefits. But now globalization threatens these ideas. Many people have tried to counteract through implementing unions and building higher walls around their country but they are just falling behind faster and faster. Job security is not something that someone gives you. Job security is defined by your ability to continually add value to your work. Unions are a disease and job security weakens the soul.
The world is changing so fast that you can’t rely on your company or country to support you. You have to learn how to depend on yourself which means having the integrity to square your shoulders and go to work. Thomas L. Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree says, “Every worker needs to understand that economic security in this world without walls cannot come any longer from largesse of welfare state or from holding fast to a union card. It can only come from holding a report card. In an age when technological change is so rapid, and the walls around companies and countries so small, only new skills and life long learning can ensure job security.”
It is true that free market capitalism destroys old orders and hierarchies, produces income gaps, and puts everyone under pressure and stress from not knowing weather or not they will have a job tomorrow. But this is the system that has raised living standards higher, faster and for more people than at any time in history. The cruel aspects of free market capitalism are why many people throughout history have tried to find ways to cushion workers from their affects. They have tried implementing a government that would centrally plan and fund everything, and distribute to each worker according to his needs and expect from each worker a contribution according to his abilities. This was socialism, communism, and fascism. These plans don’t work. And the people who say they don’t work are the very people that lived under them. The only alternative today is free market capitalism.
The ones fighting against capitalism and globalization aren’t the poor; but the people living in the lower and middle classes that found a great deal of job security in the protected communist, socialist, and welfare systems. The unemployment benefits in many countries are changing so much so that people actually have to go to work. Now the fast paced world is taking away the confidence they once had that their job will always be there for them. They feel like they are not just losing benefits, but are losing their rights to receive generous unemployment services. Now in the gloabalized world it is time to realize that jobs come and go, and those that survive are those that are constantly improving to add value to their job. Again in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Alan Greenspan says, “Sure, 300,000 jobs are getting destroyed by new technologies in America every week, but 3000,001 new jobs are also being created by these technologies each week, which is why Americas aggregate unemployment rate was holding at a steady low level.” It takes constant learning on the employee’s part and a flexible labor market that will find them work somewhere else for everything to work out; that’s the way America is designed. It is also the way the rest of the world needs to be designed if it wants to keep up.
This resistance to free market capitalism and globalization is futile. Free-market capitalism is the only alternative and is the best system for generating rising standards of living. As the use-to-bes dig in their heels to try and save what they used to enjoy and resist the inevitable, the poorer population is realizing the benefits of globalization and the freedoms it provides. Creating a stable political, legal and economic environment friendly to entrepreneurship, in which people can start businesses and raise their productivity, is the precursor for effectively fighting poverty anywhere. It can push down to the local level and to the weakest individuals more power, opportunities and resources to become shapers than ever before. These people may not like a lot of things about globalization, but they know that the alternatives are a lot, lot worse. If you give them a system that makes it possible for them, with hard work to reach the level of success that the see on American TV, they will stick to the game.
So its time to stop complaining about Americans taking over your country and time to start realizing that you can’t depend on anyone but yourself anymore.

miércoles, 14 de marzo de 2007

The Difference between Globalization and Americanization

Too many people in the world see globalization and Americanization as the same thing. Their idea is that America wants everyone to be just like them and adopt their way of doing business, but it is not America that is trying to get everyone to change, it is the new globalizied world. Before the Berlin wall fell there were two superpowers: the Soviet Union and America. Countries could get by on the resources provided by either one of these superpowers without having to be democratic or capitalist, but instead by just choosing a side and receive funding from them. When the wall came down only one superpower was left: the power to tap into the global stock and bond markets, by seeking out multinationals to invest in your country and by selling into the global trading system that your factories could provide for. And this global marketplace is made up of anonymous stock, bond, and currency traders and multinational investors connected by screens and networks. Not America. Nobody is in control of it and it doesn’t play favorites like the old superpowers used to. It only follows the rules. America doesn’t force anyone to be capitalistic, democratic and global; globalization does. America can’t stop it either-except at a huge cost to their society. And America didn’t set the rules; they are just the best at following them.
These rules that globalization asks for are those that will attract this group of anonymous stock, bond, and currency traders to invest. And to make them want to invest, your country needs to show stability, predictability, transparency, and the ability to transfer and protect its private property from arbitrary or criminal confiscation. And they don’t cut anyone any slack. America is at the mercy of this new superpower just as much as everyone else. Countries cannon thrive today without plugging into the global system and leaning how to make the most out of this new superpower.
America doesn’t choose who is rich and who isn’t; every country chooses its level of prosperity. It really is a choice that can be consciously made by putting the right policies in place. And more and more people want to do it because they more fully understand how other people, particularly successful nations, live by watching them on satellite TV and surfing the internet. Too many people see globalization as a threat to their way of life when in reality that isn’t the threat at all; the threat is their own lack of not applying themselves to the new rules of the system to increase their freedoms. Countries that have fallen behind say that it is America’s fault. But really it is because they failed to put in place even the minimum political, economic, and legal infrastructure to take advantage of globalization. Prosperity didn’t run away from them, they failed to make choices that would encourage it to say.
People have a hard time making the distinction between Americanization and Globalization because America is the country that best fits the new globalization role and is having the most success with it. The American model is the one that the rest of the world is being pressured by globalization to emulate. For many people this Americanization globalization is an attractive way to raise their living standards. But to others it feels like America is whipping everyone else to speed up, web up, downsize, standardize and march to America’s cultural tunes in the fast world. And they will have to if they want to compete in a globalized world. America insists that the rest of the world be like them for their own good.
America is a democratic country which is the kind of government that best applies to globalization. The new superpower of global investors is driven to get inside certain countries not because it values democracy per se. It doesn’t. It values stability, predictability, transparency, and the ability to transfer and protect its private property from arbitrary or criminal confiscation. But to secure these things, the global investors need developing countries to put in place better software, operating systems and governance-which are the building blocks to democracy. Globalization creates a much higher cost for any country that tolerates corruption.
Many people fear that they will be left behind trying to chase after Globalization or they will lose their identity trying to catch it. People detest the way globalization homogenizes people, brings strangers into their homes with strange ways, and erases distinctiveness of cultures that locate and anchor you in the world. These are legitimate concerns but instead of throwing all the blame on George Bush and those blood sucking Americans, its time to start pointing the blame at globalization itself, where it rightly belongs.
(Source: The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman)

martes, 13 de marzo de 2007

Critics Don´t Count

Since I have been living in Mexico for the last two months, I have been hearing all kinds if anti-America and anti- Bush sentiment. First of all, everyone has jumped on the hate-George-Bush-bandwagon, and I don’t get it. I’ve been trying to educate myself about the war on terror and what the President is doing but all I can seem to find is bias opinions and unsubstantiated rumors which leads me to believe that everyone else is going off of the same allegations as well. Today I read at cnn.com about how the Mayans in Guatemala are going to “cleanse” their Mayan sites after President Bush visited them on his Latin America tour. One disgruntled Guatemalan said, “That a person like (Bush) with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked is going to walk in our sacred lands is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, director of a Mayan non-governmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/12/bush.guatemala/index.html)
What is wrong with these people? How do they come to the conclusion that by being pissed off and hating others it will help them get their way any faster? Instead of educating themselves about the topic, and discussing ways to solve it, they decide to fall for all of the hate Bush propaganda that surrounds them and arrogantly decide that the best course of action is to cleanse the site that Bush, the great Satan, supposedly defiled. I’m sure there are problems, but hating, complaining, and criticizing isn’t going to get anyone anywhere fast. So this is me complaining about the complainers.
As Dale Carnegie said, “Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous because it wounds a person’s precious pride, hurts his sense of importance and arouses resentment. … Instead of condemning people let’s try to figure out why they do what they do. That’s a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness. To know all is to forgive all. Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.”
There are a lot of critics of the war, everyone seems to have chosen someone to blame for their problems instead of working at figuring out the solution for themselves. Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” So all you critics don’t count at all in my book. Keep your mouths shut until you have something to say that is less about complaining and more about solving.
I love America and all this anti-America stuff is starting to get to me. That’s my country and president that you’re criticizing. And next time your in the streets shouting “Death to America!” remember not to wear your blue jeans and don’t forget to leave your iPod at home. Like Gordon B Hinckley said, “Cynics don’t contribute, skeptics don’t create, doubters don’t achieve.”

viernes, 9 de marzo de 2007

Revenge of the little guy

For a while it seemed that the small mom and pop businesses were doomed and that there was no way for them to survive the Wal-Marts coming into the neighborhood, with their economies of scale and rock bottom prices. But now it seems that there is still a chance for these smaller places to survive. Small won't replace big, of course, but small will add up to considerable new competition. And that is because small can now succeed. The little guy now has in his quiver customer service and loyalty, niches, the drive to succeed, and flexibility to fight back.
The increase in big conglomerates like Wal-Mart increases people’s desire for more personal service. And with the increase of available technology and the decrease in cost of running business; the revenue you need to be successful thus declines, so more people are willing to fit the roll of the small personal business. This is a new definition of value built on trust. In the person-to-person marketplace the internet enables, you do business and converse with those you trust. Small businesses value that trust and earn it. They greet you by name, tell the truth in their blog and answer your emails personally. The small guys will win because everyone is getting sick of not being treated like a human. The small guys are banking on customer service and loyalty.
The increase in niche markets due to the internet also causes the tastes of consumers to be more wide spread. When you buy something off of Amazon.com or rent a movie from Netflix you get recommendations of other products that might interest you, pushing you further down the sub-genre pipe and off the beaten path. As Chris Anderson puts is, “The compromises necessary to make something appeal to everyone mean that it will almost certainly appeal perfectly to anyone. It is the paradox of plenty; walk into Wal-Mart and it looks like there is so much choice, but look a little closer and the thinness is revealed. They carry a little something for everyone and therefore don’t have anything particularly perfect for anyone.” People’s tastes are now out growing what they can find at Wal-Mart. The small guys will win because they supply the more niched-based variety that is in demand.
There is no loyalty from employer to employee and there is also no loyalty from employee to employer. In the business world today you can anticipate changing jobs at least 5 times in your professional life time. We'll see more and more people trying to make it on their own now that more and more can. The small guys will win because they have the drive to win and innovate, because they realize that they can’t rely on their day jobs to support them anymore.
The smaller companies create a way for the founder to make a far greater percentage of the interactions with the customer; meaning that he is closer to the decisions that matter and can make them quickly. When a big conglomerate wants to change something they have to invest in new products and new staff. The executives don’t want to spend time raising projects; things need to be big to compete for attention and pay for the big infrastructure and new equals risk. So new things don’t start. Being small is very important as the ability to change with the fast paced world of today means having the flexibility to change the business model when your competition changes theirs.
Even with all these advantages I’m still a little skeptical that the small company can endure against the big guys. Any more ideas about how the little guy can survive that I have left out?

viernes, 2 de marzo de 2007

End of the semester excuses

There is a tendency at the end of the semester to put off meeting new people, making new friends, or asking people out on dates. The thought is, “Well, the semester is almost over so what’s the point?” The point is this, using excuses to keep from going out of your comfort zone does nothing but build up those comfort zone walls around you even thicker. Your ability to get out of your comfort zone is like a muscle. The more you work it out the stronger it gets. The more you don’t the weaker it gets. When you make excuses to not go out of your way to ask that girl out, then not only are you not building your “ability to step out of comfort zones” muscle, you start to work out your “procrastination and weak willed” muscles, and they will just keep getting stronger, making it that much harder to step out in the future. The saying goes that you water what you want to grow, and your always watering something, weather its more strength or more weakness. And the better you are at finishing out the semester strong, stepping out of comfort zones, the more that strength will carry over into your next step in life. So for craps sake, even though it’s the last day of class for the semester, go sit next to that hot girl in the front row!

jueves, 1 de marzo de 2007

The Voice: the little student paper that could (if anyone gave a crap)

In the city of Rexburg, located in eastern Idaho, is the small university Brigham Young University – Idaho. The town of Rexburg has a population of about 22,000 to give you an idea of the size of community we are talking about. At BYU-I, like most university campuses, there exists a campus newspaper ran by the faculty and students majoring in journalism called The Scroll. The Scroll consists of articles written by students for a grade; not for writing what they want to write about. As you would imagine with any university endorsed paper, The Scroll has a lot of red tape to go through if you want to print anything that could be considered questionable. And for this reason, The Scroll lacks passion and creativity. Ask any student and he will tell you that the few times he has actually picked up The Scroll, he found it pretty boring and predictable, with weak student opinions, and watered down journalism.
This sorry state of The Scroll, along with the lack of any other student paper that actually represented the students, was the inspiration of The Voice: Rexburg’s Independent Student Newspaper. For all the complaining that the scroll generates you would think an alternate paper created by students would attract a lot of attention and you would think many students would immediately grab hold of the idea and take advantage of all the opportunities that an independent paper offers that cant be offered through a faculty ran paper. Opportunities such as: a source to freely question the status quo, announce a party that they are throwing that weekend, network with other people with their interests, and learn about local bands and their shows in the area. But the sad truth is, even after 5 months and 5 issues, still no one gives a crap about The Voice.
One could say that it is still a new paper and these things take time to snowball, but how long should it really take? Getting feedback and finding people who are willing to participate with articles and art work has been like pulling teeth. How come students don’t care about this new medium to express how they feel, read inside Rexburg joke humor, or network with other students? First we’ll look at why The Voice is obviously a better paper for students than the faculty ran alternative, The Scroll, and then we’ll look at some possible reasons for why The Voice is still staggering to stay alive.
The Voice offers many benefits that the faculty ran university paper can’t due to its heavy censorship and red tape. First of all, The Voice is independent meaning we can print what ever we want. Everything that a student has ever wanted to say can now be said, printed, and distributed in 5,000 copies. There are no staff writers meaning the entire student body is encouraged and invited to participate with their opinions, articles, and art work. The long standing slogan of The Voice has always been: “Do you think the articles in The Voice suck? Then write some that don’t suck, this is YOUR paper.” There has always been the complaint by students that there is nothing to do in the small town of Rexburg which was the inspiration for the calendar section where anyone who is throwing a party, event, or activity could spread the word. There is also the section of the paper called The Cracked Voice which is a section dedicated to making fun of the news and making you laugh. There is the free classified section where anyone could post their stuff to sell for free. But even with all of these advantages, the paper still struggles for people to get involved. When the idea of the paper was conceived, it was thought that finding people to write for it would be the least difficult part, since there are many journalist type students and others who are opinionated. But on the contrary, struggling to find writers, artists, photographers and feedback has been the bane of The Voice from day one. What happened to everyone? Doesn’t anyone care anymore about being involved with the local scene?
Reason one for kids not caring about the paper: Kids are already so saturated with the different forms of entertainment, be it TV, video games, and the internet, that the simple act of picking up an independent paper delivered to your door is not worth the time and energy. In an era when digital products and websites are commodities, you would think that there would be a premium on the experience of having a real paper delivered to your door. But it doesn’t look like it. Why try to get involved with the current state of things by picking up the paper on your door step when you got reruns of Friends on TV to watch? It is in fact a sad state of affairs when the average college student spends 3-5 hours watching TV a day during the time in his life when he should be learning, exploring, and being more active than ever. But instead most students and preparing themselves to be mediocre employees that fit into the system.
Reason two: The paper is somewhat of a nitch paper which lowers the amount of people who would be interested in it. With a student body of only 13,000 students it is hard to find a group large enough to support it. This is why in bigger cities with thousands of residents, you can find not only one independent paper but a different one for every type of sub-genre. If you go to any other large university you don’t have to look very hard to find the underground paper of the area, but in small town Rexburg, there just isn’t a big enough nitch audience for it. To be the type of cool underground type of paper that The Voice wants to be requires some independent thinking that not all students would be into. Chris Anderson writes in his book, The Long Tail, “The more compromises made to make something appeal to everyone, the less it will appeal perfectly to anyone.” The Voice doesn’t compromise or water down its articles so that they will appeal to everyone, so therefore; the crowd it does attract needs to be big enough to support it. This crowd just might not be big enough.
Reason three: For one reason or another, there are just some kids that would not be interested in an independent student run paper. It was thought that these indifferent students would not outweigh those that would like to get involved, but it seems to be the contrary. There isn’t enough DIY spirit in this town. Too many kids have been raised in sheltered homes and are taught to fit in instead of speaking out. Too many kids are just apathetic to life. Also I think many kids are just altogether unfamiliar with underground papers and zines to begin with. While passing out the paper to apartment complexes many students give back a blank stare when you tell them that a new independent paper has been made for them, as if it were an alien idea that they had never considered. Many students show their lack of involvement with anything at all when they fail to see the difference between The Voice and The Scroll, asking questions like, “Isn’t there already a student paper at the school?” They obviously have never thought outside the box long enough to recognize that there may be more to say than what the uptight school paper has to say.
So will The Voice live on to reach its first anniversary this coming November? With an increased budget to advertise the paper, time for it to snowball and constantly searching for new ways to reach students, there is hope. But weather or not the students are on board we will yet see.