I worked at NBC and MTV for two years, and it was very interesting to see the comparisons of audiences and the way that I would have to present a story to the two different places.
Gossip is easy, politics is hard.
Knowing policy does help make the gossip more understandable.
For the last year I've been at Stanford University as a student and I've had time to read the newspaper.
I'm surprised and disappointed in American culture.
At MTV, although the audience is smaller, I found it more interesting to deliver news to a specific group of people, because my story then did not have to try to be all things to all people.
Online, you have things like Slate Magazine, which has a lot of commentary and analysis of stories, so it gives you a fuller picture. I would compare that to a news magazine or the New Republic.
Caring about policy is important - people in washington forget.
It's nice to know about something as soon as it happens, and obviously a newspaper can't provide that.
You have a specific, defined audience-at MTV, they assume the audience to the news is 15 to 30 years old and they do a lot of research about the things they're interested in.
At NBC I wasn't really sure if the grandparents were going to get my sense of humor on a particular topic.
I've been told I'm a player, but people still don't always return my calls.
In the New York Times, you're going to get completely different information than you would in the USA Today.
The constant variety is the most interesting part of my job.
When I was a freelancer, I thought this journalism thing was a racket, and now that I'm where I am now, I know it's a racket.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.