Category Archives: Journalism

New media can’t get here soon enough

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

End of TV news anchors?

Posted on by

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…

Twittering the news?

Posted on by

Chucktweek
I don’t know if this is breaking news or something everyone already knows. But AgWired’s Chuck Zimmerman Twittered what might have been news (Chuck’s tweet is the one on top).

When I demo’d Twitter to one of our reporters, all he could see was ("Who cares if someone’s plane is delayed?"). For some the online glass is half full, for others…

UPDATE: More from Lost Remote.

It’s not whining if we have a good reason

Posted on by

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)

The Daily Bugle

Posted on by

NewspapersThe 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.

“Shovelware,” “repurposing” and facing reality

Posted on by

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.

Sound bites, talking points and YouTube

Posted on by

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.

iPhone users love mobile web

Posted on by

Iphone150NYT Bits Blog reports the results from a January survey (of 10,000 adults) of media habits of iPhone users:

84.8 percent of iPhone users report accessing news and information from the hand-held device. That compares to 13.1 percent of the overall mobile phone market and 58.2 percent of total smartphone owners – which include those with Blackberries and devices that run Windows.

74.1 percent of iPhone users listen to music on their iTunes-equipped device. Only 27.9 percent of smartphone users listen to music on their phone and 6.7 percent of the overall mobile-phone-toting public listens to music on their mobile device.

Ron Paul: Still a candidate, but no longer a “contender”

Posted on by

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.