On 30, or — A Call for Submissions

On 30

This blog post originally appeared on Medium, which is an excellent site for content creators, writers and free-thinkers to publish their long-form ideas without the hassle of maintaining a private Web domain or property. You can read it there by clicking the link above.



This isn’t like any of my usual posts on this blog. But bear with me as I get something off my chest — and ask a favor of you, my friends and readers.

I recently turned 30 years old, and the landmark event has caused some serious internal reflection and a little bit of external struggle in my life. I’m not where I once thought I would be by the time my 20s ended. Indeed, I thought my “decade of decision” would yield a few more decisions, and offer more for being arguably the most influential 10 years of my life.

But here I am.

I try not to get too personal on the Internet; after all, it is the Internet, meaning things written within these walls don’t every really go away, and that can have real damages on the life and career of one who makes his or her living writing professionally — someone like me, in other words. But if you won’t hold it against me, I’d like to get a little bit personal for a short spell.

I am a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also called the Mormons, having grown up in the faith since I was a small child and even serving a two-year mission in South America proclaiming the doctrines and gospel of the church. I try not to be too overt with proclaiming my faith online. It’s not that I don’t believe — it’s just that faith is something I hold sacred, and I know that many of my professional friends, followers and acquaintances might not appreciate the repetition of my spiritual conversion and testimony on a regular basis.

To those friends who were unaware of my faith: I am sorry. I should be more open about it. But if you ever have questions about the LDS church or Mormons in general, feel free to ask me. I am an open book and would love to have a conversation about the subjects.

In the church, we put a large premium on families — including the promulgation of the human species that we call “raising children,” and finding the perhaps one-in-a-million stroke of luck that many refer to as their “spouse.” It’s a concept so familiar to members of the LDS church that we often categorize the religion into two realms: families and singles. You can see it in the way many of our congregations are organized, especially in the Intermountain Western states of Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Every Sunday, thousands of Latter-day Saints will go to church with their families, with hundreds to thousands more will meet together in various wards and branches composed entirely of young adults who remain actively (or not so actively) single — we call them “young single adults,” for what I feel are fairly obvious reasons.

Family is such an important concept in our religion that we are taught at a very early age that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,” and that “the family is central the Creator’s plan” in our church meetings and Sunday School classes. Single adults often make fun of those lines in jest, but that doesn’t make them less true — or less important — to our rare brand of Mormondom.

Which brings me to … well, me. I am 30 years old, and I am not — nor ever have been — married. While in the past this would have made me a “menace to society” as an otherwise fully functioning male member of the church, in today’s climate of delayed families and the rising age of first marriages I am merely in the minority for this faith.

That doesn’t make my position in life any easier. It’s hard, at times, to continue to go to church — even in meetings designated for the unmarried folk — with teachings, doctrines and theology aimed specifically at married couples and families, while sitting on the sidelines and occasionally waiting for “real life” to start*.

I know I am not alone in my occasional feelings of loneliness and inadequacy within the church. And that’s why I am posting this blog post right now: at this time in my life, I want to do something I’ve never attempted before.

I want to write a book, specifically one about the trend of singlehood within the LDS church, and how we can “fit in” as well as find faith in a family-centric religion — even without the added measure of marriage and family.

But my experiences are only one in a church that measures nearly 16 million. And rather than produce a work that is purely anecdotal and rarely used in social situations, I want to ask for your help.

You. Yes, you.

I am calling for submissions from you, the readership, friends and social media family that I have grown to love over the past several years. Some of you I know in offline life, while others of you I know only through a computer screen, a mobile device and a floating avatar. Regardless, if you have experience in the world of singlehood in the LDS church (as many of you do, owing to the nature of my social circles), I want to hear how you navigated the world — and especially how you continue to do so in today’s world of dating, pre-marriage and marriage.

Get in touch with me by using the contact form on my website to send me an email and let me know a few things about yourself. I’d love to publish as many experiences as I can in this forthcoming book, and I may be contacting a select number of your for further, follow-up inquiries.

I’ll compile the book in a series of doctrinal treatises on marriage and family, embarrassing first dates and attempted interactions (for those who don’t mind sharing such accounts in public), and dating advice for the … ahem … mature portion of the readership. Whatever your experience is as a single or married person in the LDS church, I want to know it.

And so do many other residents of this cross-cultural land we call The Internet.

How SI won the LeBron Free Agent Sweepstakes Part II

Those who know me know that I love Sports Illustrated. It's been a staple of my daily news and feature sports reading for years to come, for all sports.
But with the rise of broadcast media and the slow downfall of print, the magazine's place in the journalism market has been mildly confusing, if not outright distant, at times. After all, despite the changes in Internet culture and the shortest news cycle in history, SI still operates with its print magazine (published once a week) as the backbone of its operation.
On Friday, just after noon on the east coast, SI made a splash. And it came thanks to a few connections with LeBron James.
SI reporter Lee Jenkins had pursued the story of James' free agency for a long time. His editors told him to pursue it, but admitted they didn't "place big money on it coming to fruition," according to adage.com.
Then, it did.

"Then last Saturday, Mr. Jenkins, who was flying to Cleveland on Friday afternoon when Ad Age spoke with Mr. Stone and Sports Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Paul Fichtenbaum, emailed his editors saying the story was a possibility. Out of caution, he didn't mention Mr. James' name in the email.

"The first thing we asked is whether there were any conditions attached," Mr. Stone said. "There were none."

On Wednesday, Mr. Jenkins traveled to Las Vegas. He met with Mr. James on Thursday night before writing the essay with him. Mr. Jenkins emailed the essay to his editors around mid-morning on Friday. "Everyone reading it was learning the news for the first time," Mr. Stone said."

To keep the scoop of the year from leaking to a herd of full-time reporters doing nothing but waiting to find out what James' decision would be, the magazine's editorial side kept the secret from its business side. While Jenkins and James penned the essay that would light the Internet on fire, the magazine was bunkered in and crossing its fingers that news wouldn't break from Yahoo! Sports, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer or ESPN, who promoted James' original Decision in an hour-long special with Jim Gray. 
No, this time, the magazine wouldn't turn a seemingly routine free agent decision into a media circus. And apparently, that's just what the LeBron James camp wanted.
Jenkins himself went unusually quiet. While not a prolific Twitter user, his account was silent from July 7 (which held only a retweet) until the news broke four days later.

As soon as Sports Illustrated and Jenkins published the news, it set off a frenzy. LeBron was coming home. ESPN was in full First Take mode with analysts and commentators talking about The Decision II, and page designers at newspapers across the country pulled out their best work — including this from Cleveland itself:

James, no doubt with plenty of help from Jenkins, was eloquent in his approach. Unlike the last time, he was "not having a press conference or a party. After all, it's time to get to work."
Unfortunately for SI.com, a simple Google search just hours after the news broke does not link back to Jenkins' original story, according to adage. That's the nature of the Internet — that the one outlet that originally covered an event will now be drowned in search engine optimizers looking to find a few extra clicks to their websites.
But in an age where Internet journalism rules and dot-coms are trusted equally (and sometimes more) than traditional print media outlets like daily newspapers and magazines, the old-timers got one more punch into the rising new media competition.
Welcome home, Sports Illustrated. And also to LeBron James.

Why soccer has made it in America

Photo c/o nielsenreport.ca

Those who know me know that I am a soccer fan, but more importantly, a soccer writer.
I don't know when the futebol bug hit me; it didn't come from serving a mission to a soccer-mad country like many returned Mormon missionaries. My mission experience was in a country that is among the highest producers of Major League Baseball talent.
It didn't come because of the World Cup. I don't have memories of waiting for the "savior of the sport" Landon Donovan getting ready to make his World Cup debut in 2002 (though I do recall a junior-high me glued to the TV as Brandi Chastain lined up a penalty kick against China in the 1999 Women's World Cup final).
Soccer, it seems, just kind of happened in my personal life. It helped that I grew up as Major League Soccer was forming and rising in the United States. It also likely helped that my formative years coincided with a time when the United States began to enter into the world conversation in each four-year cycle.
It's a similar path that has seen the soccer conscience pervade America at large.
Soccer never had an overnight "moment" in the USA. Instead, it's been aided by a series of mini-moments, whether for club or country, that have slowly converted more and more fans to the beautiful game. Whether it was the United States' 2-1 win over Ghana in Brazil, Donovan's crushing match-winner against Algeria in 2010, or a Champion's League final that captured hearts around the globe, America becomes more of a soccer country as time goes on.
Whenever it started, the latest culmination of America's love for soccer manifested itself Monday.

New numbers: ESPN says USA-Ghana averaged 11.093 million viewers, making it the network's most-viewed men’s soccer match.
— John Ourand (@Ourand_SBJ) June 17, 2014

No matter how much the sport is criticized, mocked and denounced by fans of "mainstream" sports, its popularity keeps growing. In a time when attendance at traditional sporting events is dropping — even the mighty juggernaut of the NFL isn't completely immune — soccer's popularity as a live event is increasing in most markets.
A mix of family-friendly pricing, good hours, reasonable time commitments (90 minutes means 90 minutes, win, lose or draw) and a lack of viable television alternatives (which may change with MLS's latest deal with ESPN and Fox) seems to have pushed casual sports fans closer to soccer in markets where MLS holds a substantial presence.
Yes, there is still work to do. Soccer can certainly become more popular. But it's doing fine. It's growing in all metrics, and new TV deals have it set to reach all-time highs even in the club game in the near future.
So let's not talk about "when will soccer make it in America." Because, according to several reports, it already has.

Sex and Sports

I want to talk about sex.
No, not that kind of sex; this is, after all, a family blog (of a single sportswriter trying to find his way in media …. but you get the idea).
I want to talk about sex, as in gender, and (more specifically) gender in sports media and broadcasting.
As I was watching the ESPN2 broadcast of a college basketball game between BYU and Gonzaga last night, I (like every other viewer, both Zag and Cougar alike) listened to the broadcast stylings of Beth Mowins and Kara Lawson. As far as I can tell, this was the first nationally televised men's college basketball broadcast with two women in the announcers' "booth" (which is actually just a pair of seats next to the court).

Screen capture from Deadspin.com

The progressive angle of ESPN's move aside, Mowins and Lawson did a great job. The duo bounced off each other well, and I didn't notice any awkward pauses or interrupting one another during the broadcast. Mowins is a pro's pro, one of ESPN's top play-by-play sports callers regardless of gender; Lawson, meanwhile, is an esteemed analyst, WNBA player and earns the distinction of the first female color analyst to call an NBA game.
Mowins became the second female play-by-play caller to work a college football game in 2005, following Pam Ward's entry into ESPN's play-by-play world in 2000. The duo is plenty qualified to call a regular-season West Coast Conference basketball game.
But apparently, not everybody thinks so.
Deadspin published a story (with a fairly offensive headline) showing the rampant hate for ESPN's use of two women broadcasters on a men's game. How could ESPN think WOMAN could talk about MEN'S sports? seemed to be the common refrain, and responses such as I guess I'll watch this game with the 'mute' on were prevalent.
I saw some of these same responses in my own Twitter feed. You can read Deadspin's list of sexist retorts here, and a few of my personal experiences below:

@RealDSean that, and the fact that it'll be a blow out, pretty much makes it automatically unwatchable
— Jimmie Chesh Sports (@CheshSports) January 26, 2014

@CheshSports @RealDSean and a 10 pm eastern start? Sign me up with time with my pillow. #byu
— Nick Newman (@nicknewman801) January 26, 2014

@RealDSean Progressivism isn't making for a good product.
— Ryan Teeples (@SportsGuyUtah) January 26, 2014 

As you can see, the tweets that showed up in my timeline were much more timid than many of those Deadspin published. Still, the sentimentality is the same. Sexism in sports media has come a long way in the past two decades, when the thought of women in the media was almost laughed at. But as this weeks's episode illustrates, we still have quite the journey left in front of us.
Just as I wouldn't want anyone to judge a male broadcaster is "better" because of his gender, neither would I want anyone to deem a female broadcaster inferior to her male counterparts. ESPN alone (not to mention the hundreds of standout, dedicated journalists at Fox, NBC, CBS, etc) boasts an army of talented broadcasters, both male and female. Eliminating any of them from the upper echelon of sports broadcasting simply for their gender characteristics is wrong, and not where we want to be as a society.
Journalism is for everyone: black and white, young and old, male and female. There is room enough for anyone with talent and the hard work to be successful.
Let's not put limits on what any of us can accomplish from the booth.

On Long-form Journalism

Say hi to George, everyone. "Smile if you just got accepted to Yale!" pic.twitter.com/ZhKAGirkhk
— Billy Baker (@billy_baker) December 17, 2013

We can all go home now; the Internet's been won.
If you're a fan of good journalism, or the Boston Globe, or both, then you've likely seen the story Globe reporter Billy Baker posted to his Twitter account on Tuesday afternoon. It's the heart-warming follow-up to a story he did a couple of years ago on two brothers, children of a single Vietnamese mother, who climbed up through one of Boston's meanest neighborhoods and into the realm of the college educated.
Baker's mentions have been burning all day, and rightfully so; the younger brother received his acceptance letter to Yale, and he wanted to share a wonderful story with his readers and followers.
I'm happy for Johnny and George, the two brothers profiled by Baker. I'm just as happy for Billy, who got to tell their story, and for his chance to stay with these two young men -- treating them as more than mere sources to an award for enterprise reporting.
But I couldn't help but ponder on this story, and put it into the current journalism world. Namely, although this story is only a couple of years old, I wonder if it would pass in today's newspaper climate.
In the world of online news, social media reports and instant readership, would this story have come to full fruition? Would a publisher of any newspaper, yet alone one the size of the Globe, allow a reporter as much time as Baker received to finalize this story?
The countless hours riding the bus to and from school with the boys. Attending all of their classes. Eating dinner with them. Sitting in the office of their school's headmaster.
Could this have been done while posting 3-5 blog posts per day and filling the ever-increasing "news hole" where today's news is old news 15 minutes from now?
I don't have an answer. I want to say yes, that some publisher out there would allow it, that some reporter would tackle such an assignment.
But I don't know.
While this reporter is hitting the pavement to flesh out the perfect long-form story, there are countless blog posts, recaps, breaking news alerts and "analyses" being posted -- even on his own newspaper's website. The lack of contribution from this reporter means fewer clicks each day, and fewer advertising dollars that go with them.
If it wouldn't happen today, that's a shame. Johnny and George deserved to have their story told two years ago, just as there are hundreds of Johnnies and Georges out there who deserve the same treatment tomorrow.
The only question is: who is going to tell that story?

Internet and Amateur Journalism

This is a (mostly) professional website, where I catalogue my clips, experience and job-seeking materials. With that said, I won't go into too many rants or diatribes in this space. But it's been nearly six months since I received a master's degree in magazine, newspaper and online journalism from Syracuse University.
In that half-year, I have yet to find serious work in my profession.
Zip. Zilch. Nada.
The closest I've come is an unpaid internship with one of Utah's leading radio voices, covering BYU football and men's basketball broadcasts "the Voice of the Cougars." While I am grateful for the opportunities this experience has brought me, I would be lying if I said this is what I expected after receiving a master's degree from the No. 1 journalism school in the United States.
Still, I trudge onward — trying to make this field work, and content in the knowledge that people need journalism. (Even if they don't know it)
It's not that there is a lack of newspapers, magazines or websites to showcase my work. On the contrary, the Internet has made those abundant. With a few keystrokes and some moderate knowledge of HTML5, I can create a website in minutes that covers just about anything I would desire. This website was created in a relatively short time, and it's served my needs well.
The problem, then, is how to monetize this effort. The Internet has brought media to the masses. But what it hasn't brought is capitalism. In the new media, everything is free, and no one knows any better because they haven't had to live in a world where "content" is provided at a cost. (On a side note, I hate that word "content" — it makes what I do sound like a mere filler space for posting another ad on the World Wide Web).
I won't pretend to have the answers. A lot more intelligent men and women are working on ways to turn Web and mobile eyeballs into dollar signs. But I do know this current system can't last forever. Indeed, it can't last much longer.
We're on our last leg as journalists. If the industry doesn't find a way to use the Internet for business' sake, then we will need to abandon it altogether as a newsgathering medium — or fall beneath the hand of amateur bloggers and "content providers" who aren't afraid to post something for free.
Until then, I'll keep trudging on. I know the answer is out there. I just hope it isn't out of my own reach.
And I'll even add my own thoughts to the free marketplace of ideas: thoughts on joblessness, the Internet and the future of journalism.
Stay tuned, Webbies.

Talkin' Ads at the Super Bowl

Like all years, there were a lot of Super Bowl ads in 2013. Many of them hit, and a lot of them missed. And while an overall disappointing ad day came to a close, I thought of a few of the best examples of the Brand Bowl — for good and bad. 

Here are five:

GoDaddy.com

The domain host and its longtime trademark Danica Patrick have been known to straddle the line, with mixed results, in the past. And few have forgotten GoDaddy’s support of Internet limiting acts PIPA and SOPA. But this year, the company’s Super Bowl commercial was just weird.

Setting a super model-gorgeous woman next to the classic book nerd and computer techie was weird. Labeling them their domain registry and Web hosting platform was weirder. And then making them kiss while the cameras zoomed in ... well, that’s just awkward.

Love it or hate it, I guess that’s one way to make people talk about you.

Taco Bell seniors-gone-wild.

I’ve been seeing a lot of support on Twitter for this commercial, but I don’t get it. Not only is the remixed Spanish cover of Fun.’s “We are Young” awkward and mistranslated in several spots, but I’m not sure what Taco Bell has to do with the elderly or any age group hanging out on late nights. 

Maybe it was something a few people did in 2002. But does that really happen any more? Strange branding.

Coke See-The-Good.

The soda giant went a little different with this one, using security cameras to show strangers performing random acts of kindness, such as returning a wallet dropped on the ground and buying lunch for the elderly homeless man on the street. It was a nice sentiment, but the emotion of it was overshadowed by later ads — namely Budweiser (#Clydesdales) and Jeep.

Also, there's only one Coke ad people will remember this year.

Jeep/USO Support the Troops.

This one didn’t even seem like an ad, which probably makes it among the most effective. Jeep partnered with the USO to send a message of support, narrated by Oprah, to the U.S. troops engaged in military operations overseas. The commercial shows several of them as they are returning home to civilian life, meeting spouses, children and other family members. 

On a similar note, Ram Trucks' "God made a farmer" ad also struck emotional chords with the viewers.

Oreo.

Sure, the cookie maker aired a mildly humorous commercial early that included a series of fights in library whispers —and who hasn’t argued with their friends over the better part of an Oreo, cookies or cream?

But this award really goes to a genius moment of opportunistic advertising — and it was all free.

Oreo released this ad on its Facebook and Twitter pages during what will later be known as the Infamous Super Bowl Blackout of 2013. Quick, witty and instantly tweetable; the ad hit 10,000 retweets before the fourth quarter. 

Bravo, Oreo. Some opportunistic designer better be getting paid tomorrow.