But the journalistic apocalypse that so many are predicting may not be as close at hand as some believe. In examining the earliest newspapers, certain characteristics jump out as uncannily similar to characteristics of blogs, particularly regarding structure, content and those who generate content.

Through this lens, the changes journalism is currently undergoing begin to look cyclical rather than disastrous. Perhaps instead of nearing the end, the news is coming full circle.

Blogs and revolutionary-era newspapers bore striking structural resemblance. Early newspapers often had empty space on the back sheet for readers to pencil in their thoughts and then pass the paper along. In this way, early newspapers became a way for the reader to share their ideas.

In his book Freshest Advices, R. M. Wiles of McMaster University writes, “More than one London printer of newspaper regularly left space at the end of the third page of his paper for use by customers who might wish to add written communications when they sent the newspapers to friends or relatives in the country.” This allowed for an early communication between readers.

Blogs perform this function as well, by allowing readers to leave comments and interact with each other in a similar way.

Another structural feature of blogs that is reminiscent of revolutionary-era newspapers is the structure of the staff producing the material in whatever form it takes. Early newspapers were not run by large staffs – they were often one-man shows, or at least run by very small groups of people.

Eric Burns writes in his book Infamous Scribblers, “Most of the time the printer had to locate the news himself. He had no reporters to assist him. There was no such thing as an editorial staff. There were no stringers or freelancers or wire services. There were no copy boys or summer interns. There were no fact-checkers or ombudsmen or secretaries. In some cases there was not even an apprentice around to send on an errand.” Printers were responsible for much more content in early newspapers than they are today.

Blogs often take this same structure – because barriers to entry are virtually nonexistent (all a blogger needs is access to a computer), an individual can write and produce their content entirely on their own. This movement away from large staffs is certainly reminiscent of the do-it-yourself nature of early newspapers, and indicates that in a few decades, news may very well move back towards a model with more staff and a more clearly-defined editorial hierarchy.

A second area of similarity between the earliest American newspapers and blogs can be seen in examining the content of these news outlets. Both revolutionary-era papers and blogs for the most part show a remarkable lack of objectivity. Early papers were unabashedly partisan, and event went so far as to mobilize readers for the purpose of a particular political agenda.

Blogs can be similarly partisan and subjective. The material in blogs is not always run through the same editorial process as print content, so statements of opinion often remain in the pieces.

In the paper, “Blogging by the Rest of Us,” Stanford University professors Diane J. Schiano and Bonnie A. Nardi and University of California professors Michelle Gumbrecht and Luke Swartz write, “Blogs vary greatly in nature and content. Most are unabashedly partisan, infused with personal perspective and attitude.”

Content in early newspapers was also similar to that of blogs in the sense that they often aggregated material instead of producing it themselves. Eric Burns writes that plagiarism was considered the norm, and even Benjamin Franklin borrowed heavily from other writers of the time.

Blogs are somewhat infamous for their aggregating tendencies. Perhaps the best example of this is The Huffington Post, an online news outlet that aggregates articles from other sources. The popular website, The Drudge Report, does much the same thing.

Revolutionary-era newspapers and blogs also have similar content in the sense that neither outlet was/is above direct criticism of peer outlets. Bloggers call one another out on a regular basis, and will directly reference and attack others’ posts. They also have the option to leave critical comments at the end of a post for the blogger to read.

Likewise, the earliest American newspapers were also comfortable with unmistakable criticism of other newspapers. Students of history may recall the insults traded between early journalists James Franklin and John Campbell in the 18the century.

Another parallel between early newspapers and blogs is those actually creating content. Those writing and printing revolutionary-era newspapers did not have formal training in writing. Journalism was considered a trade rather than a profession.

Bloggers often lack formal journalism training as well – unlike writing for the New York Times, where writers often come up through the ranks of journalism school and a series of positions at smaller newspapers. There are virtually no barriers to entry – bloggers need not pass any sort of test or have had any level of education in order to set up shop and begin turning out content.

Another similarity between the individuals creating blog content and those who were responsible for the earliest American newspapers is the frequent use of pseudonyms. In early newspapers, writers often masked partisan views with another name. Eric Burns writes that Sam Adams alone went by the names Philo Patriae, Paces, Vindex the Avenger, Determinatus, Decant Arma Togae, Principiis Obsta, Valerius Poplicola, Candidus, Populus, An American, A Tory, Alfred, A Son of Liberty, A Puritan and A Religious Politician (among others). Alexander Hamilton wrote as Publius, Pacificus, Catallus, Americanus, Metallus, Horatius, Philo Camillus, Tully Monitor, Phocion, The Continentalist, and H.G. (among others). The tendency for authors to adopt pseudonyms was common, and protected writers from the backlash against their content.

Bloggers have a similar tendency, seen in the outing this summer of South Texas College of Law professor John F. Blevins who had been writing as “Publius” at the blog Obsidian Wings. In a post responding to the outing, Blevins wrote, “I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons.

Professionally, I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems. And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients. I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible — and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts.”

Blevins sought anonymity, much like Sam Adams and Alexander Hamilton, to protect himself from association with the content he was producing

What all of these similarities between blogs and early newspapers ultimately point to is the cyclical nature of the evolution of the way the news is packaged and distributed. Many, including New Yorker writer Eric Alterman, have decried the transition to online media as a death sentence for the newspaper model. Alterman wrote in his March 31, 2008 article “Out of Print” that, “Three centuries after the appearance of Franklin’s Courant, it no longer requires a dystopic imagination to wonder who will have the dubious distinction of publishing America’s last genuine newspaper.”

Alterman is correct in his assumption that the current model is failing, but is short-sighted in his failure to recognize the familiarity of the changes the newspaper model is currently undergoing (and has been undergoing since newspapers began).

There will always be a demand for the news in some form, because people will always want to know what is going on in the world around them. The challenge ahead lies in developing a model that will capitalize on this demand and yield profit, much in the same way the newspaper model once did.

Alterman and similarly pessimistic individuals can take heart in the fact that, as demonstrated, the changes in journalism are nothing new and the business model will eventually catch up to technology.

A Gallup poll released on May 15, 2009 indicates that a greater percentage of Americans identify themselves as pro-life than has been seen since 1995 when Gallup began asking this particular question.

The younger generations – a group who voted in large numbers for President Obama — do not seem exempt from this trend, either.

On the TYC: Traditional Young Catholic blog, seventeen year-old blogger Thomas L. of Nederland, Texas, a self-proclaimed “struggling sinner” wrote a post entitled “Reason #573463 Why I Hate Abortion,” dedicating his Mother’s Day post to the discussion of abortion clinics, which he describes as sickening.

As of yet, it isn’t clear exactly how the Stupak amendment would play out in practice, and what the ramifications would be for voters of the same mind as Thomas L. Politico reported that, “By teeing up a public battle over abortion in the healthcare bill now before the Senate. Congressional Democrats could be risking more than just the fate of legislation.”

According to the Washington Times, in 2008 Catholics voted for then-Senator Obama over Senator McCain by a margin of nine points, despite the fact that Democrats have typically been in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion. That is to say, that whether or not the Stupak amendment would have any substantive consequences for Catholic Americans, Democrats may be losing those votes merely by virtue of the fact that they are debating abortion – a historically polarizing issue.

Blogger Thomas Peters believes that the Stupak amendment will do little to change the status quo, although he disagrees with abortion on principle. Peters runs the blog American Papist, and has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, BBC World News and various other news outlets. Peters says his blog is read primarily by young Catholic men and women, and that American Papist one of the top five Catholic blogs on the internet in terms of readership.

Peters says of the Stupak amendment, “It is an ‘abortion neutral’ amendment which preserves the status quo which has been in place in this country for 30 years ensuring that government funds to not pay for abortions. I am deeply disappointed that the pro-abortion lobby is trying to claim that the Stupak will take away abortion access and funding which is already in place.”

Planned Parenthood begs to differ.

The Planned Parenthood website reads, “The Stupak amendment prohibits any coverage of abortion in the public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion. It also prohibits private health insurance plans from offering through the exchange a plan that includes abortion coverage to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals.”

“Essentially the amendment violates the underlying principle of healthcare reform, as articulated by President Obama, that no one will lose the benefits they currently have. The truth is that under the Stupak amendment, millions of women would lose benefits that they currently have and millions more would be prohibited from getting the kind of private sector health care coverage that most women have today. To put a fine point on it, millions of women would lose private coverage for abortion services and millions more would be prohibited from buying it with their own money,” according to the Planned Parenthood website.

Peters says he doesn’t necessarily demand drastic steps from President Obama on the issue of abortion.

“At minimum, I strongly oppose any efforts within healthcare reform that will provide new funds for women who want to terminate their pregnancies, but not provide money to agencies which promote adoption and concrete care to new mothers,” Peters said. “President Obama promised to reduce the number of abortions and all the studies show that public funding of abortions will increase their number.”

And for Peters, the issue of abortion is critical when casting a vote.

“I would rather not go to the polls than vote for a pro-abortion Democrat,” Peters said.

Obama ordered a cheeseburger.  The problem may not be immediately apparent – after all, who doesn’t eat an unhealthy meal every once in a while? But the issue is this: it has become more than every once in awhile for the president, and he is setting a very public and very bad example for one of the most overweight countries in the world –where the obese now outnumber the merely overweight.

President Barack Obama came to office, promising, among other things, to address the nation’s high obesity rate – particularly for the drain it creates on the already struggling American healthcare system. But aside from the occasional pick-up game of basketball or weekend round of golf, President Obama has done little to show Americans the importance of diet and exercise. In his highly visible position, Obama is wasting an opportunity to set an example that could improve the overall health of this country.

This is an expensive and deadly issue that Obama needs to take more seriously. Forbes estimated in 2007 that obesity costs about $93 billion in direct medical costs, constituting about 9% of what the nation spends on healthcare. Obese people are more likely to miss work, too, which costs employers approximately $4 billion annually. The site WebMD estimated in February that teen obesity is as deadly as smoking. In the face of statistics such as these, it’s shocking and disheartening that Obama has not made more of an effort.

In November of 2008, the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University’s School of Law sent a list of recommendations concerning obesity to Obama’s Health and Human Services transition team. The list included almost 50 suggestions, including federal taxes on unhealthy food and beverages, the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Bill, and more stringent federal laws to restrict food advertisements directed at children.

But as pressing as the issue is, obesity, as seen through Obama’s policy decisions and also through his own choices regarding food, is clearly not a top item on the agenda for this president.

On October 22, Obama gave a speech outlining his plans to help small businesses obtain loans, and asked Congress to increase the maximum amount that growing businesses are able to borrow. During this speech, the President honored Joel and Alicia Mehr of Pete’s Apizza, a pizza restaurant in Columbia Heights.

The DCist reported that Obama felt these initiatives would help restaurants like Pete’s Apizza – which he recommended everyone try – continue to succeed. And while small businesses certainly can use the boost in these tough economic times,  the nation’s waistline cannot. These endorsements seem to come at the cost of credibility for a President who came to office concerned about the health and wellbeing of the United States.

This is not to say that this administration cannot address food in a positive way. Even as her husband eats burgers and pizza, it is First Lady Michelle Obama who has taken steps towards improving this country’s relationship with food. The First Lady has embodied a brand of moderation that is both relatable and attainable, while simultaneously making conscious efforts so address the issue of obesity in this country.

Former first ladies have usually picked projects they hope to work on while in office. Jacqueline Kennedy famously worked for the cause of historic preservation, and Laura Bush worked to improve literacy. And while early speculation was that Michelle Obama would spend her time working to advocate for US military families, she seems to have picked up a new pet project: the fight against childhood obesity. Perhaps the most visible manifestation of her dedication to the cause is the White House vegetable garden.

Situated on the South Lawn, Michelle Obama’s 1,100 square-foot organic vegetable garden supplies the White House kitchen with more than 55 varieties of fresh vegetables.  In a high-profile event in March, Michelle invited 23 fifth graders from nearby Bancroft Elementary School to help plant, then later harvest and cook the produce grown in the garden, in hopes of educating the children about the importance of healthy eating.

Michelle Obama has also reached out to a larger national audience regarding nutrition through a series of appearances on popular television shows.

According to the New York Times, Michelle Obama will reveal the secret ingredient on the popular Food Network show “Iron Chef America” in January, 2010. An estimated 1.5 million viewers will watch White House executive chef, Cristeta Comerford team up with Bobby Flay to take on Mario Batali and Emeril Lagasse in the Iron Chef competition. The chefs will compete to create dishes featuring the secret ingredient – anything from the White House garden.

And on November 3, popular NBC weight-loss show “The Biggest Loser” taped an episode at the White House where contestants picked vegetables from Michelle Obama’s garden, and adjourned to the White House kitchen to prepare a salad together. Clearly Michelle Obama is trying to send a message.

In the episode, Assistant White House Chef Sam Kass tells contestants that President Obama’s favorite vegetable is broccoli, but that really, he enjoys eating anything green. This message might be more believable if the President made healthier decisions when dining out, as those meals are better-publicized and more likely to make an impression on Americans.

It is unfortunate that the daily goings-on of the White House kitchen are not as well-documented as the restaurant meals that the press pool covers, because it seems as though the Obama family sits down to well-balanced meals full of vegetables and other fresh ingredients every night at the White House. It is very difficult to set an example from behind closed doors, however, and the president should demonstrate these healthy eating habits as readily in public as he seems to at home.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, “These days [Obama] stays away from junk food and instead snacks on MET-Rx chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and drinks Black Forest Berry Honest Tea, a healthy organic brew.” Yet in the same article, Obama professed to a crowd in Lebanon, Mo., that he has started to love junk food. In any case, if the president really is making healthier food decisions, he would do well to make them more publicly.

On the campaign trail, there was speculation that Obama’s food choices were often tailored to make him seem more relatable, and just like everyone else. He should remember, however, that 34% of Americans – the population he is trying to identify with – are obese.  The president has a unique opportunity to take a leadership position in terms of the nation’s health – simultaneously creating a healthier country and relieving some of the strain on the healthcare system – by ordering a salad every once in a while.

That is not to say that the First Family can never enjoy a treat – Michelle Obama has exemplified moderation in her food decisions. Michelle and daughter Malia visited Good Stuff Eatery for burgers this summer. The mother-daughter pair also sampled a variety of milkshakes, including vanilla, cocoa, toasted marshmallow, and Milky Way Malt. Michelle sets a good example most of the time, but is also human in a way that makes her more endearing, relatable, and successful in the example she sets.  Ultimately, Michelle Obama couples her moderation with actual health-related initiatives, and in doing so, surpasses her husband’s influence on this particular issue.

Meanwhile, Obama’s food choices have been questionable at best.  The president grew up in Hawaii, home of the Hawaiian plate lunch – a meal he publicly enjoyed on the 2008 campaign trail.  These lunches typically consist of two scoops of white rice and a serving of mayonnaise-laden macaroni salad. This combination is typically topped off with some form of meat, and covered in brown gravy. The New York Times wrote, “It all seems like odd fare for a man as bookmark-then as Mr. Obama, who seems to treasure his treadmill.”

Five Guys is another restaurant that President Obama has visited during his time in office.  This Zagat-rated burger joint has a simple menu, boasting hamburgers, cheeseburgers, bacon cheeseburgers, hot dogs, and not much else. A Five Guys cheeseburger has 840 calories, 500 of which are from fat. At 55 total grams of fat, and 26.5 grams of saturated fat, it’s easy to wonder what Obama was thinking. The danger in Obama publicly attending Five Guys is that there are over 450 locations in more than 30 states, making it much easier for Americans to follow Obama’s lead.

Obama also stopped by Ben’s Chili Bowl in January. Located in Washington’s U Street district, this restaurant is a veritable institution whose owner, Ben Ali, died this fall.  The then President-elect Obama ordered a chili dog and cheese fries – two items surely not found on the plates of the health-conscious.

What this boils down to is a disheartening trend. President Obama’s food choices ultimately undermine his credibility. Obama is a slim man, to be sure, but Americans are no closer to improving their own health when they learn that he enjoyed a chili dog and cheese fries for lunch.

None of this is to say that the First Family can’t occasionally indulge in food that is nutritionally less than ideal. Burgers and fries are acceptable options, in moderation.  The Obama family – particularly Barack — would do well to keep in mind that they are setting an example for one of the most overweight countries in the world and that all eyes are on them. With their tremendous popularity and constant position in the public eye comes the responsibility to lead the way in good decision-making – and that includes food.

With that said, the ball is in Obama’s court. Would you like fries with that, Mr. President?

I am a correspondent for Scoop44 (now ScoopDaily), what the Washington Post has called “One of the smarter, slicker political websites,” yet I have struggled to get anyone in the White House to take me seriously. We are the recipients of a two-year, $242,800 grant from the Knight Foundation, to expand our journalistic capabilities to cover President Obama as well broader political and cultural news.

Our readers are primarily young people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are not of one particular political party, but want to know what is going on in politics – and inside the White House.

Gaining access to the White House Press Briefing Room isn’t the issue. Given the pertinent information and pending a clean background check, the press office seems more than content to hand young writers a red plastic press pass and let them play journalist for the day.

I perceived from the beginning that there might be a problem with my visit. After emailing a Press Assistant to request security clearance, I received an email in response suggesting that I “feel free” to reach out to the Director of Specialty Media instead. Miffed, I decided to go in anyway.

Once inside, I met the same Press Assistant I had corresponded with via email, and was initially hopeful, until he gave me the phone number for Media Relations, and suggested for the second time that I speak with the Director of Specialty Media. He told me that I really should have called there instead, and with that, returned to his work.

I was annoyed. I wasn’t on a field trip. I was there to do serious work, yet I had immediately been dismissed and I couldn’t understand why. I don’t think it was anything personal either; other Scoop44 correspondents have had the same problem. It’s unfortunate that a president who initially drew so much youth support now heads an administration that is so unhelpful to college-age journalists. And it’s ironic that helping those young people who put him in office is now classified as a “specialty”.

Some might argue that the White House Press Office is already too busy answering to the mainstream media, leaving them no time to deal with less traditional news outlets. But I would argue that this administration stands only to gain from giving interviews to young reporters writing on a generational slant. College students, generally speaking, love Obama. Why wouldn’t the press office capitalize on and sustain that?

Whether or not the White House Press Office is busy with mainstream media, they should make time to speak with legitimate news sources who represent what CNN exit polls calculated as 18% of the vote in the 2008 election. The White House Press Office’s job is to be accountable to the American public, regardless of the age of the reporter asking the questions. This isn’t a question of doing a good deed; it’s good politics.

What all of this boils down to is a pervasive sense of elitism in the White House Press Briefing Room. Odds are, you will be relegated to second-class status if you’re not NBC News.

“President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history,” boasts whitehouse.gov.  While this is a nice sentiment, it has become apparent that it is entirely false.

This speaks to the larger argument that ironically President Obama has overlooked his youth voters, who voted overwhelmingly to put him in office. The situation in the press room isn’t anomalous – it’s indicative of a larger, much more discouraging trend in this administration. When it comes to youthful voters and the issues they care about most, Professor Obama the academic, is seldom visible.

As Obama’s approval ratings have declined, many have asked why this is happening, and more importantly, what the administration can do to reverse the trend. This disenchanted journalist would prescribe a healthy dose of introspection.

This administration has lost touch with its roots – a youth-oriented campaign promising something radically different for this country.

CNN 2008 exit polls revealed that 66% of Americans between 18 and 29 voted to put Obama in office, but now, the National Journal reports that watershed issues like healthcare are costing him youth support.  At this crossroad, it is only appropriate to consider whether Obama has lost something fundamental since last November when he was so enthusiastically elected by young Americans.

One can only hope that Obama will reexamine his relationship with this country’s youth. The press office would be a good place to start. How about an interview?