Good reads for 01.21.08
Posted on January 21, 2008
>> Media are off their game plan, says LAT’s Bill Dwyer:
Our society has a massive appetite for drama, and little for reality. We read about Britney Spears when we need to read about Afghanistan. And the media, which has the mandate — and the constitutional right — to lead us from this abyss, are all too often not doing so. Media, which once led public opinion, now all too often follow it.
We aren’t just talking celebrity scandal sheets, weekly shoppers and sports-talk radio.
Last week, a Los Angeles bureau executive of the Associated Press, no less, put out a memo to staff that said they were to pay more attention to developments about Britney Spears. The message was: She is news.
No she isn’t. She is titillation. She is a troubled young woman whom we cover with delight, rather than empathy. She is web hits, the current fool’s gold of the newspaper industry.
Out of this toxic atmosphere comes the current chapter of the Kelly Tilghman story. Racism is ugly, even the inadvertent kind. Perpetuation of racism under the guise of journalistic creativity is worse.
The consumer, especially the more thoughtful type, is both aware and confused.
>> The “Google Generation” aren’t expert Googlers, says a new UK study:
It’s true that young people prefer interactive systems to passive ones and that they are generally competent with technology, but it’s not true that students today are “expert searchers.” In fact, the report calls this “a dangerous myth.” Knowing how to use Facebook doesn’t make one an Internet search god, and the report concludes that a literature review shows no movement (either good or bad) in young people’s information skills over the last several decades. Choosing good search terms is a special problem for younger users.
So what’s true about the Google generation?
* They like to cut-and-paste. “There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and plagiarism is a serious issue.”
* They prefer visual information over text. “But text is still important… For library interfaces, there is evidence that multimedia can quickly lose its appeal, providing short-term novelty.”
* They multitask all the time. “It is likely that being exposed to online media early in life may help to develop good parallel processing skills.”
>> Teens find online news stressful and a reminder of danger, according to a Northwestern University study.
Among the research findings and recommendations:
Because news often is stressful for teens, news outlets should actively experiment with ways to diminish negative associations and make news a better springboard for talk, action and change; writing about teens’ feeling of peril and about the subjects they’re worried about; and increasing attention given to solutions and problem-solvers.
Awww. The poor kids. We don’t want them to get stressed out by the news, do we? Now I’m all about serving the reader … but really??? Seriously??
Here’s a quote on this coddling problem from a story on parents.com:
“We’re hurting our children by expecting too little and giving too much — too many toys, too much help, too much leeway in how they can behave,” contends Dan Kindlon, Ph.D., an adjunct assistant professor at Harvard University and author of Too Much of a Good Thing. “By always trying to protect them from adversity, we’re depriving them of the chance to learn coping skills. By not setting appropriate limits, we’re undermining our children’s character development. I worry about how this generation will handle the challenges of adulthood.”
Change. It’s not just a political buzzword.
Posted on January 8, 2008
We know it as a journalism buzzword, too.
Jane Stevens, multimedia instructor at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, presented this video during this morning’s presentation at the Knight Digital Media Center Multimedia Workshop at UC Berkeley and talked about the need for change in our industry.
The definition of insanity, she reminded us, is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.
Breaking through the online clique, er, I mean bottleneck
Posted on January 7, 2008
Does the online team at your newspaper feel like an impenetrable clique? Are you excited about doing multimedia, but you can’t seem to get anyone to listen to your ideas, help you get started or post your content?
I spoke with the fellows of the Knight Digital Media Center Multimedia Workshop at UC Berkeley today, where I shared with them my background, some of the projects I’ve worked on, and how I see multimedia evolving.
One of the questions I was asked several times was: How do I get started if I can’t get past the online bottleneck?
Wow. What a great question that I’m sure many journalists are facing in many newsrooms.
What I learned is some of them feel there are so many hoops to jump through to do multimedia, or that the one person who knows how to post the content is often too busy to work on their projects.
I know exactly how they feel. From both sides.
As a content producer at USATODAY.com, I used to have to pitch stories to the Rich Media team, hoping they’d have the time and resources to do it — and they had a “team.”
In smaller newspapers, oftentimes only one person coordinates all the multimedia content. As multimedia producer at HeraldTribune.com, I was inundated last January with multimedia requests from the newsroom when they were told “Web content” was to be a part of their performance goals (they didn’t realize at the time that “the Web” can be more than “multimedia”). I became the one who had to say no to projects.
As a reporter itching to get involved in online, what do you do? How do you get around this?
I think one way (which is what HeraldTribune.com is doing now), is to put the tools, resources, and the ability to actually post the content via CMS in the hands of the reporters and editors.
Gulp.
Wait a minute. That’s MY job as a multimedia producer.
I’ve been spending all this time learning about online storytelling and how to produce it. Now I’m just going to give away all those responsibilities.
You betcha. (Not that, I’ll admit, it feels very comfortable, especially during times of layoffs and buyouts. I’ve had my own growing pains around this.)
But we have to do it because that’s the only way we’re going to grow, and even survive. If we’re truly going to change the culture of our newsrooms to think ONLINE, the newsroom HAS to be able to feel empowered to use the tools the online team does. And I don’t mean they have to go do everything. Maybe they’re not using all the tools, but the ones that apply to them and their interests/passions — ie, some may be more audio savvy, some may be more into working with Flash, etc.
And they’re going to fail at times, yes, but they’re also going to be turning out some great content. And isn’t that the goal? To create great journalism?
But if you don’t stop hoarding the access to online, you’re going to find that your newsroom will go around you.
Which is just so darn ironic. A lot of multimedia operations got started because reporters/photographers went around the system. Now, if they’re the ones blocking the way, the same thing may be done to them.
Advice for the class of ‘07
Posted on January 4, 2008
Members of the first graduating class of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism received their diplomas December 18. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and New York Times Assistant Managing Editor Dean Baquet received an honorary doctorate from the school and gave the commencement speech. In it, he said:
What do you say to a group of young men and women who have chosen to go into a profession that many people think will be obsolete in a generation or so?
The great secret that no one seems to be talking about right now as we all wring our hands about the uncertain future of our profession:
If you go into journalism, and you approach it with humanity and not as a crass careerist, you will have more fun, more pure joy than anyone graduating from any place this year.
You will wake up in the morning unsure of which new adventure awaits.
You will see places nobody in your generation will see — distant places, but also the darker corners of the places where you live.
You will meet great writers and thinkers.
You will confront morale dilemmas that will force you to grow.
You will make epic mistakes, I promise you. But things will move so fast that if you own up to them, you will have the chance to fix them.
In short, you will have an absolute blast.
A timeline of polls (that doesn’t make me yawn)
Posted on January 3, 2008
I like this interactive by USATODAY.com, which shows how voter response has evolved since January 2007 in national and state polls.
Here are the results for 146 polls (nationally) so far for Democrat candidates:
And the results for 148 polls (nationally) so far for Republican candidates:
My only gripe: The number and variety of polls appears to be comprehensive, but I can’t tell if these are ALL the polls or a select group of polls. I wish there was an explainer to confirm my guess.
Otherwise, I find the interface quite easy to use and understand after just a quick glance.
Good reads for 01.03.08
Posted on January 3, 2008
A lot of media bloggers are talking about the future of the newspaper industry and how business practices might/should change in 2008:
>> Some say we need more change.
Steve Outing points out that “What’s Needed in 2008” is a change the newsroom culture.
He writes: “The smart news organization in 2008 will be the one that encourages innovation — no, requires it — from ALL its employees … Most importantly, it will develop a training program to teach new-media skills to those still lacking, and regularly bring in innovation and creativity experts to guide both managers and employees. With the latter, exposure to and interaction with those experts will be company-wide.”
>> Some are upset about how change has affected them.
“Instead of serving primarily as watchdogs, we deliver entertainment fodder interspersed with glitzy ads for consumers,” says Perry Flippin in his farewell column at the San Angelo Standard-Times. “Publishers sold their souls on the notion that only the immediate bottom line matters. I believe newspapers are slowly committing suicide to satisfy corporate moguls and grasping stockholders.”
>> Some lament the changes that have already taken place.
Jack Shafer outlines: “Why booze and cigarettes are essential for good journalism” in yesterday’s column about how alcohol was forbidden in the last days of the Cincinnati Post.
He writes: “Philipps’ memo brings a couple of questions to mind: 1) Since when is it considered unprofessional for a journalist to take a drink? and 2) If Post staffers, who were all scheduled for dismissal, did bring flasks to work, what was Philipps going to do if he caught them? Fire them?”
>> Some predict a change in newspaper video production. (And it may not have a happy ending.)
Andy Dickinson dares to say it out loud: “… I think that without proper thought [2008] could be the first and last chance video has to prove itself. So this year, editorial newspaper video (in all its forms) may die in many publications because no one will give it a chance to develop.”
Mindy McAdams followed up his post with a summary and solid nod of agreement.
I think her point #3 is a BIG problem that needs to be resolved, especially as newsrooms continue to ask employees to do more with less time and equipment: “Get your act together on workflow for video. Who edits the video, and how long does it take? How fast do you get it up online? Who posts it online? Is there a bottleneck? Do people have adequate access to equipment and software for editing and compressing and uploading? Is this workflow clear to everyone involved? Have you asked for suggestions on how to improve it?”
>> Some propose changes in the way journalists are paid.
It started with Jack Lail asking: “How’s your CPM?”
Patrick Beeson responds: “As Lail states, I’m sure most reporters would be quite shocked to see how low their CPMs are for their stories. It would also provide an incentive for going after content that users will click to, or want to view. I’m not sure dangling CPM as a sole means for earning a paycheck would be appropriate at this point however. Though it would be interesting to use it as a metric for bonuses or raises.”
Lucas Grindley agrees and proposed: “… a bonus structure based on the number of page views generated by a reporter’s or columnist’s stories. Business 2.0 tried this model and it seemed effective. Those folks who do extraordinary work generating page views are rewarded and, hopefully, the entire newsroom starts to think about what attracts readers.
Looking back on 2007
Posted on January 1, 2008
The bad news first: As we are all too aware, 2007 was filled with layoffs, buyouts and hiring freezes. I fear it may not get better soon enough.
Circulation and advertising woes aside, part what irks me about the industry is the type of journalism we too often do: So many of last year’s headlines were dominated by “news” coverage of Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. (Here’s a top-10 headlines list I found, though, that evens things out.)
Not that this is anything new. But it seems so much more prevalent today given the drive for more revenue and the need to constantly update the Web and 24-hour cable TV shows.
A Pew poll from this summer shows the public blames the media for this coverage. Part of my job is to monitor their reading habits so I can put together a mix of news that satisfies both the readers and the editors. But what I’ve found: Readers are clicking on sex, celebrities, and money. Post a story about Britney, and it’ll pull in the page views. It’s a vicious circle.
Now for the good news: We’ve made some significant advances in the way we disseminate information (Susan Mernit outlines 10 more 2007 moments and milestones), and our newsrooms are transforming.
For a little New Year’s humor, here’s a year in review from JibJab:
Currently reading
-
I am melissaworden on del.icio.us.
Add me to your network
