Steroids on college campuses

I decided to search google to possibly get some ideas. The first site I found was https://www.elitefitness.com/forum/anabolic-steroids/ordering-gear-college-campus-215516.html. It brought up a, in my opinion, rather good idea. The link leads to a wall where a bunch of people are commenting about whether or not to get steroids sent through UPS to the college address or get a P.O. box instead. There is an obvious story here in that if you could get any of these people to actually interview with you, or just steal their comments but that is unethical right, you could easily get a story about why people do or do not send steroids to their school mailbox as there seems to be plenty of opinions both ways.
The second article I found could almost fit in as it has some statistics about steroids in college. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2383927 is a link to a site that has the results of a study done to determine steroid use in college. They tested over 50,000 random college students and found that between 1993 and 2001 steroid use in men went up from .3 percent to almost 1 percent. This could kind of tie in with how they recieve it because if you can get it sent to your box, then it would make it easier hence the larger number doing it.
The third site I found talked about the prices of steroids on the black market. http://www.steroid.com/black.php links to the site. This could easily fit into both other ideas. Who can afford it, is it cheaper then it used to be, etc.
The fourth article I found talks about why student athletes would use steroids and consequences that keep them using steroids. http://www.helium.com/items/1011668-consequences-of-steroids-use-in-college-sports?page=2. A little of prodding into some of the people you find that have taken them an gotten caught, or some research and probably anonomous quotes from some who are currently using them could make a good story into why they use steroids.
The fifth article I found has some good basic facts i.e., what steroids do for you, adverse affects, and signs of steroid use, that would be a helpful addition to any article about steroids. http://www.teendrugabuse.us/teensteroids.html.
The sixth and last site I found had a little more facts about steroid use. again a helpful site to supplement the rest of the research done. http://www.campuscompare.com/college-resources/college-athletics/steroids-in-college-sports/

Twitter

After reading all four articles, I don't believe twitter is journalism. however, I do believe it can be a start to find some stories at some times. maybe something happens and it is put on twitter and a journalist sees it and investigates and it turns out to be a credible story. I just believe that there has to be more research put into it then just someone, anyone, writing something on twitter. I also thought that the last story about the mother and her family was completely pointless. I don't care whether or not her daughters want to twitter with her.

investigative journalism

I liked what the sites try to do, uncover important stories that the papers and news stations don't cover, but there is no way they can keep it up without getting more funding. I don't think they should become more like the paper or the news station, but they do need to find advertisers or better funding, because they will slowly start to close and go out of business if they continue to rely on what little they have right now. 

washington post website

I agree with Tom Grubisich about how the site doesn't do enough to try and help the community, and if that is what Katharine Weymouth meant when she said "engagement" then the site has failed in that respect. However, I don't agree that they need to be like a facebook, which Mr. Grubisich was comparing the site to the entire article. If people want to visit a sit like facebook, visit facebook. there are plenty of sites like that all over the web, a newspaper can't make their site like that, it just isn't practical, they can make links to it, like a lot of sites do, but they can't make their site a pseudo facebook.

Air Congress site

The last site I chose was aircongress.com, which was a blog written during the Republican National Convention. It was not really biased as far as I could tell. It was accurate, as the person who wrote the blog was there and filmed some of it. The last post was on September 4th 2008. This was the most journalistic site I viewed out of all four.

National World Blog

The third site I chose was nationalworld.com. This turned out to be a blog which appears to be pro republican/conservative party. The particular article that is posted on the link we were given is from November of 2008, but I would assume that there are more recent posts. This isn't really a journalistic web site, it is completely an opinion written by the author, William Brady.

Our Media site

the second site I chose was the ourmedia.org. The site confused me from the time I opened it to the time I closed the window. It seemed to be more of a site designed for people to put whatever they wanted up on the internet. It is run by outhink media and drupal, I think. The design of the site wasn't all that good, although that could be because the computer I'm on doesn't have the plugins installed to see half the page anyway, also why it could be confusing looking at it. This site is probably more opinion then journalism since it appears to allow anyone to put whatever they want on the site.

Move On organization website

The first website I looked at was Moveon.org. The website is run by the move on organization, and is biased toward the democratic or liberal party. The content today was mostly about Obama's economic recovery plan and how the conservatives are attacking it. So I would assume the content is whatever is currently going on in Washington that concerns the average American, or that is what they say they do. The site seems to be more for people to join and start petitions and such, and the site is very much set up to try and get members. The first thing you see is a giant ad to sign a petition then next to it a place to sign up to become a member. I don't think this is a particularly journalistic website, it seems more to be an opinion site more than anything else.

Cornell University's comm site

The last site I chose was Cornell's site, because my rich friend goes there, but I digress. I finally was able to find a site that was as bad or worse then FSC's. Cornell's was less visually pleasing then FSC's, if you can imagine, and had less information.

Boston University's comm site

The fourth site I looked at was BU's site. it again looked a lot fresher, cleaner and had more pop then FSC's. It looked a lot more modern. If FSC would touch their site up a little and maybe make it more modern and have more visual interest, the site would look a lot better.

Boston College's comm site

The third site I visited was the BC communication's site. It seemed to pop more then FSC's page. it had pictures of students and faculty throughout the page. I might just think it pops more then FSC's because I am used to FSC's, but come on, who else is sick of the basic red top blue background and boringness of the FSC website in general?

UNH comm site

the second site i went to was the University of New Hampshire site. Overall I found the site kind of confusing and very un-user friendly. I believe the FSC site is much better and is more straight forward and helpful.

U Maine comm site

The first site I went to was for the University of Maine. The site was very similar to the FSC communication's department site. the only difference was it had links to all the major papers and channels in the area. it also, in my opinion, seemed cleaner then our site.