Ending the New York regional debate

"Where are you from?"

Little do those who ask me that know that that is a loaded question. I could choose to be general and say, "New York." But that elicits a response about the city -- the exact opposite of where I'm from.

I could say "Upstate." But that too will throw people off the trail, leading them to ask about living in Westchester.

I could be upfront and just say, "Plattsburgh," the response my mom has always despised. "We're not actually from Plattsburgh, why do you tell people that?" she would ask my dad whenever we went on family vacations.

That leads me to my next choice: "You ever hear of the Miracle on Ice? In Lake Placid? Yeah, I'm from 40 minutes away from there."

And if that doesn't work, I finish my journey north and say "20 minutes from Canada."

All I should have to say is, "the North Country," and watch the light bulb click. But, sadly, Rand McNally hasn't published an accurate map of New York state in history books that line the shelves of elementary schools. So it's time for me to set the record straight.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the most accurate New York state areas map known to all New Yorkers (and to those of you who read me in other places, too).

(And yes, I know it looks like a 5-year-old colored this map with marker. I didn't feel like working hard in Photoshop today.)

Region 1: The North Country

Cities: Plattsburgh, Lake Placid, Champlain, Malone, Watertown, Massena, Ogdesnburg

Landmarks: Lake Champlain, St. Lawrence River, Adirondacks and farm country, lots of farm country

Rundown: It's where I'm from. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot that meets the eye, but we've got the Olympic village and the gateway to Canada. Oh, and great mountain top views.

Region 2: Upstate

Cities: Albany, Troy, Schenectady, Saratoga, Utica

Landmarks: Saranac brewery, the state capital, Saratoga Race Course, my current apartment

Rundown: I have an editor who once said that Upstaters like to surf their A's and O's when they speak, which is also true of Central New Yorkers and Western New Yorkers. Albany is the big city for North Country folk, in case you had any doubt of how rural the North Country is. We've got the Capitol, plenty of Northway traffic and rich city folk who move to the fields of Columbia and Greene counties.

Region 3: Central New York

Cities: Syracuse, Ithaca, Binghamton

Landmarks: Lake Ontario, Jim Boeheim, Finger Lakes, Billy Fucillo

Rundown: I can't say I've spent a lot of time in Central New York, but here's what I know: Everyone loves 'Cuse basketball and is ashamed to admit they like 'Cuse football, there is a lot of open farm fields, Ithaca is gorges (look it up) and Billy Fucillo is a television icon.

Region 4: Western New York

Cities: Buffalo, Rochester, Niagara Falls

Landmarks: Niagara Falls, lakes Erie and Ontario, Buffalo (I guess)

Rundown: To me, Western New York is like it's own state. People really surf their A's and O's, the food is different (where else can you get a garbage plate, white hots, Chiavetta's chicken and a beef on weck sandwich and wash it down with syrup in a can, a.k.a loganberry?) and the atmosphere is different. Buffalo is a tad rundown, though Rochester (at least the outskirts I visited) is nice. Niagara Falls? Well, I'd keep the car moving through Niagara Falls. When it comes to sports, Western New Yorkers are long-suffering at the hands of the Bills and now the Sabres.

Region 5: Downstate

Cities: Poughkeepsie, Kingston, White Plains, Newburgh

Landmarks: Rich people from the city, Tappan Zee Bridge

Rundown: Again, an area I don't know a lot about, but here's what I've got: My dad lived in Newburgh when he started working in the state corrections system (sounds like it sucked), people from the city refer to the greater Westchester County area as upstate and this is where the accent changes from Upstate.

Region 6: New York City

Cities: Duh

Landmarks: Duh

Rundown: If you know nothing about New York City, I'm surprised you're reading this post because you probably live under a rock. No offense for those of you who actually do live under rocks.

Region 7: Long Island

Cities: The place seems to be one big city itself, but: Uniondale, Hempstead, Massapequa, Huntington and the Hamptons are out there, too.

Landmarks: The Atlantic, the Hamptons, technically Brooklyn and Queens

Rundown: Half the kids at Plattsburgh State (my alma mater) are from Long Island, but I can't say it would be appropriate for me to give the stereotypes of Long Islanders that PSUC students have developed. From what I can deduce, there's a lot of lacrosse, beaches and commuters on the parking lot (as it's known by a friend from Queens) known as the Long Island Expressway.

Yelling 'fire' on Twitter is dangerous, too

Yesterday, the market was briefly devastated, dropping $200 billion in worth before quickly climbing back to its previous level, according to USA Today.

The culprit? The social media equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

The Associated Press' Twitter account was hacked, and an erroneous tweet proclaiming that President Barack Obama was injured by a pair of explosions at the White House was sent out. That in turn sent the market free falling, which was illustrated in a fantastic USA Today front page graphic (I'm having trouble finding a link to it. If anyone finds it, leave it in the comments section for me).

We learned two things from the brief moment of panic: 1) the market will be adversely affected if the president's ability to do his job is compromised in any way (I'm no economist, but I'd assume it's because there would be panic about what economic policy would come immediately from whoever takes over for him). 2) The panic Oliver Holmes Jr. wrote about in Schenck v. United States is still very real and has expanded to cyber platforms.

While some might jump to the conclusion that the public shouldn't just trust anything a news organization says, that's not the right conclusion to jump to. What this hack underscores is the need for additional reporting by organizations, not just retweets until an organization prepares its own story.

Sometimes half the battle in journalism is finding the right source to talk to. In instances when sources aren't responding or giving you the information you are looking for, it's very easy, and usually safe, to say "so-and-so reported." But the danger with social media is its that much easier for news organizations to say "so-and-so reported" before needing to go elsewhere to find the information.

The 24-hour news cycle is vicious and, as its name implies, doesn't stop. But organizations need to look at the potential effects of trusting someone else's facts. Being able to say "we were the first organization to break the Boston bombings" means nothing if another local paper, or worse, an outside paper covers the story better than you do. With trust in journalism at an all-time low it's good reporting that will get you followed and make you the first news organization people turn to when something is happening, not being the first one to report the facts.

Contrary to popular belief, being first has become even more irrelevant with the advent of social media. If you're first, it's only a few seconds before someone else is second. Why not take the time to report the story yourself, make sure the facts are correct and be the 15th to report it? If an organization is well-followed it still may be the first that people turn to or, at the very least, the organization people turn to for the full story.

In the AP's case, the tweet was a hack, so a possible fix for the organization that needs to be first is irrelevant. But for the next time when the big news isn't broadcast because of a hack, organizations should simply tweet something like this:

"Hearing unconfirmed reports of bombing at #WhiteHouse. Can anyone near Pennsylvania Ave. confirm?"

Is it really ignorant to think no one on Pennsylvania Avenue is using Twitter at any point during their five-minute look at the White House? Of course it isn't.

By labeling the info unconfirmed, panic isn't going to set in as quickly. And asking for any additional information or confirmation (if five to 10 people confirm within a minute, the info is credible) engages the audience -- something newspapers have struggled to do in the technology age -- and helps create a credible report. Problem solved, markets safe (maybe they drop by $10 million before the info is confirmed or denied. It's still better than $200 billion) and faith in good journalism is hopefully restored in at least one or two people. My dad always said even just $1 made on your event is still a profit, and faith in journalism works the same way.

The line that parents now feed their children about being careful what you post on Facebook because an employer might see it is proving true in other ways and on other mediums. News organizations need to be careful of what they post because people will run with it. And once that fire starts, the whole theater will be engulfed in with just a few tweets.

The (potential) cost of a secure border

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security tried to ruin cross-border trade last week.

Well, sort of.

The DHS has proposed a fee for passengers at U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexcio crossings in its 2014 budget. The Buffalo News reported that the DHS suggested studying the effects of such a fee. The suggestion was buried so deep in the budget that it wasn't until Rep. Bryan Higgins (D-Buffalo) made a fuss about it last week that anyone noticed.

The original story does not give any figures for the fee, nor does the story from the Montreal Gazette, from which I found out about the plan.

The effects on the Buffalo region would be obvious, hence why Sen. Charles Schumer was on his political game in The Buffalo News, decrying such a fee and saying, "We don't need a study that tells us that."

My girlfriend is from the Buffalo region, and she said that while the City of Buffalo wouldn't necessarily be crushed by a border fee, which it seems obvious would lead to a reduction in cross-border traffic and cross-border trade, Niagara Falls would be devastated.

Schumer would be crazy not to take an immediate interest in the well-being of the state's second-largest city and metro area, so for him to defend that region makes sense. But what Schumer also needs to take an interest in is the Montreal-New York City corridor, the northern most area of which would, like Niagara Falls, be devastated by a fee like this.

Here, the Plattsburgh economy depends on Canadian traffic, specifically Quebec traffic (don't let some locals' excuses -- "They can't drive." "They don't speak English." -- throw you off the trail). Even highway signs are in French to help promote Quebec travel. Visit Champlain Centre (see, even we use a Canadian spelling for our mall) on a Saturday and take away the cars from Quebec and you'll be able to park next to the doors outside every retailer. Do the same at local hotels and chains like Best Western, Holiday Inn and Comfort Inn will disappear.

Quebecers come to the United States to shop because taxes are lower, some prices are lower, the exchange rate has been better, it's easier to maneuver Plattsburgh than the island of Montreal and there are things here that Canadians can't get at home. Don't believe me? I talked to Canadians two years ago on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, and that's what they said.

Now, would a border fee completely shut off the United States from Canada? Of course not. Quebecers would still come to New York. But if a fee canceled out a favorable exchange rate and the tax breaks, they'd be crazy to keep coming over. Couple that with the rising price of gas (I wouldn't ever pay by the liter for gas in Canada. Based on my calculations, gas is almost $5 a gallon in Montreal. GasBuddy.com says I'm pretty darn close too.) and Quebecers have more reasons to stay home than come to New York. When that happens, the already broken economy will spiral into oblivion.

With that, the biggest effect I see on the Plattsburgh economy is an increase to the brain drain, which would only further devastate the economy (If you want to learn more about the brain drain, talk to local economist Colin Read. He'll scare you with just the facts into wanting to fix the economy).

In the interest of fairness, yes, a fee would help offset furloughs and other cuts caused by the sequester by providing the DHS with more money to staff the border and make it safer -- though the U.S.-Canadian border is the longest border in the world not controlled by a military presence. But I'd like to see how much of that fee generated up north would actually be used up north. It's obvious that the U.S.-Mexican border is the DHS' primary concern.

In the end, the proposal is for only a study, not the actual fee. But before the U.S. government spends money on a study it doesn't need to conduct in the first place, this item needs to be struck from the DHS budget.

If it isn't, and the study concludes a fee would be a feasible option, I suggest Plattsburgh-area residents get out while they still can.

Do marketing divisions want to hold on to the 'recession'?

While listening to ESPN Radio this morning, an interesting from Red Wing Shoes came on.

(DISCLAIMER: I wasn't taking notes, and I'm having a hard time finding the ad online) Essentially it said: The recession may be over, but we know times are tough. That's why we offer free lace replacements at any of our stores ...

The ad went on to explain how by providing owners with new laces, Red Wing is helping to keep you out there working to help your family.

The marketing strategy used in this ad makes sense. There is a gruff male voice explaining how essentially the small-town worker (most likely a physical-labor worker) doesn't need to worry about a lack of money keeping him from replacing the laces for the boots he needs to make a living. Red Wing knows its audience and capitalizes.

But what caught my attention was the beginning of the ad, which referred to the end of the recession and times still being tough.

Red Wing got it right, the recession is over (just ask my econ professor, who I linked to in my last post). But if it's over, why is Red Wing still holding on to it as a marketing chip?

I'm not a marketing whiz by any means, but to me this seems like a smart idea for businesses.

Here's what I picture a board room conversation in the marketing department of a nationally-competitive brand sounds like:

Boss: We need a new way to market our product.

Marketing staffer: What about the recession?

Boss: What the hell do you mean, "What about the recession?"

Marketing staffer: What I mean is, what do people think of when they think recession?

Boss: Hard financial times.

Marketing staffer: Right. And when people fall on hard financial times, what kind of prices are they looking for?

Boss: Low prices.

Marketing staffer: Exactly. So if we mention the end of the recession and tough times in our ad, people will be expecting us to give them a service at a low price — or perhaps even free. That means we can take a service that we already offer that doesn't cost us a lot of money, slap the words "recession" and "hard times" in the front of it in our ad and people will eat up our products.

Boss: Genius.

 Conversation ends with a firm handshake and a "drink the Kool-Aid smile from those in the boardroom.

Honestly though, if I need new work boots for the upcoming construction season, am I going to go with the company that offers me only boots or the company that offers me boots and something free (assuming boot prices are within, let's say, $5 of each other across the board).

And the hard financial times are something that everyone can relate to after what happened over the past few years. A relatable ad that helps me get something that I didn't already have? Sign me up.

My aforementioned econ professor has mentioned in class multiple times that the media takes things out of proportion when it comes to things like the recession, unemployment rate, etc. But are businesses trying to sell a product doing the same?

Yes. And at this point in time, it's a brilliant move.

Covering economics that matter creates economic ironies

During my introduction to economics course today, my professor brought up a simple point about the news media: Why don't they cover all most important parts of economics as it pertains to unemployment numbers?

Simply put, why does the news media make such a fuss about numbers that don't tell the whole truth.

As it turns out, the unemployment rate that some of the news media uses to show how a party is benefiting or screwing up the economy — depending on which side of the fence you're on — is not as good a representation of the state of our economy as, say, the number of people who are unemployed, plus the number of people who don't think there is a job out there for them, plus the number of part-time employees (simplified here into a neat chart. Section U-6 is the best according to my professor, James Tierney).

But within the preceding paragraph lies the problem: People will take one look the description of U-6 and say, "That's too much for me to understand."

For the news media, and for the sake of this blog post, newspapers specifically, it is actually economically ironic to break down the better economic indicators out there. Here's a couple of reasons why.

1) The cost of specialization is too high for newspapers.

To have a strong economy, specialization is key. The same is true for the newspaper business.

In an ideal world, each newspaper would have a fleet of government, features, business, sports, education, transportation, health, cops and courts, and a wealth of other types of beat writers who can take the time to thoroughly cover each issue.

The fact of the matter is, even papers like The New York Times have cut their staffs so thin that specialization now means focusing on multiple beats.

On the hyper-local level, a paper like the Press-Republican here in Plattsburgh can in no way afford to dedicate a writer to one issue. Yes, there is a business writer (key word a), but he also covers town government, cops and courts, and features when need be. That means its hard enough to get a monthly story done about the unemployment numbers from the previous month on a local level, let alone begin to dig deeper into the charts and statistics.

Even though many papers use Associated Press or similar syndicated content, if those papers produce content containing numbers that go beyond the surface, papers have space issues (space if a valuable resource that has become more and more limited. I know you economists who read this like the word resource), which means devoting space to even a typical unemployment story means sacrificing other, perhaps more pertinent news.

2) The cost of specialization is too high for writers.

As a last-semester senior, I realize the stupidity of trying to specialize in only one area of the newspaper business given the economic state of newspapers.

For those seeking jobs, it doesn't make sense to specialize as a page designer or writer or videograhper or photographer, let alone a sports copy editor or business writer or features videograhper.

To land a job, aspiring journalists need to know how to work in every part of the newsroom so they can not only apply for any job but also get the jobs that require them to wear different hats.

In a way, specialization in journalism promotes the opposite of what economic specialization should. If anything, learning how to do everything is specializing.

To tie this back in with economics writing, for students to take the time to learn economics so they can become business writers who are trained to digest the numbers that go beyond the cursory unemployment stats doesn't make sense. Knowing how to be only a business writer won't get you a job when there are only five business openings in the country and 300 other people are vying for the job. A 22-year-old with a bachelor's in economics and journalism is more likely to get passed over for a 40-year-old with 15 years of newspaper experience than to get a phone call for an interview.

Students can specialize by taking intro courses in economics, business, statistics, sports reporting, features writing, design, editing, etc., not by spending extra time in school for a degree that in all likelihood won't give them an edge.

3) Specialization is a poor business model

I haven't worked in newspapers that long, but I've been in the business long enough to tell you that reader apathy is high.

And what readers do care about, they aren't willing to work for in most cases.

A perfect example is the business page on any given day. A reader may care about what's going on in the local community and in the state, but throw a business header in the folio and readers skip the page.

Why? Because the word business for many people signifies the stories and graphics will be too hard to understand.

A relative minority gets upset when the Daily Dow Jones graphic doesn't appear in the paper on a given day, but the majority can't make heads or tales of the graphs and statistics.

Now, before you go chastising me for lumping the stock market in with the field of economics, you have to realize that anything having to do with economics is, in most cases, relegated to the business page. That means readers may see the headline about unemployment, but the simple fact there is a graphic filled with confusing numbers and graphs next to it is enough to turn some off.

For others, statistics within the actual story will be a turn off. The average reader has no idea how a 1.2 percent jump or drop of the unemployment rate affects them and the economy as a whole.

Newspapers could try to take the time to explain those statistics more in detail, but then they're bordering needing to write a column to do so. And as I explained before, newspapers can't afford to let a beat writer specialize in writing an economics column when it will take him or her away from specializing in the news of the day.

Long story short, newspapers should cover economics more in depth to better serve their readers. But there are a slew of economic ironies that force editors and publishers to sacrifice understanding for economic stories that can only skim the surface — if the economy can make it in the paper at all.

An ode to Opening Day

Today is the day.

Today as the light from the morning sun spills over the mountains, trees and skyscrapers, the nicest lawns in America will be revealed. Patches of grass that men can only dream would be their front yards will be more beautiful than the turquoise water of the Caribbean and more majestic than Niagara Falls.

Today as men wake, they will become their 8-year-old selves on Christmas. They’ll be giddy to leap out of bed and begin their favorite day of the year.

Today entire offices will take their break at 1 p.m. to crowd into the nearest break room and turn on the 15-inch TV or crank up the small boom box radio. No one will make a peep for fear of missing even the most unimportant foul ball — the first in a long line of balls players don’t care about but will become a No. 1 moment for the lucky fan who catches it.

Today men will become children, seemingly peering out from beneath a cap two sizes too big in hopes a ball will be hit their way. And children will become men, striving to call pitches and yell with assertion about the base-running error their father began to yell about first.

Today men and women will all be equal. No matter if they’re white, black, yellow, dark, tan or some mix, today people are simply just fans.

Today religion does not matter. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Methodists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and even atheists will all be bonded by the religion of baseball.

Today the songs of that religion — the CRACK, THWOP, SMACK and FFFFF of the game — will all meld into a symphony that is more intense than Beethoven, yet more delicate than Mozart.

Today the meal prepared on the alter is America’s ballpark dinner: the hot dog — the taste of which is only enhanced at the ballpark and cannot be recreated away from it.

Today people will lay down their arms if only to join in other rivalries, ones that go back to their parents, and their grandparents and their grandparents’ parents, and so on.

Today begins a war, one that will involve 162 battles. Some will be easy, some will be hard, but all will matter by October, when the best will rise to the top like creamy fat in a bucket of fresh milk.

Today will soon turn to night, but attention will not waver. People will still crowd together at the bar or in the living room with a bowl of pretzels or popcorn and an ice-cold beer to watch the game until they fall asleep, happier than the biggest man at the Thanksgiving table or the child who finished Christmas dinner with sweets he or she can eat on only that day.

And when fans wake tomorrow, it will all be gone. Men and women will go back to hitting the snooze button until they’re late for work. Ballparks won’t fill to capacity again until the fall. And hotdogs will be saved for the Fourth of July cookout or when kids refuse to eat the Brussels sprout casserole.

But for today, all will be right. All will come together to create the most beautiful day of the year.

For today is Opening Day.

The future of journalism: Page design

Forgive me if I'm a few years late with this, but like other media commentators, I have plenty of opinions to offer up about the future of journalism.

Page design is an area of newspaper production that is close to my heart. As I am applying for page design jobs across the Northeast, I am continually thinking about what place this career will be in in 25 years.

I was once asked in an interview where I thought journalism would go in the future. Though I was interviewing for a reporting position, naturally I offered up my opinion of page design. In short, I told the interviewer that a few decades from now newspapers won't look like today's broadsheets.

Already broadsheet design has incorporated more tab-type pieces. Big, bold headlines, cutouts, multiple refers all over the page, graphics, etc. all dominate many broadsheets.

But 25 years from now, I don't see that trend continuing. In fact, I can see many broadsheets cutting down to tab size and into what Plattsburgh State Journalism Department Chair Shawn Murphy once told me could be pamphlets with QR codes.

As the internet becomes more prevalent in journalism and Twitter-style communication becomes the social norm, readers aren't going to pay for paper and online versions of news.

In an effort to keep the "paper" alive, I can see newspapers adopting a mini newsprint edition with tab headlines, big art, ledes and nut grafs. That's it.

My example isn't flashy or fun, but creating newspapers that look like that could actually benefit those newspapers still kicking around decades from now.

For one, a move like that would keep the actual paper alive, giving old-school crusties something to hold while not boring the newest wave of kids getting interested in the news. Papers would be able to stay papers, not online aggregates.

Secondly, a paper like this would drive online hits, something that papers are trying to do now. By giving a lede and a nut graf, readers can get hooked, making them want to scan the QR code with their smarterphone of the future — which I'm sure will make the iPhone 5 look like a Nokia TracFone.

Thirdly, it gives designers like me a job into the future. Though you'd probably need just one or two people per paper to design a small QR-filled tab, online editions for iPad, iPhone and the Web could still be produced. That means you'd have a QR edition and a regular edition, though that wouldn't be printed per say. To tease to it, papers could toss a QR next to their flags that would bring readers to an online print edition.

Papers could then give away their QR editions for 25 cents an issue. Then they could charge either per story viewed or for an online subscription to both their websites and online print editions. For those with an online print edition already, papers could deliver the QR edition to take on the go.

Do I hope the print product dies? No. But if it must, the QR edition format would be a good alternative. Design would live and cheaper printing costs would give papers more resources to put toward quality journalism and to rebuild newsrooms to what they once were.