Category Archives: Journalism

What IS the best tool for the job?

Posted on by

ReportersA bunch of ag reporters (including one of ours) are at a media event in Johnston, Iowa (near Des Moines), hosted by Pioneer (big ag company). Not sure how many of the reporters were blogging the event but a couple for sure. As I watched the blogs I started wondering, what is the “best” medium for covering an event like this.

While highly unlikely that a broadcast station (radio or TV) or network would cover a day-long event live…would that, in fact, be better coverage? Probably the closest thing to being there yourself but unless they put the video/audio online for later, on-demand acess (and did so almost immediately)…you’d have to catch it live or miss it completely. And live broadast coverage (TV or radio) would offer little opportunity for some context and perspective by the reporter covering the event.

Is it even remotely possible that a really well-done blog (with still images, video, audio, RSS feed, etc etc etc) could have advantages over traditonal live coverage of the event? My heart wants to say “no way,” but my head is saying, “maybe.”

I’ve been doing radio for almost 35 years and blogging for just four and this just blows my mind. And I could be missing something here. For example, the print reporter might argue that his/her 1,000 word story in tomorrow’s (or the day after) newspaper/magazine offers greater depth and insight and detail than a few short blog posts. Good point.

A TV guy might point out that his/her well-edited, high quality video package on the evening news is far superior to a few minutes of poorly-lighted video from a camcorder. True enough.

I’m not sure what the technical or content advantages radio has in this scenerio. I’ll get back to you.

This sounds heretical –more blog hype– until you actually watch a first-rate blogger cover an event and compare that to the more traditional media. And in the end, it will be the public that decides where to get the latest/best info.

The Multimedia Reporter

Posted on by

The News-Press in Florida has dedicated two reporters called mobile journalists, or mojos who are equipped with digital cameras, MP3 recorders and wireless laptops. Their job is to find hyper-local stories that don’t get into the newspaper and to train members of the community to file directly to the Web site. [Blogspotting]

Does that sound like a fun job, or what? I wonder what kind of stories we might get if we accepted audio reports from people throughout the states we serve? (That sound you heard was the people in our newsrooms, screaming.) I can’t beleive someone isn’t already doing this. Think Flickr but “news” audio instead of images. Upload MP3 files to a big database, tagging each one (politics, St. Louis, sports, etc). Sure, you’d get a lot of crap but people would sort that out with some kind of “trust” rating system. The better stuff would float to the top…the crap would sink to the bottom.

As a statewide radio network, we sometimes struggle to get news from areas where we have no affiliate. Would it make sense for us to be recruiting and training “citizen reporters?” We have about 60 radio station affiliates in each of the states we serve. And not all of them have full-time reporters. What if we had digital stringers in 600 cities and towns throughout the state? What if we weren’t limited to 4 minute newscasts and 10 second sound bites?

Local radio stations could building this kind of news gathering effort. I remember when newspapers featured “community highlight” columns written by people in the small towns they served. It’s probably still being done.

Okay. I’m tired of thinking about this.

Podcasts, blogs and Dave Barry

Posted on by

According to a piece by C. W. Nevius on SFGate.com, Dave Barry has left the newspaper business. A little more than a year ago, Barry announced that he was taking a sabbatical from his column, and has now decided to make the break permanent. The reason, he stresses, was not that he had a lack of faith in the industry, but that he was ready to move on. Still, he has grave doubts about the future of newspapers.

And the story talks about Barry’s blog and his interest in podcasting. Is this a very funny rat, leaving a sinking ship? I never read Barry’s column in a newspaper but hit his blog frequently. Somehow this seems…significant. [Thanks, David]

Talkin’ bout my g-g-generation

Posted on by

Bonneville International says it is launching a major initiative to recruit new talent to create radio news content that appeals to young listeners. Bonneville says it is out to recruit on-air talent, reporters, producers, production personnel, and website developers for its new initiative.

“The company’s new venture will seek to deliver a product that entertains, provides needed depth that currently might be found only on some public-radio stations, and provides news through the perspective of Generations X and Y,” Bonneville said in a statement.

My old friend Morris (one of the Lost News Boys) sent this along and it appears to have come from the Radio Business Report.

Does “needed depth currently found on some public-radio stations” appeal to those in Gen X and Y? I mean, do you cover different stories? Do you cover the same stories but with some hipper, younger presentation? Is it even possible to lure young web-heads back to the radio for their news?

And what if your best news trick is covering the state legislature and government news? Do we/can we fit into such a format?

J-School head poo-poo’s political blogs

Posted on by

Cub Reporter Bob Hague sends along this link to an interview with James Baughman, head of Journalism/Communications at UW Madison. Bob says what started as a discussion of celebrity journalism spread to political blogs. Baughman thinks they’re going to be great for political geeks, but is pretty pessimistic about new media’s impact on the electorate. [Thanks, Bobby.]

Just be a ‘journalist’

Posted on by

“Nobody should “go into online news.” Or “TV news” or “newspaper news” or “radio news.” Just go into news. The great thing about the web is that it’s bringing all these sources together. The artificial-wall snobbery can go hang. We’re “journalists” and your platform of choice is meaningless; you’ll need to know ’em all. Specialize, absolutely. But make yourself indispensable.” – Lost Remote’s Steve Safran [via Buzz Machine]

People we don’t know

Posted on by

Yahoo Chief Operating Officer Dan Rosensweig on traditional media: “We don’t know who your editors are. All our lives we read stuff written by people we don’t know that’s edited by people we don’t know, who might have an agenda.” [News.com article by Charles Cooper]

Why do we readers need to know anything about the people that write and edit the news? Can’t we just take it as a matter of faith (there’s that religion theme again) that they are professional journalists and we can trust what they say and write?

I am not a journalist, and whatever it is I am doing here, it is not journalism. But if you’ve been reading smays.com for a while, you know that. In fact, you know a hell of a lot about me. If I’ve held anything back, it’s been unconscious. Does that make anything I write any more believable? I can’t answer for you but from my perspective the answer is clearly yes. I’ve been reading Dave Winer’s Scripting News for four or five years and the guy has some strong opinions. Anyone who reads that blog knows exactly what they are. It makes it easier for me to evaluate what he writes and reports.

But some would insist I trust and believe what Jason Blair was reporting in the New York Times just because it was the NYT. Oops.

Newsroom transubstantiation

Posted on by

Some interesting posts on the Mothboard about the state of radio. Dale Forbis concluded his with a finger-wag at bloggers:

“Somebody truly needs to tell bloggers, the minute you express an opinion, you are no longer committing journalism. Journalism’s not better, or more valuable — but it also doesn’t include opinion expressed by the journalist. Or, it’s not supposed to. Not good, responsible journalism.”

Most bloggers I know and read don’t think of what they do as journalism. And I’m sure Dale’s scolding tone is unintentional. But I’ve been in many of the same newsrooms he has and I’ve heard reporters take strong, heated stands on controversial issues. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. Gun control. All the biggies. And then sit down and write a story on the same issue they were debating only moments before.

Are we to believe some sort of Miraculous Purge takes place and the reporters’ mind and heart are cleansed and the story he or she writes is untainted by the views expressed only moments before? A newsroom transubstantiation?

I don’t doubt that many reporters believe in this miracle, but it’s a faith not shared by their listeners/viewers/readers. Could it be that blogs are growing in popularity precisely because there is no pretense of objectivity? If we have an opinion, we flop it out there on the table.

I, for one, have no desire to commit journalism. And I hope there’s always someone around willing to do it. And if they can keep their political views and opinions out of their reporting, I’ll light a candle.

Update: When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. Dale took me to task on this post and upon reflection I confess to having too much tar on my brush and smearing it indiscriminately. I know and work with a lot of good reporters who work hard at –and, as far as I know, succeed in– keeping their personal views out of their reporting. To suggest otherwise was wrong.

Three groups of journalistic awareness of weblogs

Posted on by

Group 3, “growing smaller every day, is completely unaware of what has happened in the past few years. They don’t know what a blog is. They are still upset that the company started a website and they don’t believe they should have to write for it.”

From an article by Paul Conley (“Learning the basics of conversational editorial“) in which he describes three classes of journalistic awareness of weblogs. [via E-Meida Tidbits]

Journalists like control

Posted on by

“You’d think that all those years of probing, criticizing, attacking, and lampooning others would give them Teflon skin. But, no, like a schoolyard bad boy, if you confront them and criticize them back, they turn either weepy or prickly. Can give, can’t take. That is not so surprising, after all, when you realize that this is really an issue of control. In the closed worlds of the newsroom, the page, the show, and the media conference, journalists are in control. In the wide-open world of the web, they’re not. And that’s a tough adjustment for some.”

— Jeff Jarvis thinks journalists have thin skins and explains it as a matter of control