"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.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)