I think you guys are wrong. Kind of.

As soon as Page One was over, I immediately wanted to buy another ticket and watch it again, but I also kind of didn't. I was also kind of freaked right out.

Walking to my car, Allison Marinelli and I started chatting about the film, what it meant for our choice in career path, the message it was sending about journalism, and the Journalism program at Red River College.

Before going to the Cinematheque, our Journalism instructor Duncan McMonagle, suggested that we read up on historical events like Watergate in 1968 or the Pentagon papers that were leaked in 1971.
For those of you who aren't particularly familiar with Watergate, I'll give you the Coles Notes version.

Watergate happened in 1972 when President Nixon hired five men to break into the opposition's (Democrats) headquarters and tried to cover it up. This story was followed and broken by two men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who worked at the Washington Post.


The Pentagon papers were a study conducted of the political-military relations in Vietnam without the permission and under the radar from President Johnson. Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara created the Vietnam study to keep record of the American involvement in Vietnam for future generations. Though, few- if any- people in the Johnson administration were included in this project and were unaware of its existence until it was published in 1971.

While we were getting in the car, we wondered why Duncan had us research these topics before the movie because we didn't feel there wasn't huge reference to those events in the film. I guess he wanted us to be as prepared as possible, but other than that, be aware of two very pivotal moments in tradition journalism's history. These two occasions are perfect examples of what journalists do. We find our information and report it. We inform the public of what is ultimately their right to know.

Sitting in the car, Allison and I were both on the same page about one thing. David Carr was hilarious and he knew how to make his point.

Carr, American coke head turned (New York Times) journalist, was the voice behind the film and the newspaper for that matter. Carr was filmed proof that being a crackhead doesn't necessarily mean you're uneducated or talentless. He was taped conducting interviews that blew me away with his no-nonsense manner, worldly outlook on international affairs, and representing and defending the newspaper to those who predict its death.

I was amazed by the journalism in this film. We watched as Carr conducted interviews with previous employees of the Tribune Company (LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe) about sexual harassment at the company. The entire time I was watching him conducting his research and interviews, I kept thinking that this is the kind of journalism I hope to do one day. (Not necessarily about sexual harassment, just the investigative aspect of it)

As much as we loved this movie, it also was scary for people like us who are majoring in Journalism to hear all of these much more professional and knowledgeable opinions than ours claiming that our very career paths are dying. But, like what was mentioned by Carr and other believers in the film, I have my own ideas about how journalism will progress in its current evolution.

Sure, the rage of social media has completely changed the way people are getting their news. A person can sign into Twitter or Facebook and hear that Miley Cyrus got pregnant the moment the plus sign showed itself on that stick of doom, rather than wait until the next morning to read about it in the paper. However, the problem with social media, like many others have mentioned before me, is that what you see is not necessarily a credible source. For example, that status that keeps getting posted on Facebook about implementing monthly charges.

This is proof you can't just trust all regular joe's and what they have to say because some people just like to lie. (I know this is a lie because I read it  online)

Anyways, so much-if not (basically) all of the news is found online these days. Sure, I also love to flip the pages of a newspaper and be traditional, but that's me. And its probably because I grew up on a farm or something. So much of the world is ready to look to the web for sources and updates, that a journalist would have to be crazy to not try and update their Internet intellect or sign up for Twitter.

David Carr, who presented himself as a firm believer in traditional journalism, said that at the New York Times, they have 120 Twitter feeds and 80 blogs to keep up with the evolving industry.


This where Allison and I agreed on another thing: Creative Communications is legit training us for the real world. Everything we do, from 10 assignments in one day, to blogging at least once a week, to sharp deadlines, to the design work we do in Photoshop and InDesign. And the electives we are offered: Website Design, Broadcast Journalism, Photography, News Radio, these classes definitely turn us into modern journalists that fit right into the current mold or be able to do a swift and clean transfer to television or radio journalism.

I think there will always be a place for journalism as long as there is news to share and stories to tell. People want to know that the information they get is from a reliable source, whether it be an online news source or in print.

I'm sure at some point, too many newspapers will equal too many logged trees to the right people and won't be available quickly enough, and journalism will become an online industry or maybe available via hologram. But until then, I'm going to embrace what's left of the traditional print journalism and hold on tight until it chokes.