Social Media Weekend Viewing

Via  Matt Cheuvront, a Brazen Carreerist.


Morning Reading 8 28 09


Advice of the Day – Agnosticism

I shared a link on Twitter yesterday to a list of 25 things journos can to do to prepare for the future of their industry. All 25 of them are solid, and, to me, it goes far beyond the journalism industry into other communications field (including my own public relations day job). Among all of the tips, though, I thought there was one that should rise to number one with a bullet:

24. Be platform agnostic. As mentioned, there remains a divide between offline journalists and their online counterparts. ‘Online’ journalism is still viewed with derision in some quarters, for reasons I can’t fully understand (but then I do live on this side of the fence). A story does not become good just because something appears in print! The best journalists will be able to transfer their skills across platforms.

It’s a little bit squishy of an idea to be considered the number one key to prepping the next generation of journalists, but it ultimately makes all the difference. Part of it has to do with linguistics, but part of it is the attitude of the institution.

(cc) Flickr user rcade

(cc) Flickr user rcade

I’ve jokingly called out editors who confused “Saving Journalism” with “Save the Newspaper Business” in the last few weeks. There were probably half a dozen editorials in major publications int he last week that made some point near this prevalent theme, including two more additions in just the last three days. In honor of the morning reading theme, here they are:

  • Alex Beam over at the Globe went all scoreboard on “Reality v. the Future of Journalism.” By his count, citizen/social journalism is o-for-eternity because of things like VuText; newspapers are out to a comfortable lead in terms of the business of news.
  • Last Sunday, Ryan Blethen of the Seattle Times brought up the outrageous abuse of the First Amendment that is conducted by bloggers on a daily basis; the future of our right to free speech could be jeopardized by online communication. Between the lines on this: bloggers can’t be trusted.

Not one of these editorials is talking about the writing – just the fear of the different delivery mechanism and its impact on their own hierarchical institutions.

Mr. Beam: whereas failure in the print-only society can be catastrophic because of the costs associated with running it, technology has lowered the cost-barrier of entry for those to experiment. You want a success of online that beat your newspapers? They took your classified section, made it searchable and organized it by the most recent posted, and they included a place to directly contact the seller on the same page. Seems so easy. Ever heard of it? It’s called Craig’s List.

Mr. Blethen: just because bloggers use usernames does not mean they are afraid of consequences; in fact, I could make the same complaint of those in the industry who fabricate and plagiarize yet do so without the protective cover of an anonymous handle, in effect throwing it back in the face of the very institution that accredits them. There is one crazy person commenting on every message board, just as there is one staff writer who may be doubtable. It’s much easier for us to ignore that crazy than you because the business is the one who gives your writer the space to be published.

The problem of thinking on one platform as the end-all-be-all is that it is obviously limiting. When you are locked in to old business models – or even a new one on a innovative channel – is that you are missing someone. To bring this back to the main point: journalists and others with a vested interest in mass media need to understand how content works above the platform.


    “The Dream Shall Never Die”

    I’m a Massachusetts guy at heart, and, decently proud of democracy. Sad day. RIP, Senator.


    Morning Link Roundup 8 26 09

    The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of advice for newspapers:
    • Michael Masnick at TechDirt responds to Rutten’s LA Times Editorial to  say, “Fine, Let Newspapers Collude.” As Masnick says, “If the newspapers collude and come up with a pricing scheme where the lowest option starts at $10 per month — fine. Just go do it, and then let’s see what happens. Because talking about it is getting pretty silly.”
    • Here’s some ideas from BlackCowPress on what special sections newspapers may consider to generate revenue.
    • As a follow-up from this month’s lengthy piece on Craig’s List, Wired’s Gary Wolf talks more about how newspapers can’t think like they do and battle with the free, online classified giant.

    News Aggregators Have A Good Day

    A couple of developments on the news aggregator front today that will have a chance to play out over the next days.

    Item number one: for 12 years, Slate Magazine (owned by the Washington Post) has run one of the oldest “aggregators” of news content through a section called, “Today’s Papers.”  It’s gone, as noted in this morning’s Times, and replaced with something that Slate’s editors hope reflects the changing news cycle. The Slatest will be updated three times a day and also highlights the Twitter streams from columnists.

    Check this screenshot and look how Slate is filling out the page to bring in revenue on the thrice-daily updated page:

    News Aggregators Have A Good Day

    The move is designed to fit better with the new news flow that is not contingent on just morning papers, but on an ever moving cycle that goes far beyond those daily headlines. As Editor David Plotz wrote in an announcement post earlier today:

    Overnight, newspapers launch the news. They publish stories clarifying the events of yesterday; they break their own investigative stories; they print zeitgeist-defining feature articles and op-eds. The morning brings Phase 2, when Web media reacts to the news. Bloggers and other sites respond to the news that broke overnight, and newsmakers push back against or try to exploit these stories. Phase 3, the buildup, comes in the afternoon, as the events of the day unfold—congressional action, a presidential gaffe, turmoil in Asia. The media break this news, and analyze how it fits together with yesterday’s top stories. Opinion makers try to shape how the day’s events will play on the night’s cable shows and in tomorrow’s newspapers. The next morning, it all starts over again.

    I’m a Slate fan, so I like the move from both a content and awareness of the news cycle standpoint. I think with smart sponsor recruitment, there could be a marginal amount of revenue for the Washington Post Co. if they continue to be non-intrusive with placements while providing good real estate to advertisers. This is a decently captive audience that is just narrow enough that a spotlight on the right group could sink in.

    Is the future of the media something closer to Slate than WaPo? Blue sky notion: if you take WaPo’s bureaus and tuck them into the outward looking Slate model, you would have something closer to where the newspaper/journalism world needs to get to online. To me, it seems very much like a battle of the brands and institutions that is keeping the line drawn very clearly in the sand. Dealing with an ad is a small price to pay for me to get a nice overview of content, and this is a lot of rich content from dozens of places.

    On the other end of the Internet media sphere, there’s a new little feature buried in Google News. “Interesting Reads,” as first noted by Google Operating System, is beginning to populate the server in a new way: recommend news items from the search giant. It’s certainly a hodge-podge of things from New York politics to Facebook, but there’s an outside chance that this becomes a lot more (Google’s Meme tracker, or even, agenda setter?). From GOS:

    It’s not exactly Arts & Letters Daily, but it’s an interesting departure from Google’s goal of aggregating and clustering news stories.

    As some commenters noted on that post, though, this is still very much a beta and potentially a big step for the Google beast to try and set the zeitgeist intentionally instead of letting it happen by way of search trends. While some joke that Google is a media company by accident of collecting, this would be a prized possession of links and what is displayed may trump even Twitter trends as Google says what should be discussed, not what is being (or has been) talked about recently.

    Just remember, don’t be evil…


    A message to Chris Matthews

    Chris Matthews’s feelings on bloggers and their lack of fact checking surfaced yesterday (video below). I don’t want to go too much more into it (it gets me into a fifth versus fourth estate definition rant). I will take the other route, which I believe goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

    We have to go back five years, but I’m pretty sure the rejoinder rings clear:

    Rather v. Bloggers


    Weekend Link Roundup

    Pay Walls, Fact Checks and Congress – all here today:


    End the Dot-Com Newspaper…in three slides

    Not that I agree with the idea in the slightest, but here’s the logic that Farhi must have in terms of user experience:

    These three slides are a part of a guest lecture I did earlier this year up at Boston College. The full lecture is also on SlideShare.


    Morning Reading 8 21 09

    The “Take Newspapers Offline!” debate continues, but first, some thoughts on what the feds can provide to save journalism. (N.b.: “Save Journalism”, not “Save Newspapers.” Once again, there’s a difference.)

    But putting my interests aside, this gets to one of the odder conflicts in journalism: Farhi is saying that the media should make a decision to inform fewer people. To do its job — if you understand its job as providing news rather making profits — worse.


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.