I'm glad we read about Spot.us in the article by one of its founders, David Cohn, because I think it's important to start pitching ideas about how to save the journalism business model rather than just complain about its failures. However, I don't think Spot.us is it. I'm glad, also, that Cohn realizes that the site has faults as well. From what I've heard, Spot.us has been pretty successful since it's gone live but I'm still very concerned about citizen reporting and a lack of editing. Especially the lack of editing. When reporters are getting paid by the citizens who want to read these stories, are they going to have certain loyalties? Certain biases? Those are important questions without answers. There's no oversight there. How can anyone trust what they're getting? And what's more, who's actually paying for these stories? If I owned a business in town, might it not be the same price to pay a reporter to write what is presented as an unbiased story about my organziation than to pay for advertising - which may or may not be effective to consumers? And in answer to my own question - the people who are paying for stories are people who can afford to spend money on that sort of luxury - the luxury of choosing what the news is. Doesn't that leave a large gap in the demographic of the readership who gets the stories they want told? I think Spot.us is an interesting experiment but could never be used as a business model for the news industry in general.
As Jim Kennedy and Josh Korr also write, it's obvious the industry needs a new model. But I agree with Kennedy that everything is happening so fast that people are scrambling to come up with new ideas, many of which aren't working. I, personally, don't understand the model Korr came up with - "link journalism" sounds like another catchphrase to me and I find it disheartening that after particpatory journalism, citizen journalism and the million other terms they've come up with to reinvent this profession, we are still in this stage. The one element of Korr's plan for a link based exchange that I did agree with; however, was the idea that it could provide readers with a reinstated trust in journalism. It's similar to the idea presetned in last week's reading by the Businessweek editor who created Businessweek Exchange. But I prefer the businessweek model because it separates traditional journalism with the more innovative and experimental ideas. So Businessweek provides both for its readers -but wants them to know that their roots lie in professionalism. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to Korr's model of a link exchange - it's basically just a social network for journalists, which is a good idea, but I don't think we need to overplay it into an idea of a new and separate kind of journalism. That's not journalism and there is a real danger in constantly relabeling the profession because it loosens the ties between it and its deeply-rooted practices.
I appreciated James Gannon's article on the news service he started in Virginia more so than the other models presented in this week's reading. I like the idea that this veteran journalist and editor served as an editor in this capacity as well, the lack of oversight is my main problem with other business models presented to save journalism. And I think that, contrary to the fact that the Web has made the world "flat," people are becoming obsessed with finding a niche. It's almost as if the more people's world are opened up the more they want to retreat back to something small and more managable. We've already seen and read that niche publications are doing well and becoming more popular - I think we can assume location as a sort of niche itself. People want to read about their own niche in the world. I think this is a model that we can use when we are planning our own news sites in class. We should remember to stick to coverage we can manage and not reach too far. We should also remember that Gannon proves that people still want in-depth coverage and analysis, and not every news organization has to switch to a Twitter-like model of brief synapsis.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Feb. 18 reading
I think Jeff Howe hit a few important points in his Nieman article about citizen journalism. It was interesting to read that a former city editor at the Cincinnati Enquirer was now reduced to posting what she said were basically press releases to the Web. The first disturbing part of that prospect is that a city editor has essentially become a community blog monitor. The second disturbing part is that the paper is content to publish public relations-like fodder and pass it off as news. This is the problem with citizen journalism but I know that's not something that's surprising to anyone. In fact, I found most of this article to be repetitive to others we've read in the Nieman Report and elsewhere, though it was nice to see Howe's use of real examples rather than hypothetical situations.
What I liked about Howe's article, though, was the detail about the Cincinnati Enqurier changing the link asking for citizen contributions on its Web site from "Be a Citizen Journalist" to "Get Published" and eventually discussing that really, the public just wants to "Share." I found that to be a key piece of information for planning the news sites we'll build in class. I think instead of relying on reader-generated content for news, we need to keep the contributions within a small radius of topics. I think to assume a news organization can get by without some sort of interactive or community element these days will lead to failure - but you have to be clear on what part of your organization is going to be community run and keep control of the rest. You want your readers to feel involved, so you give them a spot on the Web page - maybe even in the print section, to be really daring. But you have to take reader contributions for what they are - people just wanting to connect with others, share a part of their lives. I don't see any reason why a newspaper can't serve as that outlet, but it shouldn't confuse the motive. I think Businessweek got it right, according to the article by John Byrne. I love the idea of a separate part of the Web site where the content is determined by reader input and interest with results from trusted sources all over the Web and provided by Businessweek. This way, readers still have that connection with Businessweek as a publication that cares about what they care about, but they also have the comfort of knowing that they aren't missing out on any information out there by sticking to businessweek.com. It's a brillant model.
I liked the Bradshaw and Adee articles on journalists who blog and use other social media because it goes to show that the tools that are successful, journalistically, are written by professionals. Communicating with your audience, seeking out sources and information and updating readers are all intelligent, useful, effective and ethical ways for someone to utilize a blog. But as Bradshaw revealed in the example he used of a newspaper using the blog to get the story about a company that had gone bankrupt - only someone with a journalists sense of responsibility would know what to publish, what not to publish and how to go about verifying what he's finding. Bradshaw also points out that bloggers are held more accountable for their mistakes and because of that they are fixed more often and more quickly. Because the sites we are developing in class will most likely have open commenting and community sections, it will be important for us to remember this aspect of responsibility in reporting and commenting ourselves.
These articles were the perfect introduction to the one on ethics by Bob Steele. I don't think that the dilemmas that editors, in particular, face today can be overlooked. It's hard not to give credit to the blogosphere when that's where people are looking for their news - which might also often be called gossip. But, of course, if they thought of it as gossip, the information would never be considered by an editor as a valid source. Is it ethical to report this information then try to balance it with adverse opinions? I with about a million other editors who aren't sure. I think that what's important for editors is to just hold strong to the same basic standards of journalism that have been practiced for years. Yes, it's a new age of journalism. Yes, news gathering and reporting has changed drastically. And yes, there will be certain elements of our standards that will have to evolve with the times. But in general, I think all basic journalism ethics withstand the changes, and editors keep a clear head when presented with new situations to be able to see that.
What I liked about Howe's article, though, was the detail about the Cincinnati Enqurier changing the link asking for citizen contributions on its Web site from "Be a Citizen Journalist" to "Get Published" and eventually discussing that really, the public just wants to "Share." I found that to be a key piece of information for planning the news sites we'll build in class. I think instead of relying on reader-generated content for news, we need to keep the contributions within a small radius of topics. I think to assume a news organization can get by without some sort of interactive or community element these days will lead to failure - but you have to be clear on what part of your organization is going to be community run and keep control of the rest. You want your readers to feel involved, so you give them a spot on the Web page - maybe even in the print section, to be really daring. But you have to take reader contributions for what they are - people just wanting to connect with others, share a part of their lives. I don't see any reason why a newspaper can't serve as that outlet, but it shouldn't confuse the motive. I think Businessweek got it right, according to the article by John Byrne. I love the idea of a separate part of the Web site where the content is determined by reader input and interest with results from trusted sources all over the Web and provided by Businessweek. This way, readers still have that connection with Businessweek as a publication that cares about what they care about, but they also have the comfort of knowing that they aren't missing out on any information out there by sticking to businessweek.com. It's a brillant model.
I liked the Bradshaw and Adee articles on journalists who blog and use other social media because it goes to show that the tools that are successful, journalistically, are written by professionals. Communicating with your audience, seeking out sources and information and updating readers are all intelligent, useful, effective and ethical ways for someone to utilize a blog. But as Bradshaw revealed in the example he used of a newspaper using the blog to get the story about a company that had gone bankrupt - only someone with a journalists sense of responsibility would know what to publish, what not to publish and how to go about verifying what he's finding. Bradshaw also points out that bloggers are held more accountable for their mistakes and because of that they are fixed more often and more quickly. Because the sites we are developing in class will most likely have open commenting and community sections, it will be important for us to remember this aspect of responsibility in reporting and commenting ourselves.
These articles were the perfect introduction to the one on ethics by Bob Steele. I don't think that the dilemmas that editors, in particular, face today can be overlooked. It's hard not to give credit to the blogosphere when that's where people are looking for their news - which might also often be called gossip. But, of course, if they thought of it as gossip, the information would never be considered by an editor as a valid source. Is it ethical to report this information then try to balance it with adverse opinions? I with about a million other editors who aren't sure. I think that what's important for editors is to just hold strong to the same basic standards of journalism that have been practiced for years. Yes, it's a new age of journalism. Yes, news gathering and reporting has changed drastically. And yes, there will be certain elements of our standards that will have to evolve with the times. But in general, I think all basic journalism ethics withstand the changes, and editors keep a clear head when presented with new situations to be able to see that.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Feb. 11 reading (shaping new editorial visions)
I couldn't agree more with Maggie Jackson's piece "Distracted," (especially since as I was reading it I couldn't help but check my Facebook, chat with friends and scan another article online). I think that news consumers are bombarded with information and it's becoming counterproductive - especially for young news consumers who are just forming the habit of reading the news. For example, to simplify my news gathering process, I signed up for Google Reader and subscribed to my favorite news organizations (just a few, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, BBC.com) - within a few days I had abandoned all hope that the RSS feeds would streamline the process. I had more than 1,000 new items to read every day and the list never seemed to diminish. Instead of reading I was forced to scan and never really took in too much of anything. It did seem like sort of a "dumbing down" of the process, as David Nicholas described it.
According to the AP survey that Jackson mentions, that's what most young people are doing anyway. They are too overwhelmed with choices and bombarded with results. I think something to take into consideration when we are developing our news sites is to be a sort of guiding hand to the news consumers. We should use our site to help nuture newcomers into good news consuming behavior. To do that, we should limit the news, or even start small and grow to include a wider range of sources. Imagine if there were technology that could gauge how long a reader spent on each story and the site would judge if he were ready to increase is news intake? But that aside, I think a "nurturing" site is an interesting spin.
John Kelly brings up a good point in his article on 'Mapping the Blogosphere' when he says: "And if journalists want to continue to fulfill the role they have aspired to in the past—to be general interest intermediaries at the crossroads of public discourse—nothing in the actual behavior of bloggers suggests their role would diminish on account of lack of demand for this social function." The conversation about how blogging affects journalism is becoming quickly exhausted - as journalism students, we can't get away from it. I think this statement by Kelly is an effective way of telling journalists to just get over it and get on with business as usual. Blogging doesn't affect journalism, journalism affects blogging. What would bloggers write about if there was no news reported? To take that a step further, what would bloggers have to criticize if MSM would just focus their efforts on doing stellar writing and reporting instead of discovering ways to "stay afloat" above the waves of new, user-generated media?
I do, however, think that it is important for MSM to have an online component accessible to people who blogs may have drawn away. But I think the functions should be separate. The danger comes in mixing your news with your commentary - it's why Op-Ed sections have always been carefully labeled.
Persephone Miel's article and conlcusions approach the topic of the blogoshpere and it's effect on MSM in a more complex way than Kelly's article did. I appreciated seeing the issue from different angles and finding concrete holes at each end. What I found most useful about the conclusions was that there are still many underrepresented views. It got me thinking that an effective aggregate news site might be more than just an automated collector of news headlines and be a group of editors who take topics they find of high public interest and then search high and low for different stories, from different outlets and different angles and aggregate them in one place to present a complete view. It goes without saying that many stories in both the MSM and new media are missing a side of the story - it happens often not just due to mediocre reporting but also resources - but each source always has something beneficial that another source doesn't. So why not have an outsider with the journalistic sense to see a complete story piece it together for the readers?
According to the AP survey that Jackson mentions, that's what most young people are doing anyway. They are too overwhelmed with choices and bombarded with results. I think something to take into consideration when we are developing our news sites is to be a sort of guiding hand to the news consumers. We should use our site to help nuture newcomers into good news consuming behavior. To do that, we should limit the news, or even start small and grow to include a wider range of sources. Imagine if there were technology that could gauge how long a reader spent on each story and the site would judge if he were ready to increase is news intake? But that aside, I think a "nurturing" site is an interesting spin.
John Kelly brings up a good point in his article on 'Mapping the Blogosphere' when he says: "And if journalists want to continue to fulfill the role they have aspired to in the past—to be general interest intermediaries at the crossroads of public discourse—nothing in the actual behavior of bloggers suggests their role would diminish on account of lack of demand for this social function." The conversation about how blogging affects journalism is becoming quickly exhausted - as journalism students, we can't get away from it. I think this statement by Kelly is an effective way of telling journalists to just get over it and get on with business as usual. Blogging doesn't affect journalism, journalism affects blogging. What would bloggers write about if there was no news reported? To take that a step further, what would bloggers have to criticize if MSM would just focus their efforts on doing stellar writing and reporting instead of discovering ways to "stay afloat" above the waves of new, user-generated media?
I do, however, think that it is important for MSM to have an online component accessible to people who blogs may have drawn away. But I think the functions should be separate. The danger comes in mixing your news with your commentary - it's why Op-Ed sections have always been carefully labeled.
Persephone Miel's article and conlcusions approach the topic of the blogoshpere and it's effect on MSM in a more complex way than Kelly's article did. I appreciated seeing the issue from different angles and finding concrete holes at each end. What I found most useful about the conclusions was that there are still many underrepresented views. It got me thinking that an effective aggregate news site might be more than just an automated collector of news headlines and be a group of editors who take topics they find of high public interest and then search high and low for different stories, from different outlets and different angles and aggregate them in one place to present a complete view. It goes without saying that many stories in both the MSM and new media are missing a side of the story - it happens often not just due to mediocre reporting but also resources - but each source always has something beneficial that another source doesn't. So why not have an outsider with the journalistic sense to see a complete story piece it together for the readers?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Shaping new editorial visions, part II
Ethan Zuckerman wrote an interesting piece for the Nieman Report about Serendipity in the news and how when news moves online, readers lose that thrill of finding the unexpected news item on the bottom of the front page. But I don't think the issue is losing serendipity - there's still plenty of that. News aggregators like Yahoo and Google News are constantly refreshing their pages to include stories from all over the Web - most of which the user may never have seen. The real issue is the content, and whether these sites are using their powers for good or evil. Sure, these sites get tons of hits a day, and sure, any user is bound to find something to discuss over the water cooler, but aggregators are not editors. Aggregators disseminate news based on hits, not quality or newsworthiness. This is an important factor to remember as we are creating our own online news publications. We have to remember to constantly be thinking like news editors and not just the owners of an online media business.
But the great thing about our projects is that we will be able to present the news how we like. While I think we need to keep in mind news value, I look forward to presenting news to people our age in conversational tone. What I'm thinking is our news site will be have voice, the vistors will feel like they know the editors. They'll know our opinions and they'll know that some of us favor one kind of story and some of us favor others. Links to the official news sources will always be provided as a way to back up facts - but the content on the site will provide perspective and insight. I agree with Robert Niles that we need passion to replace the dullness that has taken over news and I think the kind of site my group is proposing can do exactly that. It's true that people our age are sick of the "he said, she said, you-figure-it-out" kind of journalism (I loved that line), but I think there is a place for each kind of journalism. Luke Morris might have hit the nail on the head for this one. I think the print newspapers have a good thing going - and though they are in some financial trouble right now, I think that print and Web will eventually find their balance and advertisers will realize that print ads are still the way to go. But anyway, in my idea world of journalism, newspapers stick to their guns but add a livilier element to the news online. I see a newspaper's Web site as a place for conversation between news disseminators and news gatherers.
It really ties right into what David Mindich said in 'Journalism and Citizenship,' (.... I'm starting to think it's not a coincidence that all these articles overlap...) which is that it strengthens the value of the news to have engaged, thoughful citizens participating in the discussion. News should go two ways. On the one hand - people don't want to just be lectured at (even in print) they want things explained. On the other hand - you can't expect people to just sprout out their own news topics or be spontaneously informed about what's going on in the world. That's why news disseminaters still have and always will have the responsibility of providing the foundation for dicussion and thought for the public.
But the great thing about our projects is that we will be able to present the news how we like. While I think we need to keep in mind news value, I look forward to presenting news to people our age in conversational tone. What I'm thinking is our news site will be have voice, the vistors will feel like they know the editors. They'll know our opinions and they'll know that some of us favor one kind of story and some of us favor others. Links to the official news sources will always be provided as a way to back up facts - but the content on the site will provide perspective and insight. I agree with Robert Niles that we need passion to replace the dullness that has taken over news and I think the kind of site my group is proposing can do exactly that. It's true that people our age are sick of the "he said, she said, you-figure-it-out" kind of journalism (I loved that line), but I think there is a place for each kind of journalism. Luke Morris might have hit the nail on the head for this one. I think the print newspapers have a good thing going - and though they are in some financial trouble right now, I think that print and Web will eventually find their balance and advertisers will realize that print ads are still the way to go. But anyway, in my idea world of journalism, newspapers stick to their guns but add a livilier element to the news online. I see a newspaper's Web site as a place for conversation between news disseminators and news gatherers.
It really ties right into what David Mindich said in 'Journalism and Citizenship,' (.... I'm starting to think it's not a coincidence that all these articles overlap...) which is that it strengthens the value of the news to have engaged, thoughful citizens participating in the discussion. News should go two ways. On the one hand - people don't want to just be lectured at (even in print) they want things explained. On the other hand - you can't expect people to just sprout out their own news topics or be spontaneously informed about what's going on in the world. That's why news disseminaters still have and always will have the responsibility of providing the foundation for dicussion and thought for the public.
Shaping new editorial visions, part I
I appreciated the tone of Melilssa Ludtke's introduction to the Winter 2008 Nieman Report on the state of journalism. While the news industry is just bubbling over with new technology and ways that journalists are incorporating it into our everyday practice, has anyone really stepped back and looked at how ridiculous it all seems sometimes? So many things to use for a story we've told perfectly well with paper and pen for years and years. But, here we are. It's not as if I don't enjoy the new technology or think it enhances what we are able to do - I'm definitely for it - but we need to tone down the hype a little.
So I'm not turning a blind eye, as Mark Briggs warns against. I do realize the need to adapt in both the sense of running with the times and creating a new business model - which really run hand in hand. In thinking about our projects, Briggs makes some interesting points about transparency in the newsroom. I think it would be a good idea to have an 'editors comments' section on the Web site we develop with the class, so that readers can be in tune to what the editors think are the best stories of the day and what we have to say about them. Then the readers can comment back and hopefully start a dialogue that way. This also goes along with what Vivian Vahlberg had to say about 'What young people like,' which, by the way, I felt was pretty spot on. Young people have said they appreciate the judgement of journalists over other young people - I think we should go with that. In fact, I wonder how successful a news site that was run by young journalists highlighting the stories they think are important might be?
The idea of journalism as a process instead of something you produce once on deadline is an interesting one - though I am adamantly against Twitter as a journalism tool. But it's true what Katie King says, the best thing the digital world has done for journalism is promote extended reporting. It's definitely something I could see happening at the news site we will create for the class. I'd like it to be a place where journalists care about their stories and want to come back and keep adding to them as they find new information. Plus, I think your readers trust you more if they see how invested in a story you are. It would make readers keep coming back.
And that's basically what it comes down to - how well is a journalist reporting and how well is the audience receiving it.
So I'm not turning a blind eye, as Mark Briggs warns against. I do realize the need to adapt in both the sense of running with the times and creating a new business model - which really run hand in hand. In thinking about our projects, Briggs makes some interesting points about transparency in the newsroom. I think it would be a good idea to have an 'editors comments' section on the Web site we develop with the class, so that readers can be in tune to what the editors think are the best stories of the day and what we have to say about them. Then the readers can comment back and hopefully start a dialogue that way. This also goes along with what Vivian Vahlberg had to say about 'What young people like,' which, by the way, I felt was pretty spot on. Young people have said they appreciate the judgement of journalists over other young people - I think we should go with that. In fact, I wonder how successful a news site that was run by young journalists highlighting the stories they think are important might be?
The idea of journalism as a process instead of something you produce once on deadline is an interesting one - though I am adamantly against Twitter as a journalism tool. But it's true what Katie King says, the best thing the digital world has done for journalism is promote extended reporting. It's definitely something I could see happening at the news site we will create for the class. I'd like it to be a place where journalists care about their stories and want to come back and keep adding to them as they find new information. Plus, I think your readers trust you more if they see how invested in a story you are. It would make readers keep coming back.
And that's basically what it comes down to - how well is a journalist reporting and how well is the audience receiving it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)