Editors: Stop letting reporters go without online content!
January 12, 2009 in College Media, Multimedia views
Image via WikipediaA Twitter conversation with Tim Magaw of the Daily Kent Stater: #
timmagaw: Training week for the Daily Kent Stater starts tomorrow. What’s one thing every college journalist should know? #
CICM: How to move beyond their print-based paradigm. 
#
timmagaw: We tell them that all the time. It’s easy to talk the talk. It’s more difficult to get them to actually do it. #
CICM: stop running their print stories if they don’t turn in web-friendly stuff – that’ll get them to do it. #
timmagaw: Now there’s an idea. #
One of the questions I usually get when I do a multimedia workshop is this one: how do we get reporters to go along with this stuff? It’s along the lines of what Tim is asking. #
My response is always the same: Who says you have to “get them to go along.” You don’t. You demand it. #
A couple of years ago, it might have been okay to let a good print writer slide with just turning in those print stories, or (heaven forbid) a photog just turn in those photos with no audio, no video, no slideshow. #
Those days are gone. #
My response now: Editors must demand at least links, if not source documents and audio clips. If a reporter doesn’t turn in their story with “web-only” content like hyperlinks (at the minimum!), send it back. Tell that reporter the story is not finished. Period. End of story. #
What’s the danger? Perhaps that reporter leaves in a huff and doesn’t come back. If that happens, that reporter is missing in action anyway. If you’re in on the future of journalism, you’d better be getting with the Web. #
More importantly, that type of expectation from editors will flow down to the staff because they follow their editors – in good habits and bad. If you start expecting reporters to do the right thing, they will do the right thing, or they won’t appear in print. #
If their print byline is still that important to them, they’ll get the web content. #
Tradition is a powerful thing – and it can stand in the way of innovation. But tradition gets reinvented every four years at a college newspaper. When I was in college, we used wax, layout pages and photochemical processing to output our copy. After I left, they started using Quark on Macs. The layout pages, wax and photochemical processing were gone. #
Nobody batted an eye. Why should they be allowed to do so now? #
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ccde55e6-2549-46f2-b4e0-1d76c205a0b2)
Sing it, Brotha!
Oh please. "If a reporter tries to turn in a story and it doesn't have a video and a Flash animation, shoot him in the face." Thanks, multimedia person! There are all kinds of stories that might not have relevant hyperlinks available for them — particularly the localized features about neighborhood characters or one-man businesses that shrieking doomsayers like you are always telling newspapers to focus on.Multimedia is a great thing. But it's also an incredibly time-consuming thing in an era where reporters have less and less time, because there are fewer and fewer of them, and they're working in copy mills that demand three stories a day. So go sell your tech-topia to CNN … the rest of us have deadlines.
Okay "KnowsBetter" here's the challenge – give me a story and I'll bet I can find *some* kind of relevant web-only content – maybe a hyperlink. I said NOTHING about Flash, nothing about a reporter turning in video (although I think photogs should be at least turning in some kind of video on a regular basis)But I also noted that the web-only content could be a source document or audio clip from an interview. One-man business? What about a page that explains their product? Hmmm.In other words, spare me your outrage. I came from where you've been. I've got the fixative-stained fingers to prove it.Time-consuming? Please. Have you heard of teh Google? Wikipedia, Scribd? Audacity. It's as time consuming as doing your job!
Don't forget that online text needs to have one eye on SEO, unlike print copy.
[...] a great post at Innovation at College Media that argues that reporters must now include URL hyperlinks or links to audio files to back up their [...]
All right, so there's a street preacher on a downtown corner. Every day, winter or summer, rain or shine, he's there preaching the gospel. Some think of him as a lovable old coot doing the Lord's work. Others think he's insane and wouldn't shout quite so loudly when they walked by him on their lunch break. The story takes a look at the man and his mission.Unfortunately, I have turned this story in without a hyperlink. I now present myself for punishment.
What denomination is he? Does he have a church? Could you record him with an audio recorder or a video camera to get a flavor of his preaching style? Where is he located – maybe put it on a google map. Did you record your interviews with the spectators? Audio. All of those things would take maybe an extra 20 minutes worth of time.Not that difficult, KnowsBetter.
What denomination is he? Does he have a church? Could you record him with an audio recorder or a video camera to get a flavor of his preaching style? Where is he located – maybe put it on a google map. Did you record your interviews with the spectators? Audio.
All of those things would take maybe an extra 20 minutes worth of time.
Not that difficult, KnowsBetter.
What denomination is he? Does he have a church? Could you record him with an audio recorder or a video camera to get a flavor of his preaching style? Where is he located – maybe put it on a google map. Did you record your interviews with the spectators? Audio.
All of those things would take maybe an extra 20 minutes worth of time.
Not that difficult, KnowsBetter.
What denomination is he? Does he have a church? Could you record him with an audio recorder or a video camera to get a flavor of his preaching style? Where is he located – maybe put it on a google map. Did you record your interviews with the spectators? Audio.
All of those things would take maybe an extra 20 minutes worth of time.
Not that difficult, KnowsBetter.