Welsh?
So turns out the first one is from some site trying to teach languages. The headlines, real or not, are good attempts at puns or jokes but miss the mark since they either make no sense or say something completely unintended. So I'm going to go ahead and say that wasn't the page to go to for the best headlines of the year.
Okay, so while admittedly the headlines for the astronaut case were largely reaches for puns, the "Dark Side of the Loon" was probably my favorite. But it's also interesting to note that headlines and stories like these treated the story as it should have been treated - an interesting story. It in no way should have been treated like they're saying CBS handled it with serious talks and analysis of NASA. It just didn't connect. Also, these puns and clever headlines should probably be reserved for stories like this one where it makes sense and is appropriate.
... Like the bailout story. It makes no sense to include a clever pun-filled headline for a story about economics.
I will begin with the Chicago stories with a simple question: Why so many quotes in headlines? Are these things actually said, or are we just labeling things now? Also, the comments include someone asking what his eye color is. Photoshop much, Chicago? And I'm with one of the commenters asking what "g-fraud" is. Were headline writers trying to coin a new phrase? Again, really reaching for puns here and rhymes (face of disgrace?).
All in all, bad headlines. If it's a lame story, settle sometimes for a lame (but descriptive and clear) headline.
Fun fact: we actually did a collection of the best headlines from the Eliot Spitzer case a while back, and the best one? Metroland's "I can haz prostitootz?"
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Mo Money Mo Problems
The money part of the NYTimes handbook is basically logical, but I guess not to anyone familiar with "independent news".
I didn't actually think about the fact that reporters may own stock in companies they might eventually cover- it seems like an out-there predicament but I guess a good thing to cover. Considering our publication is a bunch of 20-somethings, I doubt we'll own stock in anything ever, so it's not something we'd want to directly address. However, the next few points that any conflict that their spouse or family has might create the same problem might apply. I think this is probably more for how readers might perceive this bias than any worry of actual bias.
(The next entire section is basically just telling anyone associated with business or business stories that they cannot own stock with any company beside NYTImes)
Transition to.... SPORTS.
Again for perceiving bias reasons, no one in the sports department may gamble on sports games. However, does this apply to things like Fantasy Baseball? Since our project isn't planning on directly covering sports, I don't think this will be in our ethics code. Not accepting tickets or anything from promoters is probably good from any section. To our application, this would also include theater tickets and anything from people with sports teams or even local businesses.
The next part involves culture: is this part implying that someone in the lifestyles section cannot take part in or help someone take part in writing a book? Because I feel like this happens all of the time. Not recommending people for hire makes sense, because then clearly that's showing some sort of bias. The next part about not taking part or suggesting anything in the news reporters cover would definitely be a part of our ethics code. Once a journalist steps in, it is no longer objective reporting. One should never become part of the story they cover.
As for photographers, they cannot accept gifts but (I didn't think of this one) they also cannot endorse anything relating to their art or even offer advice in their art.
Likewise, travel editors/writers cannot accept gifts or freebies from anyone in the travel business. Again, our website won't have enough money to send people on these trips anyway so I'm not worried about things like restaurant and travel reviews quite yet.
I didn't actually think about the fact that reporters may own stock in companies they might eventually cover- it seems like an out-there predicament but I guess a good thing to cover. Considering our publication is a bunch of 20-somethings, I doubt we'll own stock in anything ever, so it's not something we'd want to directly address. However, the next few points that any conflict that their spouse or family has might create the same problem might apply. I think this is probably more for how readers might perceive this bias than any worry of actual bias.
(The next entire section is basically just telling anyone associated with business or business stories that they cannot own stock with any company beside NYTImes)
Transition to.... SPORTS.
Again for perceiving bias reasons, no one in the sports department may gamble on sports games. However, does this apply to things like Fantasy Baseball? Since our project isn't planning on directly covering sports, I don't think this will be in our ethics code. Not accepting tickets or anything from promoters is probably good from any section. To our application, this would also include theater tickets and anything from people with sports teams or even local businesses.
The next part involves culture: is this part implying that someone in the lifestyles section cannot take part in or help someone take part in writing a book? Because I feel like this happens all of the time. Not recommending people for hire makes sense, because then clearly that's showing some sort of bias. The next part about not taking part or suggesting anything in the news reporters cover would definitely be a part of our ethics code. Once a journalist steps in, it is no longer objective reporting. One should never become part of the story they cover.
As for photographers, they cannot accept gifts but (I didn't think of this one) they also cannot endorse anything relating to their art or even offer advice in their art.
Likewise, travel editors/writers cannot accept gifts or freebies from anyone in the travel business. Again, our website won't have enough money to send people on these trips anyway so I'm not worried about things like restaurant and travel reviews quite yet.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
March 25 readings
"For the Code of Ethics en espanol, click here." Wouldn't it make more sense to put that whole sentence "en espanol"?
Anyway...
First web site: all around good advice. It seems like the basic guidelines for any journalist, which is probably good that it stays consistent. I found it a tad difficult to take, though, when the section in "Independence" was directly next to an ad about cameras. My favorite part: "recognize that their first obligation is to the public." Do not serve other journalists, think about the public first.
This next one would be PERFECT for that Denver video. Rule: do not make newspaper shutting down seem like a rap music video. Best thing I take from this section is not add or alter anything about photos or video that would make someone think something other than what the photo/video originally depicted. The rule about using effects sparingly, though, is so good. People too often use sounds and weird effects like they're in 3rd grade and just learned Powerpoint.
I agree that photos are often hard to take for what they are - if you're a good critical thinker. For our final site, I would say that we will fully avoid any misleading photos or doctored images in any way. People in their 20s distrust enough people.
"News photos in advertisements: Photographs taken specifically for news columns shall not be used in advertisements unless approved by the executive editor or managing editor." - I hadn't even thought that people do this. This is a horrible practice and confuses news with money.
Rochester's "Nothing recreated, staged or posed is represented as a candid situation" is the best advice for anyone. Because no one follows it. I think it confuses the idea that photos reflect truth.
Anyway...
First web site: all around good advice. It seems like the basic guidelines for any journalist, which is probably good that it stays consistent. I found it a tad difficult to take, though, when the section in "Independence" was directly next to an ad about cameras. My favorite part: "recognize that their first obligation is to the public." Do not serve other journalists, think about the public first.
This next one would be PERFECT for that Denver video. Rule: do not make newspaper shutting down seem like a rap music video. Best thing I take from this section is not add or alter anything about photos or video that would make someone think something other than what the photo/video originally depicted. The rule about using effects sparingly, though, is so good. People too often use sounds and weird effects like they're in 3rd grade and just learned Powerpoint.
I agree that photos are often hard to take for what they are - if you're a good critical thinker. For our final site, I would say that we will fully avoid any misleading photos or doctored images in any way. People in their 20s distrust enough people.
"News photos in advertisements: Photographs taken specifically for news columns shall not be used in advertisements unless approved by the executive editor or managing editor." - I hadn't even thought that people do this. This is a horrible practice and confuses news with money.
Rochester's "Nothing recreated, staged or posed is represented as a candid situation" is the best advice for anyone. Because no one follows it. I think it confuses the idea that photos reflect truth.
Monday, March 16, 2009
March 18 readings
Redesign! Fun fact: Sara Quinn is super cool and I did a workshop with her in February.
Berlin makes a really good point: "what we've managed to do is take the way that you're used to reading a big-city broadsheet daily and just sort of turn it on its ear and make it into a daily magazine about Chicago." -It's interesting that just by changing a few small things can make readers think they are no longer reading a newspaper but a magazine. Also interesting is that they didn't just "redesign" things, they changed the way they approached certain sections that changed the way people read it as well. I think it's good to do both together. Quinn is also a big fan of "varied story forms" and I think Berlin's redesign does that well, with using the best type of storytelling technique to tell each story. -The Oklahoman says a big thing they changed was the way they told each story, through tighter writing, which probably helps with spacing. Lastly, I think it's important that two out of the three papers did focus groups or testing of some sort before sending their new version out to readers.
I like that Gude adds critical thinking into the process of visual journalism- the story, the visual, then thinking about it critically to put it all together. I think that most importantly, he and his students have found ways to tell the stories in ways they think are logical. For instance, what exactly do you want to see/understand about each story? Then tell it/show it in that way.
"made me wonder whether reading on the Web is like reading a tabloid" - I think it is. People want they information as quickly and succinctly as possible. The web has that advantage of being able to click on what you want, while the newspaper format is still harder to navigate. People (my opinion completely) probably want the newspaper to be more like the web in that you can pick and choose what you want to read.
The one myth that I think has some actual standing is the first one. I always learned this one in high school and I think it sometimes still stands but only in select circumstances. It's more of a judgment call most of the time. Myth 5 is also kind of misleading. Justified type is better if you know how to deal with it and make sure it's readable. Another fun fact: Poynter uses the Latin Web site that we use to put in dummy text.
Top image is another piece of proof that text/typography is getting way more popular in the world of journalism, if done well. I also think that one thing these papers have in common is the attention to all of the small details that make up the layout. "It means an impressive attention to layout detail."
Friday, March 6, 2009
March 4 readings
I think the best point Joe Mathews (an alias, I'm sure) makes is that what's "bad" about papers today isn't what's there -- it's what's missing. The stories that newspapers can't afford to cover anymore is what hits the hardest, because investigative work is probably among the first to go because it's so expensive. Papers get flimsier because they can only afford short AP stories for national topics and a few reporters for shallow reporting of local ones.
Osnos hits the business model problem pretty well, actually, saying that certain groups have found niches that work and certain ones just haven't found the model yet. Summing it up, he says: "The equivalent mistake among newspapers was to start giving away information in the misbegotten belief that mass distribution would attract lucrative advertising." It's very true. We expect that advertisers will back the important aspect of the world that is News, or that people will pay for their service. Problem is, people don't tend to see it as a service. They expect it as a given part of their (hopefully, daily) lives. I'm going to equate it, however, with something else we are simply used to. Internet. We pay for internet in most cases. It tends to be a flat rate for a certain quality of internet, but nonetheless we pay. So why can't readers/users understand that money goes into creating the news, therefore money needs to be put back into it? I think that maybe as a collective news group, that's the best thing that can be communicated. As a whole, news organizations need to decide on a solid business model that works across mediums and across types of news publications/papers, etc. I feel like if you had to pay for each one, people may slowly get used to it at least and accept the new model.
As for the Hartford story, I agree with the fact that larger papers cannot do the same kind of reporting that a local, tied-in paper can do in its community. The problem is that those local papers are slowly losing people and resources, so that their in-depth local reporting is becoming scarce. Their one fighting aspect is losing out to the big stories from bigger papers. ProPublica is, as they say, filling a real need. They put together the need for investigative work and the small niche market (exposing corrupt and untrustworthy officials) on someone's dollar that's not the reader. The only thing I worry about is once it loses some of its newness and novelty, will it become more popular and do more good or will it fade away into news organizations no longer used?
Osnos hits the business model problem pretty well, actually, saying that certain groups have found niches that work and certain ones just haven't found the model yet. Summing it up, he says: "The equivalent mistake among newspapers was to start giving away information in the misbegotten belief that mass distribution would attract lucrative advertising." It's very true. We expect that advertisers will back the important aspect of the world that is News, or that people will pay for their service. Problem is, people don't tend to see it as a service. They expect it as a given part of their (hopefully, daily) lives. I'm going to equate it, however, with something else we are simply used to. Internet. We pay for internet in most cases. It tends to be a flat rate for a certain quality of internet, but nonetheless we pay. So why can't readers/users understand that money goes into creating the news, therefore money needs to be put back into it? I think that maybe as a collective news group, that's the best thing that can be communicated. As a whole, news organizations need to decide on a solid business model that works across mediums and across types of news publications/papers, etc. I feel like if you had to pay for each one, people may slowly get used to it at least and accept the new model.
As for the Hartford story, I agree with the fact that larger papers cannot do the same kind of reporting that a local, tied-in paper can do in its community. The problem is that those local papers are slowly losing people and resources, so that their in-depth local reporting is becoming scarce. Their one fighting aspect is losing out to the big stories from bigger papers. ProPublica is, as they say, filling a real need. They put together the need for investigative work and the small niche market (exposing corrupt and untrustworthy officials) on someone's dollar that's not the reader. The only thing I worry about is once it loses some of its newness and novelty, will it become more popular and do more good or will it fade away into news organizations no longer used?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Feb. 25 readings
"Striking gold in our digital age will happen for those who create platforms upon which acts of journalism can be performed." David Cohn definitely puts it best when he says that journalism is not the problem -- it's the platform on which we deliver it.
I think his idea for Spot.us is most interesting in that it brings in the audience not for short comments or e-email feedback, but for real brainstorming use. It uses the public's curiosity to test whether stories will work and whether they cover anything that might actually be of any interest or use to the audience. I think that what he has caught onto is a business model that could work in small amounts -- what worked for Josh Marshall in the beginning. The problem comes when they want to expand and don't have the money or audience to fund it. For any real news site, this is a good model to look after especially at startup for funding purposes.
Korr's linked world has me baffled but if he's talking about linking news stories together then I'm all for it. I also found it interesting how he pounded down AP wire's "house style" -- it got me thinking whether a house style for a news site is good for consistency or bad for monotony.
I think it's nice that Jim Kennedy is looking out for the future of news coverage, but I feel like he's doing it from five years ago. He wants to chance content and distribution, which is cute but old news.
Note: Gannon's "1960’s" is definitely incorrect. Old newspaper man, sure. He did have a good point, though, in finding an audience and a community to sell news to that doesn't already have a reliable news source (print, TV, etc.). That's probably overlooked often when people are starting up physical print publications and trying to hand them out to communities with three newspapers already.
I think his idea for Spot.us is most interesting in that it brings in the audience not for short comments or e-email feedback, but for real brainstorming use. It uses the public's curiosity to test whether stories will work and whether they cover anything that might actually be of any interest or use to the audience. I think that what he has caught onto is a business model that could work in small amounts -- what worked for Josh Marshall in the beginning. The problem comes when they want to expand and don't have the money or audience to fund it. For any real news site, this is a good model to look after especially at startup for funding purposes.
Korr's linked world has me baffled but if he's talking about linking news stories together then I'm all for it. I also found it interesting how he pounded down AP wire's "house style" -- it got me thinking whether a house style for a news site is good for consistency or bad for monotony.
I think it's nice that Jim Kennedy is looking out for the future of news coverage, but I feel like he's doing it from five years ago. He wants to chance content and distribution, which is cute but old news.
Note: Gannon's "1960’s" is definitely incorrect. Old newspaper man, sure. He did have a good point, though, in finding an audience and a community to sell news to that doesn't already have a reliable news source (print, TV, etc.). That's probably overlooked often when people are starting up physical print publications and trying to hand them out to communities with three newspapers already.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Feb. 18 readings
I want to start off by saying that I will not adapt Jeff's new term of "crowdsourcing" and will call citizen journalism what it is. Citizen journalism. Carrying on...
Jeff uses the term and calls it a "nettlesome" process. Not only is this indeed a word, but he is right. (Nettlesome means causing irritation or annoyance.) From an editor's perspective, I'm sure citizen journalism as an option can be helpful but also incredibly frustrating having to teach people the world of journalism from the ground up for a simple story. For the record, for our imaginary "top 20" Web site, I do not plan on using citizen journalists. I feel like for a start-up site, using my own talent and my friends' talent will be the best idea for a budget standpoint especially, but also for quality. I somewhat feel like Assignment Zero was a lot like iReport: it wanted to get a lot out of its readers without really knowing what to expect. Final note on this one: I find it odd that they used Cincinnati.com's homepage for this example since I'm from there and it's one of the worst media sites ever (considering it's one Web site for the newspaper, magazine, and local Buzz-type weekly).
I think the second one makes a good point, but not necessarily for the reasons it describes. I think that Matt Taibbi had it right when he said that sometimes a reader just wants know the reporter's voice. That's what the blog allows the reader to do -- hear the reporter. Bland news reporting is helpful sometimes, but the blog allows the reader to trust a reporter and feel like they know something about him. I think that setting up a blog for every staff on a news site is a good idea because it sets up a trust relationship for each reader.
Sidenote: do you really spell out Saint in Saint Patrick's Day?
Other than the tidbit about Twitter, the Colonel has a point. Staying in touch with readers gives them reason to stay in touch with you. Too many papers want people to tell them when something is happening but never offer any communication in return.
Bob put it best when he said "Too often we give unjustified credibility to bloggers who are, at best, practicing amateur journalism or simplistic punditry. And news organizations provide that false credibility by equating the bloggers’ observations and views with the rigor of news reporting."
--Yes. We do. Because we can't pay anyone else to do the real investigation. Sites either need to own up that they're using cheap labor or try to get better stuff. At least don't expect to get reporting from someone who knows nothing about reporting. And he's right -- it's not just the writers. Editors ease their standards to get people to come to their sites and beat other sites' page views. Okay, this is the last time I'll comment about Twitter, but if why is Neiman so enamored with it? It's like our grandparents trying to use Limewire to download old showtunes - the technology isn't worth it.
I think that the content is what drives newspapers and magazines. That's why not only is it important to keep the reporters involved, but also the readers. Keeping an open forum about what they want to know about is probably one of the most overlooked technology ideas. I do think, though, that the difference between newspapers and magazines is twofold: somehow magazines have gathered loyal readers, and they know how to advertise themselves (within themselves). If newspapers can use those ideas, they will be much better off as well.
For news sites, I think the best idea is to advertise elsewhere on the web. All it takes is getting someone on another site curious about what you have and then you easily gain readers.
Jeff uses the term and calls it a "nettlesome" process. Not only is this indeed a word, but he is right. (Nettlesome means causing irritation or annoyance.) From an editor's perspective, I'm sure citizen journalism as an option can be helpful but also incredibly frustrating having to teach people the world of journalism from the ground up for a simple story. For the record, for our imaginary "top 20" Web site, I do not plan on using citizen journalists. I feel like for a start-up site, using my own talent and my friends' talent will be the best idea for a budget standpoint especially, but also for quality. I somewhat feel like Assignment Zero was a lot like iReport: it wanted to get a lot out of its readers without really knowing what to expect. Final note on this one: I find it odd that they used Cincinnati.com's homepage for this example since I'm from there and it's one of the worst media sites ever (considering it's one Web site for the newspaper, magazine, and local Buzz-type weekly).
I think the second one makes a good point, but not necessarily for the reasons it describes. I think that Matt Taibbi had it right when he said that sometimes a reader just wants know the reporter's voice. That's what the blog allows the reader to do -- hear the reporter. Bland news reporting is helpful sometimes, but the blog allows the reader to trust a reporter and feel like they know something about him. I think that setting up a blog for every staff on a news site is a good idea because it sets up a trust relationship for each reader.
Sidenote: do you really spell out Saint in Saint Patrick's Day?
Other than the tidbit about Twitter, the Colonel has a point. Staying in touch with readers gives them reason to stay in touch with you. Too many papers want people to tell them when something is happening but never offer any communication in return.
Bob put it best when he said "Too often we give unjustified credibility to bloggers who are, at best, practicing amateur journalism or simplistic punditry. And news organizations provide that false credibility by equating the bloggers’ observations and views with the rigor of news reporting."
--Yes. We do. Because we can't pay anyone else to do the real investigation. Sites either need to own up that they're using cheap labor or try to get better stuff. At least don't expect to get reporting from someone who knows nothing about reporting. And he's right -- it's not just the writers. Editors ease their standards to get people to come to their sites and beat other sites' page views. Okay, this is the last time I'll comment about Twitter, but if why is Neiman so enamored with it? It's like our grandparents trying to use Limewire to download old showtunes - the technology isn't worth it.
I think that the content is what drives newspapers and magazines. That's why not only is it important to keep the reporters involved, but also the readers. Keeping an open forum about what they want to know about is probably one of the most overlooked technology ideas. I do think, though, that the difference between newspapers and magazines is twofold: somehow magazines have gathered loyal readers, and they know how to advertise themselves (within themselves). If newspapers can use those ideas, they will be much better off as well.
For news sites, I think the best idea is to advertise elsewhere on the web. All it takes is getting someone on another site curious about what you have and then you easily gain readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)