QOTD: Definitions
Posted: November 27, 2011 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »Courtesy of Wolfgang Blau’s Twitter feed:
“I am much less concerned about who we call a journalist than about what we call journalism” –
@dangillmor
Your Internet and Privacy Reminder, Diagram Version
Posted: October 25, 2010 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »Thanks to Flowing Data for passing along.
Stephen Fry’s Brilliant Viewpoint on Grammar Correctors
Posted: October 25, 2010 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »Brilliant and delightful. Linguistics over policing.
via Geekosystem
Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear…as a Journalistic Referenda?
Posted: October 22, 2010 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »
Unfortunately for me, I’m actually not in D.C. when the big Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear kicks off on October 30th. But in almost ironic fashion, it’s of course become a craziness in and of itself that goes far beyond a sane approach to covering a rally. As noted by this article in Christian Science Monitor, now we’re talking about the impact of media organizations and their roles in affecting who may or may not attend/cover the event:
Voices such as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and Glenn Greenwald of Salon could be examples of where journalism is headed. “[Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert] make no pretense of having no opinions,” Cohen says, but they do their homework, source everything with facts, and glean information from as many sources as possible. Given the avalanche of information available, transparency – not control – is the coin of the new realm, he adds.
The traditional values of journalism are under siege, says Kelly McBride, who is on the faculty at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. “If you work in a newsroom, part of your mission is to speak across the political spectrum,” she says. She points to the language of the Colbert and Stewart rally: The satiric dig implied in “Restore Sanity” is a swipe at the earlier Glenn Beck rally, which was entitled, “Restoring Honor.”
This is going to be a certain kind of entertaining, I have a feeling.
Community is the New Local
Posted: September 22, 2010 Filed under: Department of News, journalism, local news Leave a comment »
Question: Comparing your satisfaction with other local news sources such as newspaper or television, what would you say your satisfaction with your community news site is? Study conducted by Adam Maskal, Reynolds Journalism Institute at University of Missouri
A doctoral study out of the Missouri School of Journalism may have just formalize the new classification of local media. For time, local news has been network TV syndicates, local dailies and then other combinations of public broadcast or less frequent newspapers. The online world has mirrored that, generally, except for local blogs here and there.
Generally speaking, the data from the study is interesting. Maybe the only thing that leaves it as an outlier is the fact that survey was available by links on these sites, so it was dealing with a known audience. Still, with more than 1,100 respondents across 19 sites, you get an idea that there is something different going on in the online community news realm.
All things considered, we need to figure out some defining characteristics for the hypercommunity sites associated with things like Patch (or even those more focused on regional) that have become the flavor of the year in journalism. These aren’t individually run or even networked blogs, but associations with professional journalists who are looking for alternatives to newspapers, in my opinion. That’s where the bullpen gets stocked from 80 percent of the time when building out a community site. The way I see it, the strength and growth of community news sites has been on the backs of people who’s day jobs would be in a news room, looking to reinvent their model.
I think those who should be most worried are probably the “weekend bloggers” who still offer legitimate services to their communities. Unless community sites pull a TBD and bring the independent blogs directly into their content, the only way to get that news impact is probably to become the professional. I’m not saying these bloggers don’t have the chops – actually, having worked directly with some of the best bloggers in my city, I know that they actually may have honed the skill fairly well. What I do think it is apparent, though, is that supporting independent news ventures is going to get a lot harder without a community.
When J-School Becomes About Business, Not Just Reporting
Posted: September 20, 2010 Filed under: journalism | Tags: future of journalism Leave a comment »Hats off to CUNY’s Grad School of Journalism, the Tow and Knight Foundations for launching a Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism. Working with Professor Jeff Jarvis, the center is dedicated to innovation (my favorite thing) and finding new business models for news. The dedicated study of building the future of journalism isn’t just in creating good reporters, it’s also necessary to train the executives who will someday be making the decisions. Right now, those executives think about traditional models and things like subscriptions and pay walls. We need a new generation, and hopefully this program is part of the first step.
From the release:
The Center, which opens next month, will work to create a sustainable future for quality journalism in three ways:
- Education of students and mid-career journalists in innovation and business management;
- Research into relevant topics, such as new business models for news;
- Development of new journalistic enterprises.
[...]
Faculty members are developing courses for the new M.A. degree. The courses, which will be pilot-tested next spring, are expected to teach business and management skills, the new dynamics of news and media economics, and technology and project management, with apprenticeships at New York startups. Upon approval by the New York State Education Department, the first entrepreneurial degrees are expected to be awarded in the spring of 2012, to students currently enrolled in the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.
Excited to see what may come out of the Center.
Disc. – I have a soft spot in my heart for the Knight Foundation. Several years back in grad school, I worked as a research assistant under Syracuse’s Knight Chair. No way does that impact my thoughts on this Center.
Quote of the Day: The Hamster Wheel
Posted: September 14, 2010 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »The Hamster Wheel is volume without thought. It is news panic, a lack of discipline, an inability to say no. It is copy produced to meet arbitrary productivity metrics.
~Dean Starkman, Columbia Journalism Review
via Romanesko
Cracked’s Tribute To Communications Majors
Posted: September 9, 2010 Filed under: journalism Leave a comment »As a former Communications major, I have to say, I’m in no way offended because everything here is accurate. From Cracked’s 6 Best College Majors (For Filling You With Regret):
Communications
Why You Chose It
Look, you get it. No college career is going to spit you out onto the fast track to being a millionaire. Majoring in Communications allows you to achieve the same degree as all your friends while doing, like, half the work.
Why You’ll Regret It
Contrary to popular belief, there’s one really difficult aspect of being a Communications major: Convincing everyone you’re not functionally retarded after they find out you’re a Communications major.
There isn’t a more eye-rolling, smirk-inducing major than Communications. And hey, maybe those Communications professors really are good at, uh, communicating because the only people who don’t seem to know that they’ve selected a joke major are the Communications majors themselves. I’ve met some very earnest ones, who speak emphatically about how their school has “the best Communications program in the country.” It’s sort of adorable. Like a kindergartner who doesn’t realize all their classmate’s finger paintings got first prize at the art show too.
Quote: WaPo Ombud Weighs in On Mike Wise Suspension
Posted: September 7, 2010 Filed under: journalism | Tags: Mike Wise Leave a comment »But at its core, what Wise did isn’t about social media. It’s about fabrication, which is indefensible, even if done in jest. Our business is truth. A journalist’s falsehood on Twitter is the same as a falsehood in the paper.
~Andrew Alexander, Washington Post Ombudsman, on why a suspension was warranted in the Mike Wise/Fake Tweeting saga from last week.
Mike Wise, Faking Tweets and Why It’s Not Okay
Posted: August 31, 2010 Filed under: journalism, sports | Tags: Mike Wise 11 Comments »Cross posted at Sports Grid
Want to make a bunch of sports fans, journalist watch dogs and social media people flip out at the same time? I present to you your new role model: Mike Wise.
Before I launch into a discussion of his antics yesterday, I should say that I actually do appreciate Wise’s writing in my local Washington Post. I read his stuff frequently, and have definitely complimented it within SportsGrid and Mediaite. But I think Wise made a crucial judgment error yesterday when he tried to make Twitter a playground for a inferiority complex display over the way that channel is used surrounding news and rumors.
To catch everyone up, yesterday morning during his radio show on Washington’s FM sports net, The Fan, Wise thought it would be fun to toy with his Twitter followers by posting a few fake rumors. The fake stories were none too salacious (rumors about whether Donovan McNabb would start the Washington Redskins first game, for example), but the one that did take hold and passed around plenty was a claim that Ben Roethlisberger’s suspension would be five games after his meeting with the commissioner later this week.
His motive was to test a theory about what is considered credible and believable on the social status network, that those who have a certain air of authority often are believed fully without further vetting. As he told Dan Levy of Press Coverage yesterday afternoon:
“Bottom line: I picked a lousy way to show we have no credibility in this medium, in the social networking medium, and that nobody checks these things out. It was just not a good way to do it. If i had to do it all over again I would have picked another way.”
That’s the story. And it’s been discussed just about everywhere in the last 24 hours (fellow Post sports writer Dan Steinberg collected most of the responses yesterday evening). Fundamentally, most were upset with Wise for irresponsibly pulling the wool over the eyes of Twitter users, and potentially even using the fake news to drive a growth in new followers. Deadspin got a hold of the “I’m not upset, but I’m disappointed” memo that was passed around the sports staff shortly after the stunt, while others called for Wise’s suspension from the Washington Post.
All of this is well and good, and it looks good for the media organization to try and uphold its pre-set social media guidelines, which are valid. The fundamental benchmark for these guidelines, though, has nothing to do with the channel through which a journalist passes his message. There aren’t different rules for Twitter and Facebook and Foursquare. Regardless of the actual network being used, the Post’s guidelines are about journalism first:
We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.
There is more than one difference between guys like Mike Wise and writers like those I get to join at a blog like SportsGrid. For example, Dan, Glenn and I have all Twitter accounts, but we established these ourselves and no one will really run to the bank on our predictions, no matter what interviews or stories we get here. But for Wise, he gets immediate credibility by way of that Washington Post label – he’s a good journalist, he earned it. And he uses Twitter as a broadcast – look back at his history and you’ll notice little engagement with followers but lots of story streams, often very informed as well.
Wise’s theory was that people on Twitter will trust anything from a credible source, run it without verifying, and he wanted to be able to say how dangerous that could be. What he failed to factor into his experiment was how credibility was earned, which is exactly what he could have jeopardized with his little stunt. Deep down, I’ve convinced myself that Wise wanted to make the famed “blogger in pajamas” point. Instead, he made the “journalists don’t get social media point,” and the evidence of this to me is his “I’m sorry you feel that way,” apology:
He’s only half right on his first point: Mike, nobody checks *your* facts, because you are a sports writer for one of the three most important newspapers in the country. You better believe they will now.
I want to look back at the idea that Wise should be suspended, because I don’t think he should. I feel like he’s a kid who was told not to go climb in a tree, went and did it anyway, and now has a broken arm to show for it. The broken arm is a lesson enough, don’t ground the guy.
Actually, I have a better idea: Instead of squelching Twitter involvement, the Post should force him to take a lesson from guys like Steinberg and engage his followers and those tweeting at him. Maybe if he learned a little more about what conversation is valued, he wouldn’t have had this ridiculous idea in the first place.



