March 25 reading

It seems silly to me that any code of ethics would have to be specified for electronic journalists when we are constantly saying that they should be held to the same standards as any other journalist. Just by saying that these are the ethics guidelines for electronic journalists - aren't we implying that there is some difference between them and other journalists? That doesn't make sense to me. And it's not as if anything on that list of ethics practices really differs from any other code of ethics I've seen, but I just don't see why the association would even create that loophole for the future. What might have made more sense, in my opinion, is to find examples of how situations from a journalists code of ethics might apply differently to electronic journalists than to print journalists. I think we are all still responsible for the same moral code, but I can see situations in which an electronic journalists might be confused about how to approach things on the Web - especially since the Web is so conducive to visuals and free-flowing information and, as Robert Steele wrote, getting it all out "as quickly as possible."

The thing is, I think that posts like Robert Steeles and the conversations that Poynter had with online journalists are blowing the issue out of proportion. Everyone should just say: do things online exactly how you've learned to do them in print. Then you have specific conversations when things arise that make those old rules unclear. But to have these big conferences about the ethics of online journalism just gives journalists the idea that the ethics are different which is where all these questions come from. I mean really, look at that list of questions that journalists have asked about ethics - is there ANY reason that ANY practicing journalist should have to pose a concern like, "speed of posting versus confirmation"? That's pretty much Into to Journalism. Not online journalism. Just journalism.

Honestly, because of the view I just shared - I didn't read the post on the ethics of online journalism. It's just too much.

The guide to audio and video editing does make sense though and I actually found it very useful. One thing I found really interesting was the idea that viewers are quicker to place blame on a subject viewed in slow motion than in standard speed. I doubt that I would ever find reason to put slow motion into a video I was producing, but that's really intersting!

I think the ethics of digital photography are a little vague. In reading the sections "What you can do' and 'what you can't do,' I find that there is a big gap that is not covered there. It's possible this is because the guide was written in 2002 and since then there are a lot more capabilities in digital photography, but I don't think it tells the whole story. For example, the guide says that it's within reasons to make adjustments in focus or glare - but the author of this post had an issue with an over-sharpened photo in a professional publication. So where's the explanation there? How do you know what's too much?

In that same vein, I really appreciated the depth to which the Sarasota Herald-Tribune explained their photo policy and broke it down into what warrants what level of discussion. It is obvious that the paper provides an open, discussion-based environment that is willing to judge things on a case by case basis instead of instituting hardfast rules. In times when the technology is constantly changing, this seems like the smartest strategy. It was also interesting to see what other papers considered acceptable or unacceptable in terms of photo content and manipulation. Especially interesting is the restriction of photos that feature bodies or victims (which I found appropriately sensitive of the papers) and photos of politicians signing documents or looking at checks near a campaign season. You can tell that these staffs have really thought long and hard about how these images are perceived by their readers.

March 18 reading

The interviews with the Hartford Courant, Oklahoman and Chicago Tribune were really interesting! I think that thinking about design is a huge part of journalism that is often overlooked on the end of the journalist. I'm sure this is the same thing that has frustrated Karl Gude at Michigan State. With multimedia all the buzz, reporters are constantly told to think about how they can tell their stories visually, but that's still a very different thing than thinking about what page design is saying about your story. I thought it was really interesting that the Oklahoman talked about "entry points" since that's such a Web thing. Online there's really not one way to go about reading a page because we just scan along and read what we feel like reading. I also thought it was interesting to hear about the Hartford Courant's use of dot-com in the front page banner. I wouldn't have thought that one of the oldest newspapers in the country would be so willing to refer to the Web in such a blatantly obvious way. I think the redesigns and the way that the editors talk about the design are really indicative of the way that the industry is moving.

The focus on Web-like design is definitely something we can take into consideration when we are designing the print version of our project for class. I predict we'll use color as a navigation tool and add a lot of visual, pop out elements to help streamline the storytelling and break things up for the reader.

Design also plays a heavy role in the idea brought up in the article "One Image, One Word," because the truth is, that idea doesn't play out without the right design. And also, to back up Gude again, journalists need to be able to think visually and graphicially to really get that. You have to have a visual storytelling-trained eye to be able to see a photograph and know immediately whether it is strong enough to tell the story alone.

I really didn't find the "Is the Web a Tab?" article relevant to this discussion or worth reading.

I really liked the reading on design myths. I think it's important to consider breaking "the rules" from time to time and something I'm sure we'll experiment with in our own publication. The grid system of design has been design editors' go-to response at the paper whenever I don't understand why something can't be done the way I want it to - so I'm glad to finally understand what the grid is.

What I found the most interesting about looking at the "World's best designed newspapers" was how extremely different they look from all the newspapers I'm used to reading. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, even The Ithaca Journal - all look nothing like that. It just goes to show that just because something is how it's always been doesn't mean it's really working. Again, it's really important for us, as up and coming professionals, to bring with us new ideas about what works, what doesn't, and how we can "break the rules."

March 4 reading

I bascially couldn't sympathize with Joe Mathews more - the news industry obviously needs an injection. It seems that what's happened though is that over time, the industry has just been trying to stay afloat and evolving however it saw fit to do that - but the larger picture didn't turn out exactly as we expected it to. Peter Osnos then called it the "demonstrably broken business model of metropolitan newspapers and news magazines" And now, we are left with a skeleton of what has historically been the newspaper industry. It does what it's supposed to do at half the cost - but obviously some, Joe Mathews, would argue that it's only doing half what it's supposed to do. To be honest, our Top 20 idea for class almost perpetuates the problem Mathews describes. It's not to say I don't think it's still a good idea (we are going to choose the Top 20 stories relative to the lives of 20-somethings every day), but it's an example of how the industry has changed. I actually think that our Web site could be really successful. That's because people our age only want 20 stories. Maybe it's because any 20-something who hasn't studied journalism doesn't know what it used to be. I think that a lot of people don't realize that journalism isn't doing what it used to do - exposes and meaningful investigative reports are few and far between. And it's sad that an entire industry, and even the entire realm of expectations for that industry, have changed because of budgetary restrictions.

I think that the way some of today's readings relate is through society's expectations of what journalism does and how that has evolved. It's sort of a chicken or the egg question: did the expecations change because the business model forced journalism to change or was it the other way around? But let's imagine a city without it's daily newspaper, as David Folkenflik writes about. It saddens me as much as any newsie, but people would get by. I think that right now, the up and coming news audience - the 20 somethings we want to serve in our project - care more about news by niche (in this case 20 somethings) than by region. I don't know any 20-somethings that care what happened at the local board of education meeting but they do want to know how to get a job, if they have health insurance, even which club is best for a Friday night.

I'm really not sure there's still a way to keep funding local newspapers when the industry finally collapses. ProPublica has been a huge success, but it's backed by one wealthy family. I agree with Peter Osnos, who funds this? If you don't have a check you can rely on then you don't really have a stable business model. ProPublica is appealing to financial backers because of the nature of the work, but what about other kinds of work. Will someone fund a Web site that only runs feature stories? Profiles? Will we lose those stories altogether? Just because they aren't shining light on corruption doesn't mean they aren't stories valuable to the community. That's my worry in moving to a ProPublica-type model. Do I have a solution? Definitely not.