Archive for November, 2008
links for 2008-11-25
-
Amazing stuff…user controls the camera angles. The future of watching television and movies.
links for 2008-11-20
-
Whoops? Will there be any ramifications for her back on campus? Seems like it would be very hard for her to continue on in journalism having made such a poor professional decision. As many times as we all think we'd feel better if we could "lose it" adults just know better.
-
A real low point and an indicator that things are going to get much, much worse for journalists.
-
"It's not such a far-fetched notion: I hear it's being whispered about as a possibility in the executive suite of at least one major newspaper company as a solution to the current crisis. Here's the theory: Sunday papers are still popular with readers and (relatively) full of ads. The rest of the week, however, the paper is pretty thin, to the point where papers may even be losing money printing some days of the week. So why not retrench to Sunday-only–or at least reduce the print edition to two or three profitable days."
Save the journalist!
As newspapers (and other journalism organizations) shed staff there is untold expertise that is being put out on the street. Some of these experts will transition into communications and other fields that take advantage of their skills and knowledge, while others will make complete career shifts or retire. There are untold opportunities to organize these individuals in such a way as to preserve their journalistic experiences to benefit other sectors and society as a whole, say through non-profits, education, etc. Some smart minds are getting on the task. Romenesko reports that NBC correspondent Dan Abram’s is starting a consulting firm:
Dan Abrams’ firm, Abrams Research, will connect media experts with businesses that need strategic advice, reports Brian Stelter. Journalists and bloggers retained and paid by the firm will consult with corporations, conduct media training sessions, or conduct investigative reporting for corporate clients.
Overload!
The paradox is that CJR writes what could have been a good, thoughtful article about information overload. But it dithers along with such meaningless statements as “The information age’s effect on news production and consumption has been profound.” I mean really? You don’t see the paradox in writing seven, very loosely edited pages about information overload? This is the exact problem with how the news industry treats this topic. It’s not that they don’t know it exists. Surely an AP editor living in the bustle of New York already knew people are overwhelmed (though there is some magic that occurs when you pay someone untold sums to tell you what you already knew). But they’re making all the wrong decisions about how to help their readers coupe. News organizations need to start producing less meaningless information and help news consumers aggregate, summarize and make meaningful connections among existing information.
Obama and newsroom leadership
Good post from Innovation in College Media: Can newspapers learn anything from the Obama campaign? Number one suggestion: Excel at leadership:
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.
Bryan is commenting on leadership at the institutional level. But leadership at the personal level is just as important. The idea that good reporters must make good editors (and by extension good managers) has created a generation of too often toxic leaders, who are ill-equipped to exercise steady leadership, particularly on a personal level. The notion was that good journalism could substitute for good management. Well these days, that doesn’t cut it: Newsrooms need both.
Obama won not because he reinvigorated our trust in the political system, but he spoke to individuals’ concerns and built trust that he’d personally address those concerns to the best of his ability. How many of us have experienced that type of leadership in the newsroom? Yet many newsrooms are simply changing around seats under the name of “reorganization” instead of identifying who the truly managers are and putting them at the center of innovation in the newsroom. That approach is only going to deepen the whole.
Do stories really matter?
Mindy McAdams posted a call for good storytelling earlier this week on her blog. I asked, “How relevant are stories to contemporary journalism.” I believe that focusing on stories, particularly individual’s stories, rather than stories of collective experiences, is problematic in contemporary journalism.
There is no lack of stories on the Internet. Millions of people are pouring their hearts out online about their struggles with poverty, battling cancer and of personal triumphs. If anything, we’re overloaded with stories and we have started to tune them out. The journalist’s role shouldn’t be to tell more stories. Rather, they should start to see existing stories as data points, which the journalist can help the audience visualize in relationship to one another. The journalist can create connective tissue that weaves these individuals’ stories together to show common experiences, trends, etc. and to give shape to a community to spark and sustain discussion.
Just look at how Google is using individuals’ experiences of the flu to track activity of the disease. Undoubtedly untold numbers of stories will be written on this exact subject throughout the winter, but Google’s view of Flu activity is far more comprehensive.
Chuck Peters, CEO of The Gazette Company, has more thoughts on the issue on his blog:
For some time, I have been saying that the problem with the media industry is that we are stuck on stories, or packages, whether they be articles with photos in print or online, or video packages. I have limited time, and limited brainpower, and I want to see current, relevant information, in context, anywhere and anytime. I don’t think we can get there until we create our content, in the first instance, as a “post” or “tweet”, and organize from there.
What he calls for is more conceptual clarity to aid in this type of reporting. This is where I would like to see more academics pick up the exploration of new forms of presenting information rather than assuming traditional forms in their research and teaching.
links for 2008-11-14
-
Funny game.
CNN hologram pointless
Ok, I confess this technology is kind of cool. And if I stretch my mind, I could think of some situations in which it would have a meaningful purpose. But sorry, CNN, this just isn’t one of them. Being a Chicagoan and and knowing the significance of the moment, I really wanted to be in Grant Park last night to see Obama speak in person. I don’t care about the CNN studio or your ‘Situation Room,’ Wolf. So why take Jessica Yellin out of Grant Park, with all of the activity and excitement surrounding her? Oh, because you can! The same reason why you like to see how many pundits you can fit on a TV screen. Stop it! I’m begging. [Hat tip Huffington Post]
links for 2008-11-05
Books, newspapers and Google
The logic goes like this:
…the major point is that Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free. This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren’t newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines?
True, Google has been forced to pay for content. But paying for the full content of a book and paying for access to metadata for a newspaper story are two completely different things. If Google scans a book into its database in its entirety, there’s no need for me to purchase that book. That kills the livelihood of publishers and offers.
However, what are newspapers loosing by “giving” their content to Google? Nothing. They’re gaining boat loads of traffic. Google is the most important referrer for almost any website. Why doesn’t Google charge newspapers for providing this traffic, a service far more valuable to individual publishers than an individual newspaper’s content is to Google? Not to mention the free search technology and API’s Google is providing to many newspapers.
The issue would be different if Google was providing full-text copies of newspaper content, which it is through its Google News Archive search. But again, what angered book publishers is that Google didn’t seek permission to scan some copyrighted material. In the case of the newspapers, Google sought permission and is providing a digitizing services that would have been cost-prohibitive for newspapers to pursue on their own. And Google is sharing a portion of the advertising dollars.
Is the revenue share fair? Maybe not. But to the victor goes the spoils. It hardly seems right to blame Google that they recognized opportunities that newspapers failed to see in their stubbornness. But I don’t see evidence that Google is being a bad-faith partner as it was in the case of some authors and publishers.
[Hat tip to http://pjnet.org/]