smays.com

Reality spill on aisle six

From a recent post on Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine:

"Janet Coats, editor of the Tampa Tribune, sat down in her newsroom to tell the staff about layoffs, reorganizations, new ways of doing business, and harsh realities and an intern named Jessica DaSilva recorded the event with appropriate admiration.

My favorite bomb: “People need to stop looking at TBO.com [the newspaper's affiliated web site] as an add on to The Tampa Tribune. The truth is that The Tampa Tribune is an add on to TBO.”

If this is true for newspapers today, will it be equally true for TV and radio tomorrow? And when that day comes, what will it mean for networks and others who provide programming (content?) for those stations.

"Computer Jesus"

From a Mindy McAdams post on setting up a team for online journalism: "Sure, it would be great if you could hire one single person who could do everything. We call that “computer jesus” — and you need to accept the fact that there really are not many people in the world who can walk on water.

Blogosphere as "giant wire service"

Clyde Bentley, a Missouri School of Journalism professor who researches user-generated news, speaking at the Future of Journalism conference at Harvard, June 20-21:

The debate over bloggers' influence "is over," he said. "Blogging is a numbers game. It's there and we'll just have to deal with it." Noting that 120,000 new blogs a day dwarf the country's 1,427 dailies, he said editors should treat the blogosphere like a giant wire service. Bentley said that while consumer demand for content decreases, their demand for content navigation increases. "There will always be a place for the journalist who can craft a story better than anyone else, but there will be a bigger place for the journalist who can help media consumers find the information they want."

Poynter: Centerpieces

"The Beltway-Blog Battle"

Writing in Time Magazine, James Poniewozek has an interesting take (The Beltway-Blog Battle) on the passing of Tim Russert.

"...the press lost its most authoritative mass-market journalist, just as it is losing its authority and its mass market."

The New Meida vs. Old Media argument got tiresome a long time ago, but Mr. Poniewozek offers a fresh take. A few paragraphs to wet your whistle:

"In their original division of labor, the old media broke news while the blogs dispensed opinion. But look at two of the biggest stories of the Democratic primary: Barack Obama's comments that working-class voters are "bitter" and Bill Clinton's rope-line rant that a reporter who profiled him was a "scumbag." Both were broken by a volunteer for the Huffington Post website, Mayhill Fowler.

Traditional reporters were aghast at Fowler's methods--the Obama meeting was closed to press (she got in as a donor), and Fowler did not identify herself when speaking to Clinton. But mainstream media had no problem treating the scoops as big news; if she had overheard both quotes in the same way but told them to a newspaper instead of publishing them, that would have been considered a coup.

The case against Fowler, in other words, was about process and credentials, not content. If sources stop trusting us, reporters asked, how will we do our jobs? But however sneaky her methods, Fowler's stories prove that one reason sites like Huffington have an audience is the perception that Establishment journalism has gotten better at serving its powerful sources than its public. Fiascoes like the Iraq-WMD reporting gave many the impression that the old rules mainly protect consultant-cosseted public officials who need protection least."

[For more on the Mayhill Fowler story, here's a bit of audio with Arianna Huffington, speaking at Guardian News & Media's internal Future of Journalism event on 18th June 2008.]

Mr. Poniewozik poses this rather rude question regarding MSM: "...if 3 million people read Drudge and 65,000 read the New Republic, which is mainstream?"

HuffPo starts local news push

Guardian.co.uk: "The Huffington Post is planning to expand into local news across the US, founder Arianna Huffington said last night, beginning with a site edited for the community of Chicago. Huffington said the Chicago site would aggregate news, sports, crime, arts and business news from different local sources as well as contributions from bloggers in what will be the first of a series of projects in "dozens of US cities". The Chicago site will initially be curated by just one editor."

I'm a bit bothered by "aggregate news, sports, crime, arts and business news from different local sources." This suggests (to me) that a HuffPo editor in St. Louis, should they expand to that city, would link to stories from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website. Or even our statewide news network, when we do a story with St. Louis relevance.

Which is way the web works, of course. I'm not quite sure what about this plan bothers me. Maybe it's: What can a single Huffington Post editor provide that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website cannot?

Is it a matter of putting an editor in each of the top 50 markets... have them aggregate stories and links to local news sources... and building an online audience that is smaller while accomplishing all of this at a fraction of the overhead?

Or is it that the people behind the Huffington Post just get the web better than most of the other guys?

An army of photographers

Our news networks in Iowa and Wisconsin have been scrambling to cover the flooding in those states. Unlike newspapers and TV stations, we don't have photographers and videographers to supply "pictures" for the stories we post to our websites. And a flood is a very visible event.

I didn't have to look long on flickr to find literally thousands of photos (and video) of flooding in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. I pinged one of the photographers (James Lewin) for permission to use some of his images and he graciously agreed.

This is a small example of how reporting might happen from this point on. A loose collaboration of professionals and non-professionals. The news organizations that understand how to tap into these "citizen journalists" will be the winners.

Old radio dogs learn fun new video tricks

Reporters for our ag radio network (Brownfield Ag News) were recently issued Casio digital cameras. They've been using them for still images for the most part but Dave Russell got a minute-and-a-half of first-rate video showing flooding and erosion in an Indiana corn field.

Dave is new to the world of hand-held point-and-shoot video but notice how he gets in a few questions (recorded on the Casio) while panning across the field. I have no doubt we'll be seeing more good video from Dave and his fellow reporters.

If bloggers aren't journalists...where's YOUR video?

Lightning started a fire at the Magellan Petroleum factory in Kansas City, MO and uber-blogger Chuck Zimmerman share this video shot form the downtown Marriott hotel.

Is that a camera crew in your pocket?

Mark Halperin and the folks at Time have their digital shit in one neat pile. Check out this exclusive video with David Axelrod, just after learning that the Associated Press has declared that Obama has secured the majority of delegates to the Democratic convention and will win the nomination.

Looks like Halperin is shooting with a small, hand-held camera. No mic (except for the camera), a little jerky but talk about immediacy.

PageCast: Short, sweet and real

There are just so many things I like about The PageCast, I'm not sure where to begin. First, what is The PageCast.

It's a 60 second video by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin, previewing the three stories that he thinks you should be watching for today. You'll find it on the top/right of The Page. Big whoop, right? Okay, here's some of the things I like about this simple idea (and this particular PageCast):

• It maximizes the reach of a popular, plugged-in political reporter.

• It's short. One minute. Easy to watch, easy to produce.

• It's real. Or at least it appears real. Today's PageCast was recorded in what appears to be Mr. Halperin's hotel room in South Dakota (prior to Tuesday's primary). And he obviously just came from the gym or a run. (Note to TV and Hollywood directors: THIS is what real sweat looks like. Not the little spritz you put under your star's arms and on his chest. Save this image for future reference). And Mark hasn't shaved yet. The guy looks like we all do on a Sunday morning.

• Zero production. If I had to guess, I'd say he recorded this with his Mac Book sitting on the hotel desk. Probably in one take. He emails the file to some web monkey who uploads to The Page and it's done. No crew, no director, no editing.

The news directors of our radio networks would be great at this. And their listeners/readers/viewers would eat it up.

UPDATE: My buddy Kay reports that Mark Halperin records PageCast between 7-9 a.m. (usually), wherever he happens to be and in whatever he happens to be wearing. If he's on the West Coast, he usually records them at night. He thinks of what he wants to say just before he begins recording (or in the shower or at the gym), on his MacBook Pro (edits with iMovie).

The idea was prompted by the desire to put video on The Page, while keeping it easy to produce and watch. Just as I suspected. Simple idea, well executed.

New media can't get here soon enough

Proto-blogger Dave Winer thinks the real problem revealed by Scott McClellan's new tell-all book is that the press was complicit in beating the Iraq war drum:

"But corporate-owned media isn't interested in helping us make decisions as a country, they're only interested in ad revenue. That's why it's so important that we're creating new media that isn't so conflicted, and why the question of whether bloggers run ads or not is far from a trivial issue."

When it comes to national media, there really are not that many outlets that need to be manipulated. Four TV networks; maybe that many cable news channels; a handful of newspapers with national reach. If you can juke them, you've got a lot of the country juked.

The sooner their influence is diminished, the better. There will no longer be even the illusion of "national media" and people will have to work (a little) at being informed. Sure, the willfully clueless will still head for blogs and news sites that confirm their view. But the rest of us will stop trusting (if we haven't already) news organizations that are child's play for political spin-miesters.

Old dogs and new tricks

Mindy McAdams (Teaching Online Journalism) always seems to have fresh insight into the state of journalism:

"I see a few people in almost every newsroom (usually less than one-quarter of the staff) embracing the new ways of communication and trying to spread their journalism and enhance their organization’s outputs via new channels and techniques. I see a lot more people who are worried, even frightened, that there will be no place for them in this new world.

The latter group interests me a lot more than the small number of chained-to-the-barricades dinosaurs (who also exist in every newsroom) — because they are very different from the dinosaurs. They are not resistant because they think the Internet is a short-lived fad, or because they fail to see its potential, or because they are in love with the smell of ink on paper. Rather, they are resistant because they don’t know how to train themselves — they are waiting for someone to hand them a tool and show them how to use it."

This is a point I tend to overlook. And journos --if I may generalize-- aren't the type to admit they don't know how to do something and ask for help.

Goodnight, Chet. Goodnight, David.

Lost Remote's s Cory Bergman thinks J-schools should downplay anchor careers:

"Journalism schools, as a public service, should strongly discourage students from pursuing an anchoring career. The emphasis should be on the “do-it-all” multimedia journalist who can produce, report, write, shoot and edit both on TV and the web. Flexibility is key."

And if you need another reason to be discouraged from pursuing a career as an anchor...

It's not whining if we have a good reason

Amy Gahran is a former full-time journalist, editor, and managing editor. Today, her work mainly involves conversational online media (weblogs, forums, wikis, e-mail lists) as well as feeds, podcasting, and e-learning. Here are a couple of excerpts from her recent post at E-Meida Tidbits:

"I've been getting quite aggravated at the close-minded and helpless attitudes I'm still encountering from too many journalists about how the media landscape is changing. I realize that right now is a scary time for journalists who crave stability. I have immense sympathy for good, smart people (many of whom have families to support and retirements to plan) who fear the unknown. Many of the news orgs that have sheltered and supported these journalists as they ply their craft are crumbling due to their inability or unwillingness to adapt their business models -- leading to layoffs, buyouts, attrition, dwindling resources, overwork, and general demoralization.

I also know -- first hand -- that the prospect of learning new skills can be daunting. Plus, many of us have spent lots of money on j-school and many years in professional journalism honing our writing and reporting skills. We don't want to learn how to think like an entrepreneur, or an information architect, or a community manager. We just want to keep doing what we know how to do; we didn't sign up for all this extra stuff."

This is an insightful post, worth a full read. (Shirts available in S, M, L, and XXL)

"Small town loses paper, residents fill gap online"

Lost Remote: "When the town of Orting, WA lost its hometown weekly - several residents banded together to keep the information flowing online. The Orting Gazette turned off the presses in March - but now the new Orting News online site features community news submitted by the public, with a special emphasis on high school sports."

Pretty much what I had in mind with this earlier post.

The Daily Bugle

The local newspaper here in Jefferson City has been locally owned for a long time. It was recently sold to a group with headquarters in Arkansas. As George and I discussed this over coffee a couple of weeks ago, he wondered why someone would buy a newspaper when it seems like --nationally-- their profits are in free fall (I love that expression).

During our chat, George said he thought the local paper only had four full-time reporters. I have no idea if that's accurate but, for the purposes of this post, let's assume it is. It started me thinking. What if the local paper just shut down? What sort of online alternative would be possible? Could you create one using volunteers?

You might start by evaluating what's currently in the paper: Local news, state news, world and national news, features, business and finance, entertainment, opinion, sports, community, obits, weather and classifieds.

I certainly won't be the first to point out that much of the information in the local newspaper is available from other sources (weather, state news, national  news, etc). The one area a local paper can and should do better than anyone else is local. Local news, sports, business, entertainment... local, local, local.

What if you had one, maybe two "professional journalists," coordinating a group of volunteers. Could you do a credible job of covering local news and events? For example, could a dozen highly motivated volunteers --armed with digital cameras and recorders-- cover the local news as well as four paid staffers?

Hey, no question it would be different but I see no reason it couldn't work. We're already seeing a growing number of examples around the country. And, yes, a number of these efforts have failed.

Even the smallest newspapers have massive overhead. Paper, ink, printing presses, etc. That means you need LOTS of advertisements. What I'm envisioning has virtually no overhead. A few hundred dollars a year for web hosting. You could cover a lot of local news for the tiniest fraction of what a "real newspaper" costs.

I suspect that some small town papers are morphing in this direction already and one day the print edition will just disappear and the transition will be complete.

"I'm mad as hell and... anonymous!"

One of our reporters stepped on blogger toes earlier this week. Steve Walsh is a reporter for The Missourinet, a radio network headquartered in Jefferson City. He took over the network blog a few weeks back and has been doing a good job with it. The post in question attempted to make some "distinctions" between MSM bloggers and "political" bloggers.

"...while the MSM bloggers represent their media outlets and, therefore, must be truthful and accurate ... the vast majority of the political bloggers are unaccountable ... and sometimes fall short of telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Ouch. That's a commonly held view by a lot of reporters. And a lot of folks --bloggers and the public alike-- would question the "must be truthful and accurate" part but that's not what this post is about.

One of the blogs Steve "called out" is Fired Up Missouri. The blog represents the Democratic view of things and the blogger goes by the pseudonym "Howard Beale." Howard Beale was the fictional news anchor in the film Network.

"Howard Beale" fired back and called Steve to task for a story he did some months ago. Your normal blogosphere kerfuffle.

Steve responded and made what I consider the check-mate move. He pointed out one key difference between MSM blogs like his and Fired Up Missouri. Steve signs his posts and the blogger at Fired Up Missouri does not.

This point trumps all others in my opinion. And adds heavy irony to the choice of the pseudonym "Howard Beale."

"I want you to get up out of your chairs... go over to your computers... and post an angry rant to your blog... anonymously." See? Doesn't work.

But as luck --and some good detective work-- I have discovered the identity of "Howard Beale" and will reveal it here at 5:00 p.m. this Friday. I think you'll be shocked.

Disclosure: The company I work for, Learfield, is the parent company of The Missourinet, the company Steve Walsh works for. I should also point out that I have come out here as supporting Barack Obama. I don't think of myself as a Democrat because if he wasn't running I wouldn't be voting for the Democratic candidate. But if I have a leaning, it's more toward the views expressed on Fired Up Missouri.

"Shovelware," "repurposing" and facing reality

Found an interesting idea at "Teaching Online Journalism":

"It is time to stop talking about repurposing and instead to start a discussion on how to re-imagine journalism."

She proposes a radical (but obvious) shift in priorities:

"What some newsrooms (e.g., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) have done is turn the workflow around — in a way that makes sense when the number of subscribers to the print product is decreasing and the number of online visitors is increasing: Make “Web first” the rule, in all cases. Produce for online, write for online, shoot for online, design for online. And then “repurpose” for the dying media — the print newspaper and the local TV newscast."

Dying media?! Yikes! I don't want to be in the staff meeting the first time someone blurts that out.

"If the news is that important it will find me."

This just in... the young process information differently. According to this story at NYT.com, "...younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news and current events but conduits as well — sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on friends and online connections for news to come to them. In essence, they are replacing the professional filter — reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com — with a social one."

"A December survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press looked at how media were being consumed this campaign. In the most striking finding, half of respondents over the age of 50 and 39 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds reported watching local television news regularly for campaign news, while only 25 percent of people under 30 said they did."

"Rather than treating video-sharing Web sites as traditional news sources, young people use them as tools and act as editors themselves."

One quote in the story really jumped out at me:

“If the news is that important, it will find me.”

What does this mean for those of us in the news business?

Sound bites, talking points and YouTube

Really interesting story at Politico by Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej about how YouTube is helping move us away from sound bite coverage to something more substantial.

"In the 1968 presidential election, the average amount of time given to a sound bite from presidential candidate on the network news shows was 43 seconds. In 1972 it dropped to 25. By 1988, it had shrunk to 9.8 seconds, and in 1996, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs and the Brookings Institution, to just 8.2 seconds. By 2004, a study by USC and the University of Wisconsin found that it had risen slightly to 10.3 seconds, but for all intents and purposes this was hardly much of an improvement.

Until now, all of national politics has operated within the context of those shrinking numbers. Since TV was the only way to reach millions of voters, and the only way to get your message across was to a) buy expensive airtime for 30-second TV ads or b) get free airtime by saying something memorable (and not damaging, unless aimed at your opponent), successful politicians have gotten very good at sticking to their talking points, speaking in sound-bites, and avoiding gaffes or detailed conversations as much as possible."

My man Obama is proving these assumptions are out of date:

"So far, Obama's videos have been viewed more than 33 million times on YouTube.com — and that's not counting partial views, since YouTube only reports a full viewing as a “view.” His campaign has uploaded more than 800 video clips, and adds several more a day."

In a pre-Internet era, the endless replayings on television of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sound bites denouncing America would probably have deeply damaged Obama's candidacy. But millions of voters have been flocking to the web to watch his 37-minute response to the controversy.

Our longest newscast on our four state radio networks is 4 minutes. Only three of those being news. Even more popular --with affiliates-- are our one-minute "capsules." Formats which demand shorter and shorter sound bites.

But we now routinely post longer --sometimes complete-- interviews with the stories we post to our websites.

I have to believe everyone is better served by new media alternatives.

Ron Paul: Still a candidate, but no longer a "contender"

A reporter for one of our networks referred to Ron Paul the "former GOP presidential candidate"  in a story we ran on Saturday and posted on our website.

It didn't take long for Paul supporters to discover the error launch an obviously coordinated email blitz. Some were nicer than others.

This evening Bob Priddy --the news director-- posted a response on the network blog. I think he struck precisely the right tone. I'm sure we'll find out if Ron Paul supporters agree.

But, all in all, this is a good thing. Our story was technically wrong. Ron Paul is not a "former" candidate. And his supporters let us know about, quickly and in larger numbers. And our network corrected the mistake and responded.

More than half of Americans say they tend not to trust the press

That's one of the findings of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,302 U.S. adults surveyed online between January 15 and 22, 2008 by Harris Interactive.

"Looking at the press in general, over half (54%) of Americans say they tend not to trust them, with only 30 percent tending to trust the press. Just under half (46%) of Americans say they do not trust television, while one-third (36%) do trust them. Somewhat surprisingly, Internet news and information sites do slightly better as a plurality of Americans (41%) trust them while just one-third (34%) tend not to trust them. And, radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it and one-third (32%) tend not to trust radio."

As for "trusting radio," are they referring to radio news or radio in a broader sense (talk shows, etc). And why does radio (and the net) earn higher trust than TV and newspapers?

Zogby Poll: 67% View traditional journalism as "out of touch"

Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.

Meanwhile, the online survey documented the shift away from traditional sources of news, such as newspapers and TV, to the Internet - most dramatically among so-called digital natives - people under 30 years old.

• Nearly half of respondents (48%) said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, an increase from 40% who said the same a year ago.
• Younger adults were most likely to name the Internet as their top source - 55% of those age 18 to 29 say they get most of their news and information online, compared to 35% of those age 65 and older.
• Overall, 29% said television is their main source of news, while fewer said they turn to radio (11%) and newspapers (10%) for most of their news and information.
• Just 7% of those age 18 to 29 said they get most of their news from newspapers, while more than twice as many (17%) of those age 65 and older list newspapers as their top source of news and information.

Web sites are regarded as a more important source of news and information than traditional media outlets - 86% of Americans said Web sites were an important source of news, with more than half (56%) who view these sites as very important.

Most also view television (77%), radio (74%), and newspapers (70%) as important sources of news, although fewer than say the same about blogs (38%).

Why a journalism class leans toward Obama

The Clinton campaign has been complaining they aren't getting a fair shake from the news media. No idea if that's true or not. But Cory Bergman at Lost Remote shares this story:

"This is fascinating. A University of Washington journalism class is aggressively blogging the 2008 campaign. They’re attending primaries and caucuses, cameras and laptops in hand. The professor, David Domke, says he’s noticed a lean towards Obama among the students in part because of the way Obama’s campaign staff respected the bloggers.

“The Obama campaign treated us like pros — they called us back within minutes, set up interviews, got us press passes, went out of their way to make the campaign accessible,” Domke writes. “The Clinton campaign, in contrast, didn’t return a single phone call, didn’t provide press access, and did virtually nothing to encourage our coverage.”

Domke concludes: “The Clinton campaign has made the case that Obama is nothing but rhetoric; he’s supposedly all words, while she’s all action. Our experiences showed us that their campaigns — at least in Seattle — were exactly the opposite. In their treatment of my students, Clinton’s campaign was all talk, while Obama’s was all walk.”

Candidate conference calls

Dave Winer wants to listen to those daily conference calls the candidates have with reporters;

"It seems much of the real action in the campaign happens here, but we (voters, taxpayers, citizens) have no access. I listened to an MP3 of one of the calls, with the chief strategist and communications director of the Clinton campaign. It was fascinating, gave me a picture of how the press and the candidates relate that I had never seen before."

A few years ago I asked one of our reporters to post the audio of one of these conference calls where a bunch of reporters are on with the news-maker.  She was shocked that I asked and explained that the call was "just for reporters" and they decided which portions were news-worthy. And the reporters would not want "just anyone" to hear their questions.

I'm with Mr. Winer. I'd love to hear these calls, raw and unedited. I'll decide what's news and what's spin. No filtering, please. I have to wonder if some reporters might be concerned this could raise questions about their editorial judgment. What they decided to include in the story and what they left out. I fail to see how that could be a problem if their story ended with, "...you can listen to the entire conference call on our website."

Fifty-four pages of pissed off news folk

AngryJournalist.com asks, "Why are you angry today? Tell us what's making you upset at your journalism job. Anonymity guaranteed. No real names."

Google gets into local news

Google News now allows you to localize a section of the stories. Scroll down just beneath the fold for the box to type in your city or zip code. I plugged in my local zip code for Jefferson City:

“This is pretty huge, folks, and it spotlights the need for everybody in the local news business to adopt best practices when it comes to unbundled distribution,” writes Terry Heaton. True enough, as Google News ranked #9 in Nielsen-Netratings for December — higher than USAToday.com and WashingtonPost.com.

If you're a local news guy and look at this and say, "Ah, but they missed some stories!" ... you're missing the point.

Candidates hold first debate on Internet radio program

Wisconsin State Journal: "The two candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court will debate for the first time today -- but it won 't be face to face. The candidates will square off during a one-hour Internet radio debate hosted by a UW-Milwaukee student.

The debate is thought to be the first of its kind in a Wisconsin political race, said Kyle Duerstein, the journalism student who is hosting the program. Listeners will be able to hear the candidates debate and call in with questions. It will be the first forum featuring both candidates."

I'd love to know the back story on this. Was there no interest in such a debate by mainstream media? Did Mr. Duerstein just ask the candidates and they agreed? [Thanks, Jackie]

Update: WRN News Director Bob Hague talked with Mr. Duerstein about the debate.Download/Listen to interview (MP3)

Can getting it wrong be okay?

Good post by Terry Heaton that speaks to the "accuracy" of stories reported online. His case in point was the early --and inaccurate-- report that Heath Ledger died in the apartment of Mary Kate Olsen.

"What people are seeing now is an old-fashioned process -- reporting -- as it unfolds in real time. If the public wants its information as raw and immediate as possible, it’ll have to get used to a few missteps along the way, and maybe even approach breaking stories with a bit of skepticism, like a good reporter would.

So a part of the “process” of news is mistakes, and the ethical question is does it matter in a world of news-as-a-process? I’m not so sure it does, as long as mistakes are corrected -- just as, I might add, they are corrected in the news gathering process in professional newsrooms."

Poll reveals declining trust in news media

Broadcast Engineering reports the findings from a new Sacred Heart University poll showing a significant decline in the percentage of Americans who say they believe all or most of media news reporting (compared to a 2003 poll). 

"Currently, 19.6 percent of those surveyed said they believe all or most news media reporting, down from 27.4 percent in 2003. Just less than one-quarter in 2007 said they believed little or none of the reporting, while 55.3 percent suggested they believed some media news reporting.

The poll revealed that Americans generally gave the national news media poor ratings in six different areas measured. The average positive ratings were:

    * Quality of reporting -- 40.7 percent
    * Accuracy of reporting -- 36.9 percent
    * Keeping any personal bias out of stories -- 33.3 percent
    * Fairness -- 31.3 percent
    * Presenting an even balance of views -- 30.4 percent
    * Presenting negative and positive news equally -- 27.5 percent

Additionally, the poll showed a growing perception that the media try to sway public opinion, 87.6 percent, up from 79.3 percent in 2003, and public policy, 86 percent versus 76.7 percent in 2003."

Hmm. Only a third of those surveyed think the media keeps personal bias out of stories. In 35 years, I've never met a reporter who didn't believe he or she was totally objective and free from personal bias. Wonder who's right?

Too late for web training

Mindy McAdams (Teaching Online Journalism) points to a very interesting post by Paul Conley. Mr. Conley has held senior positions at Knight-Ridder, CNN, Primedia/Prism and Bloomberg. He serves on the professional advisory boards of College Media Advisers, the national group that works with student journalists, and Northwest Missouri State University’s Mass Communications program. His clients include Primedia/Prism, Reed Business, About.com and IDG.

"I'm urging employers not to offer any training in Web journalism. There are two reasons for this. Here they are:

1. You cannot train someone to be part of a culture.
For someone to work on the Web, they must be part of the Web. That, after all, is what the Web means. The Web is a web. It exists as a series of connections. An online journalist isn't a journalist who works online. He's a journalist who lives online. He's part of the Web.

It's a waste of time and money to teach multimedia skills and technology to someone who hasn't already become part of the Web. And there's no need to teach skills and technology to the journalists who are already part of Web culture, because the culture requires participation in skills and technology.
Or, to put it another way -- I cannot teach the Web. No one can. Yet all of us who are part of the Web are learning the Web.

2. When the fighting begins, the training must end.
We cannot move backward to round up the stragglers and train them to fight. It's too late to try to convince print journalists that the Web has value. It's too late to tell them that an Internet connection is worth a few dollars a month. As revenue shrinks, we can't spend money on training. We can't gather up the print folks and "prepare them as online journalists."

You can't prepare people to dig a fighting (fox?) hole. You just tell them to dig. And the ones who don't dig fast enough, deep enough or well enough, die."

Wow. I confess that I agree with Conley but would never say it around my reporter friends. What good can come of telling them it's too late. The train left the station and they can't run fast enough to catch it. Ms. McAdams isn't sure she agrees, so read her post, too.

Changing newsroom culture

Good column by Steve Outing at Editor & Publisher on the need for cultural changes in the newsroom. A few excerpts:

"The feeling in newsrooms, especially among the people on the new-media side, seems to be that there are an awful lot of people within organizations that aren't on board with a vision of changing for the future. Even when top management has developed a new corporate vision for a digital, multi-media and less print-centered future, and communicated it to "the troops," implementation is being slowed by many people in the organization -- including mid-level managers -- who still don't buy into the idea that a total transformation of the news organization is necessary."

"Everyone's got work to do to put out the "daily miracle," but in an era when the old industry model is in decline, we can no longer afford to have a workforce where the majority are solely doing the work of "putting out the paper."

"The smart news organization in 2008 will be the one that encourages innovation -- no, requires it -- from ALL its employees. It will get everyone involved: in planning meetings; in committees charged with specific research and/or implementation projects. It will create some time in the schedules of everyone in the organization to do the work of innovation, and make that an integral assignment."

"Most importantly, it will develop a training program to teach new-media skills to those still lacking, and regularly bring in innovation and creativity experts to guide both managers and employees. With the latter, exposure to and interaction with those experts will be company-wide."

YouTube Voter Video

I should have guessed the Google/YouTube guys would be all over the Iowa Caucuses. They've hooked up with The Des Moines Register, arguably the most powerful media outlet in Iowa, to create a YouTube channel:

"Document your caucus experience from start to finish. We want to show the nation what the caucuses are like, so bring your video camera along with you and give an on-the-ground view of your local caucuses. You can also add your own commentary or interviews with people just after the caucuses, offering their reflections on what took place."

I had to believe bloggers and podcasters and YouTube'ers would be all over this event but wasn't sure if cameras would be allowed. They are.

"Of course - these are our caucuses, and this a great opportunity to show the nation what they're like. Just be sure to be respectful of other caucus-goers and to make sure that your video footage is not a distraction to what's taking place."

And Google Maps is doing something special. but I'm not sure exactly what or where to find it. I'll update this post. If I had to guess it would be a map with all the caucus precincts, updated throughout the evening.

As I watched a couple of the videos, I was reminded of something I used to hear/say back during the early days of the net. Nobody will watch all of these. Somebody will watch each of these.

Twittering the Iowa Caucuses

A couple of weeks ago I wondered if we'd see any live blogging from the local precincts that make up the Iowa Caucuses. I figured someone must be trying to pull this together and found this post by Patrick Ruffini at Hugh Hewitt's Townhall.com:

"On Iowa Caucus night, I'd like to launch a little experiment in citizen journalism. Mobile technology allows anybody to communicate from anywhere, including from inside a caucus. Any caucus goer can become a citizen reporter, relaying key facts to the outside world instantaneously. I'd like to recruit an army of caucus insiders -- both Republicans and Democrats -- to report results instantly and share tidbits on what the campaigns are doing to sway last-minute undecideds."

Caucus bloggers can participate via Twitter, email or by texting.

Not sure how busy I'll be helping with RadioIowa.com, but I'll try to keep an eye on this experiment.

Related bonus link on the Iowa Caucuses "entrance poll."

How newspapers got into such a fix

A fascinating look at how U. S. newspapers got to where they are, by Paul Steiger who spent 26 of his 41 years in journalism at the Wall Street Journal. Thursday is his final day at WSJ.

"Next week I move over to a nonprofit called Pro Publica as president and editor-in-chief. When fully staffed, we will be a team of 24 journalists dedicated to reporting on abuses of power by anyone with power: government, business, unions, universities, school systems, doctors, hospitals, lawyers, courts, nonprofits, media. We'll publish through our Web site and also possibly through newspapers, magazines or TV programs, offering our material free if they provide wide distribution.

Pro Publica is the brainchild of San Francisco entrepreneurs-turned-philanthropists Herbert and Marion Sandler, who along with some other donors are providing $10 million a year in funding.

The idea is that we, along with others of similar bent, can in some modest way make up for some of the loss in investigative-reporting resources that results from the collapse of metro newspapers' business model."

Job outlook for journalism grads

Mindy McAdams' Teaching Online Journalism:

"New U.S. graduates with a bachelor’s degree in journalism or mass communication had a median annual salary of $30,000, according to a survey of spring 2006 graduates. New graduates with a master’s degree in journalism or mass communication had a median annual salary of $38,000. Jobs held by all these graduates included those in public relations and advertising as well as online, print, TV and radio journalism.

Does this mean getting a master’s degree will increase your salary? Maybe in some fields, but not necessarily in journalism. I’d like to see this survey cut the grain a bit finer on the master’s degree data, because in my experience, a hiring editor at a news organization doesn’t give a hoot about your degree(s) or your GPA — a hiring editor cares only about your experience in the field.

This marks a distinct difference between journalism jobs and jobs in some other fields, where the extra one or two years in graduate school are assumed to make the candidate more fit to do the job. In our field, the only thing that makes you more fit is more work experience."

I haven't been involved in hiring for our newsrooms for long time, but I think experience would trump grad degree for us.

Covering the Iowa Caucuses

The Iowa Caucuses (Jan 3) is a big deal in the national political scheme of things. One of Learfield's news networks --Radio Iowa-- will cover it, just as we've done since the network began in 1987.

We'll provide two 4-minute reports each hour throughout the evening. These audio reports will be fed by satellite to affiliated radio stations throughout the state (and streamed live on our website). The radio stations will air some or all of these reports along with whatever other programming they are doing that night. This is the way networks like ours have operated since... well, since forever.

The editorial edge of state networks is our ability to focus on the "state" angle of the stories we cover. The Iowa Caucuses will be the big national story of the day (evening). Every news organization in the country will be covering the story, wall-to-wall.

So where's our niche? What do we provide that a listener can't get more of, faster somewhere else? Is our "target audience" people who can't be in front of their TV or computer that evening? We have to proceed on the assumption there will be people listening to their local radio stations that night and hearing our reports a couple of times an hour.

I'm not sure where I'm headed with this ramble. I'm just trying to understand how --and to what degree-- things are changing for news organizations like ours.

And whither the bloggers? Will they be live blogging the caucuses? Is that allowed? Not sure what that would add, since the news organizations (or the Associated Press) will have --I assume-- someone covering each of the caucus locations.

My friend (and Radio Iowa News Director) Kay Henderson has been living and breathing Iowa politics for the last year or so. She probably has the answers to most of these questions. Or at least some interesting insight. I suspect she's too busy to enlighten us, but watch the comments, just in case. She checks in here.

I think I've lost the thread of this ramble... I just know that I'm glad I'm no longer responsible for coming up with long and short term strategy for our networks.

We'll know how many radio stations are "clearing" our reports on Caucus night. We will NOT know how many people are listening to those reports. That's a question for the Magic Eight Ball. If I could ask one more, it would be how will all of this change four years from now?

Shoestring video production

My colleague David produced a 2 minute video for one of our clients recently. His post provides the background. I like the piece because a) it illustrates how easy and inexpensive it is to produce video and b) it effectively tells the story (public health program, in this instance).

David shot the video with a small, consumer-grade still camera (with video setting) and edited with iMovie 08. I should note this was David's first try and he did it while watching a World Series game.

Any company that has "communication" in their name, better have some people capable of producing a video like this. I have a hunch we'll wind up doing a lot of these for current and future clients.

Newspaper's Internet radio station streaming fire coverage

"The San Diego Union-Tribune's site SignOn San Diego offers a streaming Internet radio station, SignOn Radio. Today they've been supplying steady coverage of the fires, including phoned-in live reports from area residents and people following the story from other regions. News staff are manning the radio, taking calls. It seems like they're doing a pretty good job of applying journalistic judgment to both official information and call-ins." [E-Media Tidbits]

I'm listening to the SignOn Radio stream on iTunes. W is stumbling through a press conference. I think he actually said, "I'm from the federal government and we're here to help you."

They just broke for AP headlines. I keep looking at the MacBook to remind myself I'm listening to "radio" from a newspaper. Spooky. I remember boasting that only "radio" could really cover this kind of story.

Rediscovering high school football

Cover story on Broadcasting & Cable looks at how some local TV stations are "rediscovering" high school football:

"Vital to high school football's rise in popularity is the fact that technology has finally reached a point where the typical teen, raised on YouTube, can easily upload video and share highlights from that night's game. Station managers say the interactive nature of new media -- whether it's user-generated video, scores or trash-talking -- is a critical component of their school content.

Hearst-Argyle Television has taken the interactive concept a step further, training students in seven markets to be “sideline reporters” for its social-networking platform High School Playbook. A total of 60 students shoot high-def cameras, edit and post their work on the Web site."

The good news --and the bad news-- is this is no longer the turf of any medium. I know TV, cable and newspapers are jumping in. I hope there are radio stations doing them same. How hard would it be?

Let's say there are 10 HS football teams within the range of my station's signal. I recruit and train 10 reporters (and 10 back-up's) on how to shoot/edit game highlights. They upload same to the station YouTube channel (sponsored, of course) and we promote like mad. Incentive? Maybe some pocket money. Best video of the season wins a video iPod (others get iPod Shuffles and iTunes gift cards).

Why we don't try to interact with our listeners/readers

Viewer Voices: Where We Respond To The Opinions Of Our Uninformed Viewers

OK on XM

Radio Iowa News Director O. Kay Henderson will be doing a weekly shot on XM Radio's POTUS'08 channel (XM 130). Few details yet, but looks like her bit will be around 1:10 p.m. Central time. I'll try to remember to record and share snippet here.

Update 8-Oct-07: And here's the snippet. Kay gives the low down on the campaign in Iowa to XM host Rebecca Roberts. Runs about 10 min and my apologies for the audio quality. I recorded on the nano, holding the wee microphone up to the car speaker. But this clearly illustrates why the Big Kids can't get enough of Her Kayness.

Newspapers doing radio (and TV)

I just listened an interview that Mark Ramsey did with a couple of guys from the San Diego Union-Tribune (runs 17 min). Twenty minutes ago I'd have described Ron James and Marc Balanky as newspapers guys. Now, I'll call them media guys.

And they're gearing up to do what we used to call radio (and, eventually, TV). A couple of things they said jumped out at me:

"We have a newsroom that works 24 hours a day" and "...we have more than 300 reporters."

I flashed on all the empty or near-empty radio newsrooms out there. These guys are serious as a heart attack and I'd be damned worried if I were "just" a radio station in that market. On the other hand, if you aren't already well down the road to being more than just a radio station, don't sweat it. Squeeze what you can from old Bossie and remember the good times.

The news we want or the the news we need?

Morris points us to this story at Editor & Publisher:

"Mainstream media outlets may not be offering up the stories online users most want to read, according to a new survey that found user-generate new sites like Yahoo giving top billing to different stories than mainstream outlets. The study, from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, took a week's worth of news from three user-driven sites, and Yahoo, and compared it to top stories on various mainstream outlets. The result: online users gravitated toward different topics than those from traditional news outlets."

I'm not sure what this means, if anything. But it seems like it ought to mean something.

History of Learfield: J-School Genesis

Clyde Lear's latest blog installment of the history of our company is the best yet.

"For two years I worked on my Masters in Journalism. I wrote my thesis on starting a state-wide radio network. Missouri --like a lot of states-- had dismal radio coverage from the state capital. Every radio newsroom, big city and small town, depended instead on the two major wire services, the AP and UPI.  There wasn’t access to the voices of the news makers. There was a need for a state-wide news service for radio stations."

The post includes some video of reports he did as part of final exam. These are priceless and make the post. You can't miss the embedded clip but be sure to hit the text link to a series of his stand-ups. I've included my favorite here to give you a taste.

These started out on 16 mm film and Clyde eventually sent them off to be converted to VHS. And now they're digital and on YouTube for the all the world to see.

Learfield is a pretty big company today and it's fun to see the germ of the idea that started it all.

Key to efficient blogging

This post at E-Meida Tidbits is aimed at journalists who worry about the additional time it takes to blog. But I think this is good advice for any blogger.

"...the key to blogging efficiently is this: DO NOT treat it like writing an article. That is, make blogging part of your ongoing processes for research, notetaking, and communication.

A blog post is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a writing assignment you must prep for and deliver as a finished package. Let go of the idea that you must have everything nailed down, organized, and edited before you publish."

I've been stressing (just a little) about my light posting of late and had this idea for a T-shirt.

Time to rethink the AP model?

Cory Bergman at Lost Remote raises some interesting questions about the AP model in light of Google's deal to host AP stories (rather than link back to newspaper websites).

He also points to a blog post on the "prickly issue of local broadcasters pulling local newspaper stories via the wire and posting them online (and occasionally vice-versa). Now that both mediums have expanded to the web, they’re direct competitors. And the local wire goes a long way to beef up the depth of content on a local TV site."

I'm pretty sure he's talking about TV broadcasters. I'm afraid nobody is much concerned about radio stations getting their news from Google.

AP news on Google

From Lost Remote: "After a couple years of spirited negotiations, Google has signed agreements with the Associated Press and AFP that will reduce the amount of traffic Google News refers to news sites. First, Google News will start hosting full versions of AP stories instead of linking off to them. And second, Google will begin to filter out duplicates of the same AP story. So you won’t see multiple versions of an AP story from various newspapers, listed with the most recent at the top. Google said the end result is less duplication and a better variety of stories."

Do radio stations still subscribe to the AP? It's been years since I was in radio stations, talking with managers about news and where/how they get it. But even back then, a lot of stations really only relied on AP for state news and high school football scores. Our company offers a "poor man's wire service" that still has an amazing number of subscribers. [Yo, David. Can you give us an update on this?]

Perhaps the bigger question is... how much do listeners rely on their local radio station for news. I would think a lot. But what's the order of importance? Local...state...national...world? What can/do I get from my local radio station (on air or online)... and what do I get from a Google search (perhaps on my mobile phone)?

These are interesting times.

Kay reviews debate with Ron Livingston (and some other guys)

Kay Henderson was back in the digital Green Room following ABC News' debate this morning in Des Moines. The "other guys" in the headline were: Actor Ron Livingston; the LA Times' Mark Barabak; ABC News Political Director David Chalian and ABC News senior political reporter and author of "The Note" Rick Klein.”

Livingston is an Iowa native who gained international stardom with his leading role in the movie “Office Space.”  He was also one of Carrie’s boyfriends in “Sex & the City” plus he did a fine job in “Band of Brothers.”

At no time during the 9 minute video was Kay and Ron in the same frame.

Transparent journalism

If you're in the news business, you should read this blog post by Radio Iowa (a Learfield network) News Director O. Kay Henderson. It's a good example of a reporter allowing her readers/listeners to see how the sausage is made.

The post (and the story to which it refers) is about the network's coverage of remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden at the Iowa State Fair on Wednesday. Kay appropriately headlines her post "Splitting hairs with the Biden camp." (Read the post)

In the old (pre-blog) days, if the subject of a news story thought it inaccurate or unfair, the reporter could respond, "I stand by my story" and that would be the end of it.

In this instance, Kay has used her blog to add context to the story and I think everyone is better off for it. Here's what we reported. Here's what people thought about our report. And here's some background we didn't include in the story.

This is why I think every news organization should be blogging. We rely on journalists to cover important news. It's important that we trust them to do it fairly and accurately. Letting us see how they do the job makes it easier.