Having recently spent two weeks in Beantown, I compared on a daily basis The Boston Globe and the electronic edition of The Oklahoman (TOK). I did not find a single news item of national importance that was not reported in both papers. TOK was right in step with the Globe, albeit the location or emphasis was different. I also noticed that both papers were rife with errors, grammatical and spelling. But at least TOK has color comics and recognizes the existence of sports other than MLB. A similar comparison of TOK with The Arizona Republic yeilded similar results.

I too am a Journalism grad, of OU. My time was back when broadcast journalism was taught in the School of Business, along with Advertising. I believe the decline in journalistic accuracy began with the rise in schlock journalism, cyber spelling, and USA Today. Coincidentaly TOK was one of the first newspapers in the country to utilize computerized grammar and spelling. It looks like the bloom has fallen off that rose.

As far as CJR is concerned, using them as the Bible of Journalism is like calling al Sadr the voice of all Islam. CJR was of questionable value in 1968 and I doubt if they have improved while TOK has "declined."

Finally, I actually believe TOK Sports Department has created a bias TOWARD OSU by trying to be totally fair and honest. To me they elevate mundane OSU news to the level of "breaking news" (a phrase I liken to "breaking wind" since all news worth reading is NEW) of OU. Still, on line readers of TOK concentrate heavily on OU articles. Doesn't OSU, the birthplace of the PC, graduate computer literates?

In summary, I am thankful that we "literates" still have print journalism to read with our morning Java. Hopefully the all too strong emphasis on "the bottom line"
will not put TOK or The Globe out of business. I find it hilarious that I am discoursing on print media via computer.

ps This may be a duplicate due to my own state of computer literacy. If so, I apologize. If not, you shoulda' seen my first diatribe.