Spot.us
I checked out David Cohn's community funded reporting site... and I am intrigued. The concept makes sense, remove the advertisers and The Man from the equation. The stories that are fully funded and viewable on the site are unique. As a reader there is something very powerful about being in control of content. The community funded approach is beyond nytimes.com logging my click stream and known what stories I want to read... if controlling the creation of a story was not desirous... do you think that Hearst and Pulitzer would have been in the business? I was mostly interested in how the writers come up with their target price tag. Hell, I'd let people click their little fingers away until the donate bar exploded. I'm being facetious. Props to Cohn. The digital age is all about innovation. After reading blog after blog about how scary and earth-shattering the switch to digital, I lose sympathy. There are other ways to succeed... I can't say that I know how to right now, but I am confident that the future isn't as gloomy as the business makes it out it be.
As an editor I feel that your sites business model must be like Cohn's. I'm not sure how successful this microphilantrophy would work if it were to compliment traditional advertising funded news.
I'm a bit unresponsive to the link/newswire article. I think I'm done with the linking idea.
I think it is a sign of hope that participants in the anthropology surveys discussed in Jim Kennedy's article are wanting stories with depth. I feel like whoever the man is in charge would prefer my generation to be content with snippets of news... just enough to get by in conversation. The 1-2-3 model makes sense... make a single story accessible via differ modes of consumption. I have such a difficult time understanding the newsrooms qualms. I think of myself mildly informed; I certainly could and should be more informed but that is a result of my own laziness. I don't find myself text links on my phone, I've never send a news video on my phone, and the day I start this whole twitter business is the day I am forced to. Is it completely necessary to adopt a journalism model to compliment the new modes of information communication? As an editor, the one case that I would see myself developing is the realm of podcast. I will make a generalization... but I think it is safe to say that a majority of Americans have some sort of mp3 player. If as a reader, I had a loyalty to a certain news site I would most certainly appreciate the mornings news reported via a podcast in the distinct news style that draws my loyalty to the news org. I guess I am as reluctant as the 55-year-old cigarette smoking editor that is perfectly content with an inkjet printer.
I am laughing to myself because I just opened the last article for this week's blogs and I believe the last sentence I wrote was about James P. Gannon.
I think an interesting business model would be to incorporate Gannon's one-man show with the microphilanthropic concept. Gannon expressed the difficulties in maintaining RappVoice alone. However, a downside.. Gannon said he had few individuals in the community willing to write for his publication. I think this model would best suit an urban setting or a larger community. Community funded reporting can be supplemented with daily news written by a small (1-2) writing staff. The issue always comes back to revenue. Ideally, I would have a community funded reporting model and a small fraction of the donation would contribute to maintaining the site (and pay my bills). Original daily reporting would also take place and the revenue from local advertisements would again mostly support the editor. I am not completely sure how linking revenue works... but the site could also link to larger local papers.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Presentation
News without deadlines
Palliative Care: when enough is enough
Investigations: At The Edge Of Life : Dallas Morning News
- Emphasis on videos
- when is enough enough
a. family's willingness to let go
- Conversation with video editor Sonya N. Hebert
a. sensationalized?
b. willingness of participants
c. humanity
Who decides when you die? : The Boston Globe
Breaking News: Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Bernie Madoff's Clients: The Official List : The Business Insider
- Slideshow
List of Madoff clients runs in thousands : cnn.money.com
Palliative Care: when enough is enough
Investigations: At The Edge Of Life : Dallas Morning News
- Emphasis on videos
- when is enough enough
a. family's willingness to let go
- Conversation with video editor Sonya N. Hebert
a. sensationalized?
b. willingness of participants
c. humanity
Who decides when you die? : The Boston Globe
Breaking News: Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme
Bernie Madoff's Clients: The Official List : The Business Insider
- Slideshow
List of Madoff clients runs in thousands : cnn.money.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
‘I’m not an inventor. I’m an improver. I see things that are wrong, and I improve them. And this is broken.’
Crowdsourcing
After reading Jeff Howe's article, I am left with the question: what is the difference between a freelance journalist and a 'crowdsourcing'/citizen journalist? More simply, who is considered a journalist? Does declaring a job title as journalist make a journalist? I don't like this divide between real journalists and readers who write articles. A BA from Ithaca College certainly does not make me feel like a journalists.
However, I find myself thinking hypocritically... because I agree, on the surface, that crowdsourcing websites are complimentary not competition to traditional news organizations. Maybe I don't really believe that, perhaps it is an idea I feel I should believe.
It makes a lot of financial sense to engage the readers in contributing. If anything, having a 'contributor' in regions that money limits stationing 'real journalists' provides infinite story tips that never would be heard.
I'm still hung up on my thoughts on real journalists... I think I need to sit on it for a bit, perhaps I will get back to it later in this entry.
The Blogging Journalist
As an editor, I would encourage my writers to blog. One concept that I've stressed in my entries is to create some sort of loyalty between the writer and the readers, not particularly between the writer and the news org. Blogging will allow this to happen. I agree with Paul Bradshaw, journalists can receive great leads from their readers via blog. Writers should be thinking of the readers when writing, and not just in terms of marketing but a genuine concern for the readers best interest.
page-view whores
Does it really matter who breaks the story first, when the 'competition' is just seconds behind? Everything is at high-speed these days that it doesn't seem to matter anymore. As Bob Steele points out, twitters and high connectivity can create major ethical dilemmas and situations where few news orgs could pass an actual malice test. Where is the quality and thoroughness? I guess I see myself as more of a feature writer and am just having a difficult time understanding the need to twitter information at a child's funeral.
I am not as tech savvy as I once was... however I would encourage my writers to use the new tools of today. I think the issue is that journalists who are raised by these new tools will fail in the courts eyes in using standard journalistic practices. I don't think you can attribute crucial facts of a story to someone who commented on your blog. But this issue was addressed in cases like Curtis v Butts, just without the blogs and tweets. Source credibility always has been important... it shouldn't change to do the digital age.
Do what you do best. Link to the rest
So I checked out the BusinessWeek Business Exchange... and I liked it. There was an obvious separation between the magazine website and the Exchange community. The fact that a news org simultaneously produces a news site and a community Exchange is impressive. Money is the key, and even if readers are spending more time on the exchange and leaving BusinessWeek, BusinessWeek still makes money from outsourcing... I'm actually kind of confused as to how the exchange makes money. There is one large banner ad and then a small box of Google ads. I guess the idea is to keep BusinessWeek fresh in the readers mind and hopefully become the readers first stop. As I multitask, blog and sniff around the Exchange, I am more and more impressed with the Exchange. Keep the traditional news site and compliment the site with a community of links. The transparency in no preference between the sources of links is great. My loyalty to BusinessWeek is enhanced by the news orgs willingness to redirect me.
I was looking at a highly active users profile and was directed to an article on Bentley University's newspaper... the site has a 'double-click any word' feature that is pretty impressive. A pop up shows what answers.com has to say about the word or key phrase then you can look at what wikipedia has to say about the word. The best thing is it is all done in a pop up and you never leave the original article.
The main idea I will walk away with from this week's readings is the complimentary BusinessWeek Exchange. Why completely revamp the way the news is generated? simply compliment the news. I think this is a safe move. Safe is good for now, but I hope BusinessWeek is still brainstorming.
After reading Jeff Howe's article, I am left with the question: what is the difference between a freelance journalist and a 'crowdsourcing'/citizen journalist? More simply, who is considered a journalist? Does declaring a job title as journalist make a journalist? I don't like this divide between real journalists and readers who write articles. A BA from Ithaca College certainly does not make me feel like a journalists.
However, I find myself thinking hypocritically... because I agree, on the surface, that crowdsourcing websites are complimentary not competition to traditional news organizations. Maybe I don't really believe that, perhaps it is an idea I feel I should believe.
It makes a lot of financial sense to engage the readers in contributing. If anything, having a 'contributor' in regions that money limits stationing 'real journalists' provides infinite story tips that never would be heard.
I'm still hung up on my thoughts on real journalists... I think I need to sit on it for a bit, perhaps I will get back to it later in this entry.
The Blogging Journalist
As an editor, I would encourage my writers to blog. One concept that I've stressed in my entries is to create some sort of loyalty between the writer and the readers, not particularly between the writer and the news org. Blogging will allow this to happen. I agree with Paul Bradshaw, journalists can receive great leads from their readers via blog. Writers should be thinking of the readers when writing, and not just in terms of marketing but a genuine concern for the readers best interest.
page-view whores
Does it really matter who breaks the story first, when the 'competition' is just seconds behind? Everything is at high-speed these days that it doesn't seem to matter anymore. As Bob Steele points out, twitters and high connectivity can create major ethical dilemmas and situations where few news orgs could pass an actual malice test. Where is the quality and thoroughness? I guess I see myself as more of a feature writer and am just having a difficult time understanding the need to twitter information at a child's funeral.
I am not as tech savvy as I once was... however I would encourage my writers to use the new tools of today. I think the issue is that journalists who are raised by these new tools will fail in the courts eyes in using standard journalistic practices. I don't think you can attribute crucial facts of a story to someone who commented on your blog. But this issue was addressed in cases like Curtis v Butts, just without the blogs and tweets. Source credibility always has been important... it shouldn't change to do the digital age.
Do what you do best. Link to the rest
So I checked out the BusinessWeek Business Exchange... and I liked it. There was an obvious separation between the magazine website and the Exchange community. The fact that a news org simultaneously produces a news site and a community Exchange is impressive. Money is the key, and even if readers are spending more time on the exchange and leaving BusinessWeek, BusinessWeek still makes money from outsourcing... I'm actually kind of confused as to how the exchange makes money. There is one large banner ad and then a small box of Google ads. I guess the idea is to keep BusinessWeek fresh in the readers mind and hopefully become the readers first stop. As I multitask, blog and sniff around the Exchange, I am more and more impressed with the Exchange. Keep the traditional news site and compliment the site with a community of links. The transparency in no preference between the sources of links is great. My loyalty to BusinessWeek is enhanced by the news orgs willingness to redirect me.
I was looking at a highly active users profile and was directed to an article on Bentley University's newspaper... the site has a 'double-click any word' feature that is pretty impressive. A pop up shows what answers.com has to say about the word or key phrase then you can look at what wikipedia has to say about the word. The best thing is it is all done in a pop up and you never leave the original article.
The main idea I will walk away with from this week's readings is the complimentary BusinessWeek Exchange. Why completely revamp the way the news is generated? simply compliment the news. I think this is a safe move. Safe is good for now, but I hope BusinessWeek is still brainstorming.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Slow down. You're moving too fast.
Maggie Jackson and David Nicholas discuss a societal issue where the 'future of journalism' seems a superficial concept to dissect. The times they are a changin'. Honestly I don't care if the news world can 'keep up' with the digital explosion of: information now and information quick. Journalists should not act like third world nations whose drive is to catch up to imperialistic superpowers. Journalists need to take a stand. My generation is on the fringe of lacking substance... I deeply fear for the younger generation who knows no other world than the high-speed wireless. The question is never raised as to whether this is ok.... is it ok that our society is a bunch of robots who don't even know how to breathe anymore? Is it ok that there is no depth to our knowledge? Is it ok that in order to catch and keep ones attention there must be flashing lights, interaction, and bells and whistles?
No.
Ok, the behavior of Internet users is flirty and quick. Must it remain this way? This probably sounds idealistic... but online news MUST detach itself from the typical business models that drive the schizophrenic hysteria of the today's news room. Perhaps it is the fundamental tradition of journalism that is the problem. Finally people have an opportunity for alternative outlets and sources... and people are eating it up, however fragmented as it may be.
I don't want more choice. I don't want more. I want someone to help simplify my life. Let all the corporate news outlets duke it out providing more and more until they crash the network... Provide quality writing. Write the stories they aren't writing about. Keep it real. Keep it manageable.
I'm a but confused as to what Persephone Miel concluded about the Media Re:public think tank, and the conversion he/she made. The one conclusion that did stick out was:
"Despite impressive successes, participation in the online media space is not universal; there are populations and ideas that remain underrepresented."
Is everyone online? What is the majority of topic content online? John Kelly's blogosphere seems to say that online information focus is politics and technology. I read an article in this weeks Nation discussing how no one reads anymore. Libraries are closing all over the nation, because budgets cannot keep them open. Libraries are one of the few locations that provide free Internet access. How many people are actually reading online news/blogs? Are traditional news outlets shrinking in circulation because of the digital age... or are people just not reading the news? When I am home, I still enjoy reading The Buffalo News on Sunday morning while sipping my Tim Horton's coffee and eating timbits, while my mother reads the classifieds. I will continue to indulge in this activity as long as the paper shows up in my mailbox. When I read printed news I read whatever is presented to me. When I read news online I typically read the headlines of nytimes.com homepage or am looking for a particular topic. This concept was discussed in last week's blog articles, but I think is still relevant this week. Are people reading the news? and who is reading the news?
The entire digital scare is out of hand. Participatory news is new. If any ass hole can post his thoughts online, he will do it (just look at me). Blogs right-hand man is conspiracy. Conspiracy is attractive.
A comment in one of the the articles stated that traditional news people are concerned about what is going to happen to their jobs. If you can't beat them, join them. Start your own site. Use the professional skills you acquired in traditional news and produce your know credible articles. Seems simple to me.
Blogs are the latest livejournal, and livejournal was quickly passe and so will blogs.
After this week's readings I conclude:
1. Write quality news
2. Let the corporate man deal with hard news
3. Online should be a realm of investigative pieces, or news the agenda setters are not talking about (which is infinite and more important... lets talk about femicide and the hoax that is the federal reserve... the stuff that The Man won't print because it comes back to advertisers and perhaps the few rich and power families that control this planet)
4. It is all about the topic in the digital world.
No.
Ok, the behavior of Internet users is flirty and quick. Must it remain this way? This probably sounds idealistic... but online news MUST detach itself from the typical business models that drive the schizophrenic hysteria of the today's news room. Perhaps it is the fundamental tradition of journalism that is the problem. Finally people have an opportunity for alternative outlets and sources... and people are eating it up, however fragmented as it may be.
I don't want more choice. I don't want more. I want someone to help simplify my life. Let all the corporate news outlets duke it out providing more and more until they crash the network... Provide quality writing. Write the stories they aren't writing about. Keep it real. Keep it manageable.
I'm a but confused as to what Persephone Miel concluded about the Media Re:public think tank, and the conversion he/she made. The one conclusion that did stick out was:
"Despite impressive successes, participation in the online media space is not universal; there are populations and ideas that remain underrepresented."
Is everyone online? What is the majority of topic content online? John Kelly's blogosphere seems to say that online information focus is politics and technology. I read an article in this weeks Nation discussing how no one reads anymore. Libraries are closing all over the nation, because budgets cannot keep them open. Libraries are one of the few locations that provide free Internet access. How many people are actually reading online news/blogs? Are traditional news outlets shrinking in circulation because of the digital age... or are people just not reading the news? When I am home, I still enjoy reading The Buffalo News on Sunday morning while sipping my Tim Horton's coffee and eating timbits, while my mother reads the classifieds. I will continue to indulge in this activity as long as the paper shows up in my mailbox. When I read printed news I read whatever is presented to me. When I read news online I typically read the headlines of nytimes.com homepage or am looking for a particular topic. This concept was discussed in last week's blog articles, but I think is still relevant this week. Are people reading the news? and who is reading the news?
The entire digital scare is out of hand. Participatory news is new. If any ass hole can post his thoughts online, he will do it (just look at me). Blogs right-hand man is conspiracy. Conspiracy is attractive.
A comment in one of the the articles stated that traditional news people are concerned about what is going to happen to their jobs. If you can't beat them, join them. Start your own site. Use the professional skills you acquired in traditional news and produce your know credible articles. Seems simple to me.
Blogs are the latest livejournal, and livejournal was quickly passe and so will blogs.
After this week's readings I conclude:
1. Write quality news
2. Let the corporate man deal with hard news
3. Online should be a realm of investigative pieces, or news the agenda setters are not talking about (which is infinite and more important... lets talk about femicide and the hoax that is the federal reserve... the stuff that The Man won't print because it comes back to advertisers and perhaps the few rich and power families that control this planet)
4. It is all about the topic in the digital world.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Objective Journalism: A contradiction of terms
Psychologist Barry Schwartz points out an issue that plagues my day-to-day activities. Overwhelming choice. I try to simplify my life. Simplicity often leads to routine... but I am ok with that. So the question is... how do we present stories deep within our ever growing library of online newspaper pages?
Ethan Zuckerman discussed how editors often place below the fold an article that a reader might never get to or overlook. The New York Times online tries this, and presents scores of links at the bottom on the homepage. I frequent these novelty links. My issue is, yes I would like to be presented diverse, multicultural and 'serendipitous' options for news coverage... but I don't have the time to look for it.. and I also do not want an individual with a bias to highlight what I should look at.
We have the technology to generate story links via artificial intelligence. I suggest we provide our readers with links randomly with AI. Each time you refresh the page a handful of unique story headlines and links will also refresh. There should be no rhyme or reason... every story from that day or weekly edition is fair game in this random selection.
I think a unique approach is to create a website that performs this generation with hundreds of newspapers... not limiting yourself to a news source that already has a skewed opinion. But... I'm sure this already exists.
Robert Niles' article gave me hope. It is nice to know that their are others out there who understand the contradiction in objective journalism. There are these things called New Journalism and Gonzo Journalism, where I seek refuge. If these alternative approaches to news exist... why am I not supported in writing this way for class? I've mentioned before that blogging is this entity that I wish to separate from journalism. I don't read blogs much... there is something dangerous about it in my mind... maybe I know what my intentions would be if I kept a blog... However I often read the nytimes.com blog on aging. The author makes the subject human again.. she does peddle her interest, however she often says so. What is wrong with writing a news story about my experience and involvement if I say... 'this is what I did and this is what I saw'?
Online news should invest in readers loyalty to the individual writer. The writer should be knowledgeable in the topic field and bias' and opinions should preface the article. If the reader is turned off after reading the preface or writer's bio... so be it.. I'm sure there are two more people to that one who is interested. Have faith in your writers perspective. If this is too suggestive of homogeneous approach to news.... have two writers with different, not necessarily contrasting, viewpoints tackle the same issue. We need in invest, monetarily, in, not the big picture, more than one picture.
Content and community... I really can't elaborate more on Luke Morris' article. I believe my concept on writer loyalty stems from the concept of the two C's. I am not the most hi tech person either so suggesting ways of entering newer new media is beyond me... Twitter is just a buzz word to me... but I guess that gives me reason to explore.
Yes, today's youth express trust issues with mainstream media.. however I think the bigger issue concerning media literacy is the fact that news is new. How can I follow the news if I don't know how we got to this point in time. Mainstream news, specifically TV news speaks to us as if we are kids... however still expect too much in regard to history and context. Perhaps this issue concerns the public school systems more than the media... but the media has more freedom in provoking change. A way to 'save' print is to utilize the web as a means to supply history. I genuinely believe youth readership would increase if that cohort knew what we were talking about. How many 65-year-olds pick up windsurfing on the first try (besides my great-uncle Albert)? Not many. You can't just shove someone into a situation where the foundation is rooted in the past.
Ethan Zuckerman discussed how editors often place below the fold an article that a reader might never get to or overlook. The New York Times online tries this, and presents scores of links at the bottom on the homepage. I frequent these novelty links. My issue is, yes I would like to be presented diverse, multicultural and 'serendipitous' options for news coverage... but I don't have the time to look for it.. and I also do not want an individual with a bias to highlight what I should look at.
We have the technology to generate story links via artificial intelligence. I suggest we provide our readers with links randomly with AI. Each time you refresh the page a handful of unique story headlines and links will also refresh. There should be no rhyme or reason... every story from that day or weekly edition is fair game in this random selection.
I think a unique approach is to create a website that performs this generation with hundreds of newspapers... not limiting yourself to a news source that already has a skewed opinion. But... I'm sure this already exists.
Robert Niles' article gave me hope. It is nice to know that their are others out there who understand the contradiction in objective journalism. There are these things called New Journalism and Gonzo Journalism, where I seek refuge. If these alternative approaches to news exist... why am I not supported in writing this way for class? I've mentioned before that blogging is this entity that I wish to separate from journalism. I don't read blogs much... there is something dangerous about it in my mind... maybe I know what my intentions would be if I kept a blog... However I often read the nytimes.com blog on aging. The author makes the subject human again.. she does peddle her interest, however she often says so. What is wrong with writing a news story about my experience and involvement if I say... 'this is what I did and this is what I saw'?
Online news should invest in readers loyalty to the individual writer. The writer should be knowledgeable in the topic field and bias' and opinions should preface the article. If the reader is turned off after reading the preface or writer's bio... so be it.. I'm sure there are two more people to that one who is interested. Have faith in your writers perspective. If this is too suggestive of homogeneous approach to news.... have two writers with different, not necessarily contrasting, viewpoints tackle the same issue. We need in invest, monetarily, in, not the big picture, more than one picture.
Content and community... I really can't elaborate more on Luke Morris' article. I believe my concept on writer loyalty stems from the concept of the two C's. I am not the most hi tech person either so suggesting ways of entering newer new media is beyond me... Twitter is just a buzz word to me... but I guess that gives me reason to explore.
Yes, today's youth express trust issues with mainstream media.. however I think the bigger issue concerning media literacy is the fact that news is new. How can I follow the news if I don't know how we got to this point in time. Mainstream news, specifically TV news speaks to us as if we are kids... however still expect too much in regard to history and context. Perhaps this issue concerns the public school systems more than the media... but the media has more freedom in provoking change. A way to 'save' print is to utilize the web as a means to supply history. I genuinely believe youth readership would increase if that cohort knew what we were talking about. How many 65-year-olds pick up windsurfing on the first try (besides my great-uncle Albert)? Not many. You can't just shove someone into a situation where the foundation is rooted in the past.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)