February 27, 2012 in Carnival of Journalism, industry news
This month’s Carnival of Journalism featured this question posed by Steve Outing:
“What emerging technology or digital trend do you think will have a significant impact on journalism in the year or two ahead? And how do you see it playing out in terms of application by journalists, and impact?”
My response is here. A roundup of all the responses is here.
October 31, 2011 in Carnival of Journalism
Crossposted from my personal website – Bryan
This month’s Carnival of Journalism takes us on a tour of a truly frightful house of promise and peril: the world of new gadgets and software tools.
To refresh your memory, the prompt for this month was:
How do you decide to dedicate time to a new tool/platform/gadget? What is the process you go through mentally? And then later – how do you convince others to go through that process? And, last: How do you ensure that the tools you do adopt are used once the “newness” factor fades?
Without further delay, here are some of the responses (links open in new tabs):
Alfred Hermida writes, “The starting point for this discussion is the public, not the tools. Talking about tools is the last thing we should be doing.”
Joe Gullo looks for “the community factor” for new software tools, but says the results are often lackluster: “The hardest part is sticking with the product. It could be the most amazing service or product, but something has to keep me going back and using it.”
Dave Cohn makes an important distinction when evaluating any new tool: “Most platforms/tools/gadgets are tactical – not strategic. You should always keep your strategy in mind so that you can evaluate a tool about whether or not it’s helping to achieve that final goal.”
Carrie Brown focuses on the “evangelism” part of the question, and gives a list of ways to help others see the advantages of new things. This is important for college j-students, especially. “Contrary to popular belief, many of these so-called “digital natives” are often neither savvy about new tech nor exceptionally eager to go beyond their Facebook and Internet Explorer (?!) comfort zones.”
Lauren Rabaino walks through the process and provides examples of the best tools: “The best tools are the ones that solve a coverage problem or put a significant twist on already-existing storytelling tools. Sometimes — and these are my favorite kind of tools — you stumble upon one that fills a huge need that you didn’t even realize you had.”
Jonathan Groves explains how he decides what products to stick with, providing examples along the way. As for convincing others? His approach is slightly different. Click the link to read it. “What’s important is that we choose what best fits us, not everyone else.”
Stijn Debrouwere makes his first appearance in the carnival this month (welcome!). In his post, he posits some fountational reasons why journalists don’t adopt new tools: “our industry is slowly amassing an unsettling amount of cargo cult behaviors: we’re imitating a 20th-century writing style and ethical code without the first idea about how these contribute to journalism that is informative, engaging and fair.”
Jack Lail reiterates that, although it’s painful, “… experiment you must, lest you end up still using a 14,400 baud model and Windows 98 for the rest of your, indeed, wretched life.”
Andrew Zaleski, another new carnivore, explains “Ultimately, I stick to one governing principle when it comes to social media: how will the respective tool improve (and make easier) my work as digital media editor for Urbanite magazine?”
October 10, 2011 in Carnival of Journalism
Image via Wikipedia
Your blog host is hosting this month’s Carnival of Journalism, with a scary theme for Halloween. Ooooohhh! Check out the details here, and feel free to join. There’s no membership fee.
Edit: This is my second go-round as host of the Carnival. I hosted the third-ever Carnival in February 2008.
October 3, 2011 in Carnival of Journalism
This month I’m contributing to the Carnival of Journalism again. However, I’m trying something a little bit different, in that I’ve posted my entry responding to the question “What is the role of online video in the newsroom of the future” at my personal blog, mainly because the topic is a little larger than what we normally cover here.
A taste:
It’s tempting to peer into the future and see a time when people receive all their information via moving images, but that time isn’t near, and I don’t believe it will ever happen, mainly because video (moving images) has a disadvantage in that respect. It’s not scannable.
Go here to read the rest. And I welcome your comments.
August 28, 2011 in Carnival of Journalism
This month, I’m making a contribution to the Carnival of Journalism, hosted by Kathy Gill. The topic: What does Google+ mean for journalists, today and tomorrow?
I have been using Google+ (I hate that + symbol, I’ll just spell it Google Plus from now on – what’s the AP style on that, anyway?) for about two months now, since soon after it launched.
As background, I have to confess that I don’t use Facebook that much. Blog posts from the ICM weblog are autofed into my “Feed,” but beyond that, I’m not on there much. So I don’t necessarily have a large area of comparisons to make between FB and Google Plus. But I do follow Twitter closely when I’m near a computer or the iPad.
That said, I do like the way Google Plus lets you put people into Circles. I can see this being useful for a journalist once more people adopt the platform (assuming that they do). Also, for an educator, it can be a useful way to organize students into classes – intro to journalism, for instance – and then feed information only to those circles.
In this particular feature, Google Plus distances itself from Facebook. Maybe there’s a way to organize people into different “categories” on Facebook. I don’t know, and I really don’t care to take the time to find out. It’s pretty easy on Google Plus.
I’ve also used the Hangout feature twice, and found it useful. In one interview, I talked to people in two different places, so I could use the video feature and see everyone I was talking with. This is not a “new” feature, necessarily, as iChat has had the ability to videochat with more than one person for a while.
But it is seamlessly integrated with Google products (you do need to download a plug-in for it to work with your webcam). Others have used the Hangout feature for press conferences. I imagine there are people who have used it for meetings, as you can have up to 10 webcams in one “hangout.”
This could be useful for a journalism instructor to host a webchat with professionals around the world so that students could interact with several professionals from the local classroom.
For a student journalist, it could be a good way to conduct an interview with a subject who’s not easily accessible for an in-person interview (taking the place of the phone interview).
Another feature I’ve used is the integration with smart phones. I can take a photograph on my Android phone and it’s automatically uploaded to Google Plus (you can set this feature to automatically publish the photo, too). I can then go into Google Plus on the web and tweak the photo, add a cutline or other information, and then publish it to my stream. This would be more useful for journalistic purposes than in the classroom.
The main drawback for a more consistent use of Google Plus in the academy, in my opinion, is the lack of adoption.
It’s only been around two months, and although there are a lot of people I follow from Twitter already using it some, they are mostly early adopters.
And there are a number of people in my circles who joined and haven’t posted anything yet.
Certainly, this is going to be a huge obstacle for Google Plus to overcome. By comparison, Facebook started on high school and college campuses, and thus built a reliable core of users before everyone could join.
On the other hand, Twitter seems to have captured the market at the moment with regard to “breaking news” or instant updates. Until Google Plus begins to feed updates like Twitter, it won’t take over that space. But I’m not sure that’s the space Google wants to occupy.
Also, Google Plus still has a “beta product” feel to it. Early users have had complaints about the use of real names, and the lack of “corporate” accounts. I’m sure Google will iron out these issues, but in the meantime, it still seems somewhat “toy-like.”
Of course, all this could change in 6 months, or a year. I expect it will. And I think it would be wise to revisit this topic in the future.
May 6, 2011 in Academics, Carnival of Journalism
Image via Wikipedia
The Carnival of Journalism has been going on the past few months, and I’ve missed posting to them. However, this month’s topic is very interesting, and I feel like I have something to contribute, if a little bit past deadline.
The topic:
A failure in your life (personal or professional) that has lessons. It must be your failure and you must have to take responsibility. But this will be a safe space to discuss our failings and what we can learn from them.
I’ve had a number of personal and professional failures over the years, many of which have been deep and emotionally wrenching. But I want to focus on one particular failure which happens frequently.
Having just finished turning in final grades for this semester, the concept of failure is very real at the moment, as it is at the end of every 15 weeks in the university system. Every semester, I deliver grades that are, shall we say, less than optimal.
And in some way, each of those less-than-optimal grades I view as a failure on my part as a teacher. There are students who get it, who do great work in classes, and others who never seem to grasp concepts, techniques, technology, etc. or they just decide to stop coming to class.
I know, deep down, that there is only so much an instructor can do, and the rest is up to the student. But that doesn’t make it any easier to deliver those grades. Maybe it does for some people, but not for me.
At heart, I want all my students to succeed in the classes I teach, because I really love journalism and “multimedia” or whatever we’re calling it now, and I want them to love it too – or at least like it enough to do well in my classes.
As well, I have no personal animosity to students. I wish them the best in their endeavors, because I would like the same were I in their shoes.
And so every semester, I look over the grades, the schedule, the professor evaluations, the equipment and try to figure out different ways to tackle the subject matter, to spend more time one-on-one, to smile more, anything to find a way to connect with those students.
This fall will be my 11th year teaching collegiate journalism classes, and I still feel the need to reinvent my courses constantly. And that’s the thing I think is the lesson from this failure: Even if you think you have things down, there’s always a time to look back, evaluate, and try things differently.
I always tell students that the beauty of college is that every 15 weeks you get a chance to start over with a clean slate – new subjects, new instructors, etc. Nobody in history 101 cares if you didn’t measure up in poli sci 101.
And each semester is a fresh chance for a teacher to start the class with a clean slate as well. It’s part of what keeps me from despairing over these small failures.
January 19, 2009 in Carnival of Journalism, industry news
Image via WikipediaThe topic of this month’s carnival of journalism (hosted by Paul Bradshaw) is, quite appropriately, money. More specifically, how are we going to pay for journalism in the future.
Lots of journobloggers have noted the LA Times’ report that they’ve made enough money online to pay for their editorial production (even though the numbers have been disputed). I want to point out another bright spot: Daily Kos made over $1 million in revenue last year.
True, DailyKos is not a “news” site in the traditional sense, but think about it: a weblog made over $1 million in revenue last year. They did so through a combination of subscriptions (people pay to disable advertisements – a paltry $40/year or $100 for a lifetime subscription) and advertisements.
As a result, DK has employed 9 full-time staffers (including a techie) with benefits.
Why focus on a weblog when we’re talking about supporting traditional journalism?
Because the simple fact is this: there are no new business models for news. News is not entertainment, so there isn’t going to be an iTunes for news. The only possible models are these: advertiser-supported and reader-supported (through subscriptions or donations).
How are we going to pay for journalism online? Through some innovative uses of those traditional models. That’s what DailyKos has done.
Journalism is going to survive by news businesses adopting a “coins in the couch” approach to advertising and reader support.
For the longest time, media companies – especially big newspaper operations – were able to rely on big advertisers to provide most of their ad revenue. If you’re the Chicago Tribune, why send an ad rep. out to try to get a 1-inch ad from a local mom and pop store when you’ve got five full-page ads from JC Penney or Sears? Why sell ads for your online site when you can make hundreds of times the commission for a print ad?
But now media companies are paying for that neglect. And if we want to keep funding full-time journalists for the future, media companies are going to need to go back to the couch and start shaking out the coins. A couple of quick thoughts:
No advertiser is too small – Sell online ads to local companies, and offer to help them develop their online sites. A local restaurant doesn’t have a web site? Offer them a chance to pay for an ad and also to develop their menu online (Google is already here – you need to be too). And promote those web sites through restaurant guides (unique to web) and entertainment calendars.
Break online ads away from print – Stop selling “package deals” in which the online is nothing more than an add-on. Sell online as something important. Start treating it like it is important. Create a separate part of your ad sales staff who is totally devoted to online sales – this may be a loss-leader for a while, but will eventually pay off.
Ask for donations – If people value your journalism, then you should ask them to help support it, but not through subscriptions in the traditional sense. Use the NPR/PBS model. Set up a “donate” button on your site and use it to help fund journalism on your site.
Work with the ad department – this is probably most controversial, but I’m going to say someone needs to be talking to the ad folks to sell ads along all those cool multimedia products, all those databases, all those interactive graphics. You’ve got a great package about the local college basketball team? Let someone sell a sponsorship. You’ve got a fascinating graphic about politics and health? Call the ad dept. and see if they have a sponsor. I’m not saying you should compromise your editorial independence, but you should clue in those in the revenue-generating part of your operation so they can help you all keep your jobs.
Again, not that much new – but I don’t see a lot of this going on. Maybe I’m missing it. If I am, please send me some links and I’ll be happy to point them out.
thoughts?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2e7f7120-b310-4fd5-9581-93b27caa891d)
December 19, 2008 in Carnival of Journalism
Image via WikipediaThis month’s Carnival of Journalism is hosted by David Cohn, and centered around the topic of “Positive Predictions for Next Year.”
I have to admit I’m a bit at a loss to make such predictions, as there doesn’t appear to be a lot of positivity coming out of the U.S. economy these days. But in the interest of keeping things happy for the holidays, here are my thoughts.
We will be okay. Democracy will survive. Journalism will survive.
The news industry will slowly figure out its future – 2009 will be a turning point. I think the next generation of journalists will be among those figuring out the economics of publishing in an era of “free” on the Internet.
They won’t be so interested in the walls between journalists and bloggers, for instance, but will seize on the ideas bloggers and social network folks bring to the table and use those in their journalism shops. There’s already a growing population of these folks out there working in traditional newspaper and TV and radio outlets.
Maybe some of those outlets will disappear, but in their place will grow a different cadre of journalists – some through representative journalism or spot.us or any of the other efforts being made to start new initiatives. That will be painful, but work out in the long run.
But the reason I think 2009 will be a turning point is because higher-level editors and publishing types will begin to listen much more acutely, and implement some of these ideas, because they will have to in order to ensure the survival of their businesses.
Maybe that’s not a prediction, but more of a prayer.
Have a happy holiday season.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7b98403b-7890-448d-a00d-92cfd0f1888c)
November 17, 2008 in Carnival of Journalism
This is my entry in the November Carnival of Journalism, hosted by Adam Tinworth.
The election is over, and it’s a while before the governing begins, so political pundits and reporters have begun their deconstruction of Barack Obama‘s winning presidential campaign.
Like many, I’ve been amazed at the efficiency and determination of the campaign in all its facets – fundraising, organizing, technology, message-discipline. It is doubtless to be the subject of countless political science dissertations in coming years, and politicians of all stripes will envy it and wish to replicate it.
And while it’s dangerous to draw parallels between a political campaign and a business plan, today I’m wondering what newspaper companies could learn from Obama’s historic campaign. Here are a few take-aways I’ll throw out for discussion:
Excel at leadership: Whatever you think of his politics, Obama led his campaign with poise and calm. While John McCain “suspended” his campaign to deal with the financial crisis, Obama maintained a calm head and famously said “a president should be able to do two things at one time.” Obama’s top advisers, too, kept cool heads – Axelrod, Plouffe, Gibbs – were cool heads in the midst of a tempestuous campaign.
Newspaper leadership doesn’t seem too calm right now. They chase quarterly profit margins by laying off hundreds of workers, producing short-term gains with long-term harmful consequences for their products. In this way, their actions are more in line with the McCain campaign’s “news cycle” approach to the election.
Embrace technology: Hillary Clinton and John McCain both failed to adequately appreciate the power of the Internet to mobilize people and spread their message. McCain’s web site urged people to earn “points” by writing blog posts and commenting on liberal sites. Obama’s team used the Internet to pull in millions of small-dollar donors and organize them to drive up participation.
Empower your people: Daniel Bachhuber of CoPress mentioned this. “they will allow you to do your job better.” Obama’s team created “Camp Obama,” a two-day training session that gave volunteers the tools they needed to go out and do their campaign jobs. (see this NPR story for more info). They then relied on those volunteers to do the jobs. Can newspaper journalists do something similar? Retreat from a top-down management model to a more decentralized structure? Invest more in training?
Energize your community: Obama’s web site looks a lot like other campaign web sites, but the key ingredient was the my.barackobama.com part of the site. It allowed eager supporters to connect with others in their area, who shared their interests, and it also built up a reliable database of contacts. Some news organizations have had success with creating similar social networks among their readers. More needs to be done in this arena. I’m not talking about citizen journalism, but something more to connect readers to each other and to the news web site.
Enhance your brand: The Obama Campaign’s branding was forward-thinking, yet relied on traditional red, white and blue color schemes. How many news sites can say their logo is forward-thinking? Perhaps it’s time to jettison the staid Old English font on the web site and think in terms of visuals. Think about the Apple logo, the WordPress logo, or other examples. Move beyond type and create a brand/logo for the future that will stick in people’s minds.
Thoughts? Other suggestions.
Jack Lail has a great compendium of links to others who have written about “lessons” from the Obama campaign.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=769f9673-b5af-4852-bf17-18003b8d26fd)
July 17, 2008 in Carnival of Journalism, Legal Issues
Image via WikipediaThis is almost a week late, but I wanted to chime in on the topic of this month’s Carnival of Journalism, hosted by my good friend Doug Fisher of the University of South Carolina (USC of the East).
This months’ Carnival of Journalism features the following topic:
 What changes will need to be made in national and international legal systems to help the digital age, and especially journalism in the digital age, flourish? We talk a lot about hyper-local journalism, innovation, the journalism entrepreneur, etc. But we don’t often talk much about the legal issues still hanging in the background out there…
The biggest legal issue, IMHO, is not related to intellectual property (copyright, fair use, etc.), but freedom of expression.
The crux of the problem is that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is somewhat unique in its recognition of freedom of the press, as interpreted by U.S. courts. In terms of prior restraint and defamation, especially, the U.S. legal protections go well beyond those provided for the media in other countries.
So, for instance, a blogger or news outlet located in the United States could be sued for hate speech or defamation or prejudicing a jury in another country. See this International Herald Tribune article for one example of how laws differ from country to country.
This wasn’t so much an issue in the past, but as Doug notes, the Internet creates a virtual world of ideas without boundaries. So whose jurisdiction wins?
Honestly, I don’t know the answer to the question. It is buried deep within my U.S. Bill of Rights-loving bones to assert that the answer to speech that offends is more speech that asserts the truth, not the heavy club of the law. But there is also a realization that other countries and cultures disagree about that ideal.
As intellectual property law has been more or less standardized among developed nations, the result has been a benefit for those with monetary interests in tighter controls, not greater freedom for the average citizens.
It would seem that a similar scenario would play out in the arena of free expression were we to attempt such a standardization of free expression across the globe.
Journalists should fight efforts to curtail freedom of expression, whether through enhanced hate speech laws, defamation laws, or laws relating to prior restraint. While the fight to secure such rights has been long and hard in the U.S., the globalized environment we live in will require further vigilance to expand those ideals, and ensure U.S.-based journalists don’t end up on the wrong end of legal rulings around the world.
