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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Feb. 11 Readings
I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but I feel like the first article is something I've heard 1,000 times before. We are all not focused on anything because we try to multitask and do everything. I feel, though, that in news this has only led to a downfall of the TV news - trying to catch our attention with sensationalism - and a quicker version of print news. Online news, I have found, is most successful as-word of-mouth advertising and the flashiness doesn't so much work to catch our attention.
I do think, though, that the need to catch a user's attention is important to stay alive as a news site. Because of that, it would need to establish itself in the journalism world then gain readers outside of it.
Like the second article brings up, part of that battle is keeping the user at your site. Part of that is easy navigating, so that the user can find exactly what he wants if he is looking for it, or come across something very quickly. This, to me, means clean design, simple headlines, and an easy navigating system for a site.
Again, John Kelly, I've heard this before. "Are blogs and Web-native media making old-style institutional journalism obsolete?" I don't know... I'm going with no. People have argued both sides of this and both sides are logical. Most of the more successful news sites are those owned by mainstream, institutional news organizations. However, the ones that thrive are the ones that are independent and well, decent. The debate rages on but no one ever answers the question.
As weird as the final story is, I relate to her argument that advertising, public interest, and independence do not always flow together. The idea that it can is possible but the idea that the American model is based on it is false.
I do think, though, that the need to catch a user's attention is important to stay alive as a news site. Because of that, it would need to establish itself in the journalism world then gain readers outside of it.
Like the second article brings up, part of that battle is keeping the user at your site. Part of that is easy navigating, so that the user can find exactly what he wants if he is looking for it, or come across something very quickly. This, to me, means clean design, simple headlines, and an easy navigating system for a site.
Again, John Kelly, I've heard this before. "Are blogs and Web-native media making old-style institutional journalism obsolete?" I don't know... I'm going with no. People have argued both sides of this and both sides are logical. Most of the more successful news sites are those owned by mainstream, institutional news organizations. However, the ones that thrive are the ones that are independent and well, decent. The debate rages on but no one ever answers the question.
As weird as the final story is, I relate to her argument that advertising, public interest, and independence do not always flow together. The idea that it can is possible but the idea that the American model is based on it is false.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Feb. 4 Readings
Zuckerman brings up an important point with his article about too many choices. We really do have way too many choices in what we watch or read in news, but they seem to be melding into a few common themes. This means we have a choice of a very small spectrum of news. For readers, it all appears the same. For editors, there is even more opportunity to copy and assimilate. I feel like the best way around this is narrowing what is newsworthy by site. By this I mean that five different Web sites should not have the same top stories. That is a waste and redundant in the online news world. If one person goes to those same five sites in one day, they should get different perspectives and different news. I would find out and use what is newsworthy to my own readers and feature that on the top headlines of the day or the way I tell the stories. I think what is hardest is finding out what the reader wants to know when they themselves sometimes aren't aware of it.
The Niles article's take on TV news is interesting. I feel like people in the industry look down on TV news because it breaks so many rules, but isn't it really just feeding what the audience is saying it wants?
Note: "Their’s was a passion that I rarely saw in the faces of executives dryly mulling spreadsheets" - is "their's" correct?
While I also agree with a lot of the criticisms of television news and the mistakes made by "he said she said" news, I also think that the journalists that look down on those styles are the ones that fall into it the most. People can only complain so much until they either have to change something or create a new way of doing things. Journalism students complaining about how news is done doesn't actually change anything.
The third article has a good point in its thought that newspapers should often consider running themselves more like an online news organizations (since more than likely that is what they will slowly become). I think that one major problem is the business aspect to journalism- someday a business model will work for delivering the news but so far most organizations are in experimenting mode.
The last article's comparison between American Idol and elections, I think, is overdone. I feel like this is cited too often and will only hurt election news. People will learn why young people tune into American Idol and not the election coverage (the human aspect, drama, young sexy entertainment) and try to apply it even more to election coverage, which will only hurt the news. As an editor I would try to avoid this comparison and find another way to reach people. I do agree with the idea that in order to pull young people into news, we need to regain their trust and make sure they know that they can count on certain news organizations to give them what they need to know in an honest way.
The Niles article's take on TV news is interesting. I feel like people in the industry look down on TV news because it breaks so many rules, but isn't it really just feeding what the audience is saying it wants?
Note: "Their’s was a passion that I rarely saw in the faces of executives dryly mulling spreadsheets" - is "their's" correct?
While I also agree with a lot of the criticisms of television news and the mistakes made by "he said she said" news, I also think that the journalists that look down on those styles are the ones that fall into it the most. People can only complain so much until they either have to change something or create a new way of doing things. Journalism students complaining about how news is done doesn't actually change anything.
The third article has a good point in its thought that newspapers should often consider running themselves more like an online news organizations (since more than likely that is what they will slowly become). I think that one major problem is the business aspect to journalism- someday a business model will work for delivering the news but so far most organizations are in experimenting mode.
The last article's comparison between American Idol and elections, I think, is overdone. I feel like this is cited too often and will only hurt election news. People will learn why young people tune into American Idol and not the election coverage (the human aspect, drama, young sexy entertainment) and try to apply it even more to election coverage, which will only hurt the news. As an editor I would try to avoid this comparison and find another way to reach people. I do agree with the idea that in order to pull young people into news, we need to regain their trust and make sure they know that they can count on certain news organizations to give them what they need to know in an honest way.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Jan. 28 Readings
(Just a basic overview of thoughts for all six readings)
I think the first article does a good job of illustrating what a journalist has become: the all-encompassing backpack-reporter. However, I think that it's rare for people to criticize this. While the idea of a journalist that can write, record, and edit all in one day is great, I also think it has become romanticized. How is a reporter that gets paid nothing supposed to even afford all of the equipment that we are supposed to own and master? On the other side of this, though, is the bright side of technology where news can break on a blog and be seen by millions by the end of the day.
Mark Briggs makes a good point about news without an audience. If you have a story, but no one to tell, what makes it news? I think that the "news as conversation" aspect is very important. To me, it means that news is nothing without someone to have that conversation with. This also takes into account one's audience, like how Vahlberg describes different demographics and their treatment of news sites. It is safe to understand why each generation won't use certain tools on the web for a news site in order to understand which you should be using. I do think that it is often unavoidable to fall into the "too much" on a site problem. So many organizations are trying to experiment with new technology that there is a lot going on. Once certain ideas get ignored or dismissed, however, I hope they will take the hint and do away with them.
The CEO of GE's quote (“This is not a time to skimp on resources but to focus them on your best businesses: stop the weakest, invest in the strongest.”) is what sums it up most accurately. The biggest fault of news corporations today is keeping on technology and ideas that no longer work. My favorite example of this is Twitter. People tried so hard to find good uses for it, and still are, but most younger journalists have left it behind because it just doesn't work. (Even though one of the article's authors, Katie King, still uses it.)
The last article makes a small but important point by saying that one step with new technology is learning how to use these tools. Without knowing what is possible, how can we say we are doing everything we can? So many editors rely on interns or news reporters to use the technology and look past the other possibilities for it.
How I would use this information:
I think that people marvel at technology often without trying to apply its uses to journalism in new ways. For example, when the president breaks news on his blog, like the article suggests, why aren't newsrooms across the country trying to link to it no their homepage immediately or get a live video feed?
Briggs' point about newsworthy conversation should be used to show that news organizations should understand their readers. With this I do not mean demographics or numbers, I mean that editors should know not only what readers want to know, but what they should know. So instead of assuming readers won't want or use something on a news site, it may be worth a little bit of effort to understand the reader first.
I'm surprised that more people don't take Vahlberg's advice and pay more attention to age groups. I would think that more news organizations would make entire sites dedicated to news revolving around the 18-30 demographic or something similar.
The best advice I read in this was to keep in mind how people see your site. Often there is too much clutter, but design and color and even small considerations like font are all editing decisions that should be carefully thought out.
For any news publication I founded, I would take this advice most seriously. Often, first impression (front page) is what sticks. If people like the front page, they may read more. I would try to keep it simple and think out the design specifically for my reader group.
I think the first article does a good job of illustrating what a journalist has become: the all-encompassing backpack-reporter. However, I think that it's rare for people to criticize this. While the idea of a journalist that can write, record, and edit all in one day is great, I also think it has become romanticized. How is a reporter that gets paid nothing supposed to even afford all of the equipment that we are supposed to own and master? On the other side of this, though, is the bright side of technology where news can break on a blog and be seen by millions by the end of the day.
Mark Briggs makes a good point about news without an audience. If you have a story, but no one to tell, what makes it news? I think that the "news as conversation" aspect is very important. To me, it means that news is nothing without someone to have that conversation with. This also takes into account one's audience, like how Vahlberg describes different demographics and their treatment of news sites. It is safe to understand why each generation won't use certain tools on the web for a news site in order to understand which you should be using. I do think that it is often unavoidable to fall into the "too much" on a site problem. So many organizations are trying to experiment with new technology that there is a lot going on. Once certain ideas get ignored or dismissed, however, I hope they will take the hint and do away with them.
The CEO of GE's quote (“This is not a time to skimp on resources but to focus them on your best businesses: stop the weakest, invest in the strongest.”) is what sums it up most accurately. The biggest fault of news corporations today is keeping on technology and ideas that no longer work. My favorite example of this is Twitter. People tried so hard to find good uses for it, and still are, but most younger journalists have left it behind because it just doesn't work. (Even though one of the article's authors, Katie King, still uses it.)
The last article makes a small but important point by saying that one step with new technology is learning how to use these tools. Without knowing what is possible, how can we say we are doing everything we can? So many editors rely on interns or news reporters to use the technology and look past the other possibilities for it.
How I would use this information:
I think that people marvel at technology often without trying to apply its uses to journalism in new ways. For example, when the president breaks news on his blog, like the article suggests, why aren't newsrooms across the country trying to link to it no their homepage immediately or get a live video feed?
Briggs' point about newsworthy conversation should be used to show that news organizations should understand their readers. With this I do not mean demographics or numbers, I mean that editors should know not only what readers want to know, but what they should know. So instead of assuming readers won't want or use something on a news site, it may be worth a little bit of effort to understand the reader first.
I'm surprised that more people don't take Vahlberg's advice and pay more attention to age groups. I would think that more news organizations would make entire sites dedicated to news revolving around the 18-30 demographic or something similar.
The best advice I read in this was to keep in mind how people see your site. Often there is too much clutter, but design and color and even small considerations like font are all editing decisions that should be carefully thought out.
For any news publication I founded, I would take this advice most seriously. Often, first impression (front page) is what sticks. If people like the front page, they may read more. I would try to keep it simple and think out the design specifically for my reader group.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Reading 1
(This blog is about the first four readings about copyediting for Jan. 23)
I think that this first one noting the importance of copy editors mostly labels the editor as the mediator between the reader and writer. Sometimes an article will make total sense to him/her but when read by another person makes no sense at all. I think that this reading makes a good point that the copy editor is the (almost) objective reader that can catch ambiguity and what may confuse someone else.
Since we're basically all going to have to be a rim-man at some point, I think that it's good training even though it's not necessarily someone's dream job. What the third reading does often forget is that some people live for correcting other people's grammar and could be someone's dream. Its advice to actively pursue editing, though, is good. I have learned more editing in my high school and now than I ever have from being taught the AP style book or in a classroom. Also because we are all journalism majors, the advice to start small is often overlooked. What I think people forget is that there are way more of us than there are jobs. We will still have to start small.
The last reading makes an interesting point about the little changes that copy editors often make. I've definitely been abused for wanting to change something late in the game because of syntax or grammar that another editor or writer doesn't see the use to change. Not only is the copy editor an underpaid job, it's often underappreciated. The layout part is probably the best, too, because I can see what I've done. The job is more clearly recognized. I think that this backs up the idea that journalists have to do much more now just to be considered on the same level as before.
I think that this first one noting the importance of copy editors mostly labels the editor as the mediator between the reader and writer. Sometimes an article will make total sense to him/her but when read by another person makes no sense at all. I think that this reading makes a good point that the copy editor is the (almost) objective reader that can catch ambiguity and what may confuse someone else.
Since we're basically all going to have to be a rim-man at some point, I think that it's good training even though it's not necessarily someone's dream job. What the third reading does often forget is that some people live for correcting other people's grammar and could be someone's dream. Its advice to actively pursue editing, though, is good. I have learned more editing in my high school and now than I ever have from being taught the AP style book or in a classroom. Also because we are all journalism majors, the advice to start small is often overlooked. What I think people forget is that there are way more of us than there are jobs. We will still have to start small.
The last reading makes an interesting point about the little changes that copy editors often make. I've definitely been abused for wanting to change something late in the game because of syntax or grammar that another editor or writer doesn't see the use to change. Not only is the copy editor an underpaid job, it's often underappreciated. The layout part is probably the best, too, because I can see what I've done. The job is more clearly recognized. I think that this backs up the idea that journalists have to do much more now just to be considered on the same level as before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)