"I have a lot of fun reading blogs and often learn a lot. But as a trained journalist, sometimes I see things in a blogger’s copy that bugs me a bit, and sometimes I read stuff that makes me cringe. Some of it just confuses me, and some of it appalls me. So, when Chris asked me to write a guest post on what bloggers can learn from journalists, I decided to make a list:" Read it here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
What Bloggers Can Learn From Journalists
This is a guest post by Anita Bruzzese at chrisbrogan.com
Monday, December 15, 2008
Juice - The intelligent discovery engine from Linkool Labs (Available as Firefox plugin)
Hey all.
At our last supper last week someone brought up a question about what to do when you're surfing the web and you forget what it was you started looking for in the first place. Well, I found something that might help- Juice. A link to it is posted on my class project blog, "Journalism:What's Happening? What's Next?"
I also posted my final paper as a word doc. Its called "A Revolution of New Technologies:Web 3.0- An Option for a New Journalism?" and it makes for absolutely riveting reading. Uh-huh.
At our last supper last week someone brought up a question about what to do when you're surfing the web and you forget what it was you started looking for in the first place. Well, I found something that might help- Juice. A link to it is posted on my class project blog, "Journalism:What's Happening? What's Next?"
I also posted my final paper as a word doc. Its called "A Revolution of New Technologies:Web 3.0- An Option for a New Journalism?" and it makes for absolutely riveting reading. Uh-huh.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
CPJ's 2008 prison census: Online and in jail
From: http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/cpjs-2008-census-online-journalists-now-jailed-mor.php
CPJ's 2008 prison census: Online and in jail
Also: See capsule reports on journalists in jail as of December 1, 2008
New York, December 4, 2008--Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium. In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, released today, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that 45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. Online journalists represent the largest professional category for the first time in CPJ's prison census.
[picture missing]
Abdel Karim Suleiman, an Egyptian blogger, is one of 56 online journalists jailed worldwide. (Reuters)
CPJ's survey found 125 journalists in all behind bars on December 1, a decrease of two from the 2007 tally. (Read detailed accounts of each imprisoned journalist.) China continued to be world's worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world's worst in detaining journalists.
At least 56 online journalists are jailed worldwide, according to CPJ's census, a tally that surpasses the number of print journalists for the first time. The number of imprisoned online journalists has steadily increased since CPJ recorded the first jailed Internet writer in its 1997 census. Print reporters, editors, and photographers make up the next largest professional category, with 53 cases in 2008. Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers constitute the rest.
"Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other," said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. "But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack."
In October, CPJ joined with Internet companies, investors, and human rights groups to combat government repression of online expression. After two years of negotiations, this diverse group announced the creation of the Global Network Initiative, which establishes guidelines enabling Internet and telecommunications companies to protect free expression and privacy online. Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have joined the initiative.
Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists. Forty-five of the journalists on CPJ's census are freelancers; most of them work online. These freelancers are not employees of media companies and often do not have the legal resources or political connections that might help them gain their freedom. The number of imprisoned freelancers has risen more than 40 percent in the last two years, according to CPJ research.
"The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable," said CPJ's Simon. "All of us must stand up for their rights--from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse."
Imprisonments by Media
Antistate allegations such as subversion, divulging state secrets, and acting against national interests are the most common charge used to imprison journalists worldwide, CPJ found. About 59 percent of journalists in the census are jailed under these charges, many of them by the Chinese and Cuban governments.
About 13 percent of jailed journalists face no formal charge at all. The tactic is used by countries as diverse as Eritrea, Israel, Iran, the United States, and Uzbekistan, where journalists are being held in open-ended detentions without due process. At least 16 journalists worldwide are being held in secret locations. Among them is Gambian journalist "Chief" Ebrima Manneh, whose whereabouts, legal status, and health have been kept secret since his arrest in July 2006. From the U.S. Senate to the West African human rights court, international observers have called on authorities to free Manneh, who was jailed for trying to publish a critical report about Gambian President Yahya Jammeh.
Nowhere is the ascendance of Internet journalism more evident than in China, where 24 of 28 jailed journalists worked online. China's prison list includes Hu Jia, a prominent human rights activist and blogger, who is serving a prison term of three and a half years for online commentaries and media interviews in which he criticized the Communist Party. He was convicted of "incitement to subvert state power," a charge commonly used by authorities in China to jail critical writers. At least 22 journalists are jailed in China on this and other vague antistate charges.
Cuba, the world's second worst jailer, released two imprisoned journalists during the year after negotiations with Spain. Madrid, which resumed cooperative programs with Cuba in February, has sought the release of imprisoned writers and dissidents in talks with Havana. But Cuba continued to hold 21 writers and editors in prison as of December 1, all but one of them swept up in Fidel Castro's massive 2003 crackdown on the independent press. In November, CPJ honored Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, who at 65 is the oldest of those jailed in Cuba, with an International Press Freedom Award.
Burma, the third worst jailer, is holding 14 journalists. Five were arrested while trying to spread news and images from areas devastated by Cyclone Nargis. The blogger and comedian Maung Thura, who uses the professional name Zarganar, was sentenced to a total of 59 years in prison during closed proceedings in November. Authorities accused Maung Thura of illegally disseminating video footage of relief efforts in hard-hit areas, communicating with exiled dissidents, and causing public alarm in comments to foreign media.
Eritrea, with 13 journalists in prison, is the fourth worst jailer. Eritrean authorities have refused to disclose the whereabouts, legal status, or health of any of the journalists they have imprisoned. Unconfirmed online reports have said that three of the jailed journalists may have died in custody, but the government has refused to even say whether the detainees are alive or dead.
Uzbekistan, with six journalists detained, is the fifth worst jailer. Those in custody include Dzhamshid Karimov, nephew of the country's president. A reporter for independent news Web sites, Karimov has been forcibly held in a psychiatric hospital since 2006.
Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ's analysis:
* In about 11 percent of cases, governments have used a variety of charges unrelated to journalism to retaliate against critical writers, editors, and photojournalists. Such charges range from regulatory violations to drug possession. In the cases included in this census, CPJ has determined that the charges were most likely lodged in reprisal for the journalist's work.
* Violations of censorship rules, the next most common charge, are applied in about 10 percent of cases. Criminal defamation charges are filed in about 7 percent of cases, while charges of ethnic or religious insult are lodged in another 4 percent. Two journalists are jailed for filing what authorities consider to be "false" news. (More than one type of charge may apply in individual cases.
* Print and Internet journalists make up the bulk of the census. Television journalists compose the next largest professional category, accounting for 6 percent of cases. Radio journalists account for 4 percent, and documentary filmmakers 3 percent.
* The 2008 tally reflects the second consecutive decline in the total number of jailed journalists. That said, the 2008 figure is roughly consistent with census results in each year since 2000. CPJ research shows that imprisonments rose significantly in 2001, after governments imposed sweeping national security laws in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Imprisonments stood at 81 in 2000 but have since averaged 128 in CPJ's annual surveys.
* The United States, which is holding photographer Ibrahim Jassam without charge in Iraq, has made CPJ's list of countries jailing journalists for the fifth consecutive year. During this period, U.S. military authorities have jailed dozens of journalists in Iraq--some for days, others for months at a time--without charge or due process. No charges have ever been substantiated in these cases.
CPJ does not apply a rigid definition of online journalism, but it carefully evaluates the work of bloggers and online writers to determine whether the content is journalistic in nature. In general, CPJ looks to see whether the content is reportorial or fact-based commentary. In a repressive society where the traditional media is restricted, CPJ takes an inclusive approach to work that is produced online.
The organization believes that journalists should not be imprisoned for doing their jobs. CPJ has sent letters expressing its serious concerns to each country that has imprisoned a journalist.
Number of Journalists in Prison Each Year since 1998
CPJ's list is a snapshot of those incarcerated at midnight on December 1, 2008. It does not include the many journalists imprisoned and released throughout the year; accounts of those cases can be found at www.cpj.org. Journalists remain on CPJ's list until the organization determines with reasonable certainty that they have been released or have died in custody.
Journalists who either disappear or are abducted by nonstate entities, including criminal gangs, rebels, or militant groups, are not included on the imprisoned list. Their cases are classified as "missing" or "abducted."
Tags:
* Blogger,
* Imprisoned
CPJ's 2008 prison census: Online and in jail
Also: See capsule reports on journalists in jail as of December 1, 2008
New York, December 4, 2008--Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium. In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, released today, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that 45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. Online journalists represent the largest professional category for the first time in CPJ's prison census.
[picture missing]
Abdel Karim Suleiman, an Egyptian blogger, is one of 56 online journalists jailed worldwide. (Reuters)
CPJ's survey found 125 journalists in all behind bars on December 1, a decrease of two from the 2007 tally. (Read detailed accounts of each imprisoned journalist.) China continued to be world's worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world's worst in detaining journalists.
At least 56 online journalists are jailed worldwide, according to CPJ's census, a tally that surpasses the number of print journalists for the first time. The number of imprisoned online journalists has steadily increased since CPJ recorded the first jailed Internet writer in its 1997 census. Print reporters, editors, and photographers make up the next largest professional category, with 53 cases in 2008. Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers constitute the rest.
"Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other," said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. "But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack."
In October, CPJ joined with Internet companies, investors, and human rights groups to combat government repression of online expression. After two years of negotiations, this diverse group announced the creation of the Global Network Initiative, which establishes guidelines enabling Internet and telecommunications companies to protect free expression and privacy online. Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have joined the initiative.
Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists. Forty-five of the journalists on CPJ's census are freelancers; most of them work online. These freelancers are not employees of media companies and often do not have the legal resources or political connections that might help them gain their freedom. The number of imprisoned freelancers has risen more than 40 percent in the last two years, according to CPJ research.
"The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable," said CPJ's Simon. "All of us must stand up for their rights--from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse."
Imprisonments by Media
Antistate allegations such as subversion, divulging state secrets, and acting against national interests are the most common charge used to imprison journalists worldwide, CPJ found. About 59 percent of journalists in the census are jailed under these charges, many of them by the Chinese and Cuban governments.
About 13 percent of jailed journalists face no formal charge at all. The tactic is used by countries as diverse as Eritrea, Israel, Iran, the United States, and Uzbekistan, where journalists are being held in open-ended detentions without due process. At least 16 journalists worldwide are being held in secret locations. Among them is Gambian journalist "Chief" Ebrima Manneh, whose whereabouts, legal status, and health have been kept secret since his arrest in July 2006. From the U.S. Senate to the West African human rights court, international observers have called on authorities to free Manneh, who was jailed for trying to publish a critical report about Gambian President Yahya Jammeh.
Nowhere is the ascendance of Internet journalism more evident than in China, where 24 of 28 jailed journalists worked online. China's prison list includes Hu Jia, a prominent human rights activist and blogger, who is serving a prison term of three and a half years for online commentaries and media interviews in which he criticized the Communist Party. He was convicted of "incitement to subvert state power," a charge commonly used by authorities in China to jail critical writers. At least 22 journalists are jailed in China on this and other vague antistate charges.
Cuba, the world's second worst jailer, released two imprisoned journalists during the year after negotiations with Spain. Madrid, which resumed cooperative programs with Cuba in February, has sought the release of imprisoned writers and dissidents in talks with Havana. But Cuba continued to hold 21 writers and editors in prison as of December 1, all but one of them swept up in Fidel Castro's massive 2003 crackdown on the independent press. In November, CPJ honored Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, who at 65 is the oldest of those jailed in Cuba, with an International Press Freedom Award.
Burma, the third worst jailer, is holding 14 journalists. Five were arrested while trying to spread news and images from areas devastated by Cyclone Nargis. The blogger and comedian Maung Thura, who uses the professional name Zarganar, was sentenced to a total of 59 years in prison during closed proceedings in November. Authorities accused Maung Thura of illegally disseminating video footage of relief efforts in hard-hit areas, communicating with exiled dissidents, and causing public alarm in comments to foreign media.
Eritrea, with 13 journalists in prison, is the fourth worst jailer. Eritrean authorities have refused to disclose the whereabouts, legal status, or health of any of the journalists they have imprisoned. Unconfirmed online reports have said that three of the jailed journalists may have died in custody, but the government has refused to even say whether the detainees are alive or dead.
Uzbekistan, with six journalists detained, is the fifth worst jailer. Those in custody include Dzhamshid Karimov, nephew of the country's president. A reporter for independent news Web sites, Karimov has been forcibly held in a psychiatric hospital since 2006.
Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ's analysis:
* In about 11 percent of cases, governments have used a variety of charges unrelated to journalism to retaliate against critical writers, editors, and photojournalists. Such charges range from regulatory violations to drug possession. In the cases included in this census, CPJ has determined that the charges were most likely lodged in reprisal for the journalist's work.
* Violations of censorship rules, the next most common charge, are applied in about 10 percent of cases. Criminal defamation charges are filed in about 7 percent of cases, while charges of ethnic or religious insult are lodged in another 4 percent. Two journalists are jailed for filing what authorities consider to be "false" news. (More than one type of charge may apply in individual cases.
* Print and Internet journalists make up the bulk of the census. Television journalists compose the next largest professional category, accounting for 6 percent of cases. Radio journalists account for 4 percent, and documentary filmmakers 3 percent.
* The 2008 tally reflects the second consecutive decline in the total number of jailed journalists. That said, the 2008 figure is roughly consistent with census results in each year since 2000. CPJ research shows that imprisonments rose significantly in 2001, after governments imposed sweeping national security laws in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Imprisonments stood at 81 in 2000 but have since averaged 128 in CPJ's annual surveys.
* The United States, which is holding photographer Ibrahim Jassam without charge in Iraq, has made CPJ's list of countries jailing journalists for the fifth consecutive year. During this period, U.S. military authorities have jailed dozens of journalists in Iraq--some for days, others for months at a time--without charge or due process. No charges have ever been substantiated in these cases.
CPJ does not apply a rigid definition of online journalism, but it carefully evaluates the work of bloggers and online writers to determine whether the content is journalistic in nature. In general, CPJ looks to see whether the content is reportorial or fact-based commentary. In a repressive society where the traditional media is restricted, CPJ takes an inclusive approach to work that is produced online.
The organization believes that journalists should not be imprisoned for doing their jobs. CPJ has sent letters expressing its serious concerns to each country that has imprisoned a journalist.
Number of Journalists in Prison Each Year since 1998
CPJ's list is a snapshot of those incarcerated at midnight on December 1, 2008. It does not include the many journalists imprisoned and released throughout the year; accounts of those cases can be found at www.cpj.org. Journalists remain on CPJ's list until the organization determines with reasonable certainty that they have been released or have died in custody.
Journalists who either disappear or are abducted by nonstate entities, including criminal gangs, rebels, or militant groups, are not included on the imprisoned list. Their cases are classified as "missing" or "abducted."
Tags:
* Blogger,
* Imprisoned
At Pasadena Now, outsourced reporting is just business
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-onthemedia7-2008dec07,0,2587076.story
At Pasadena Now, outsourced reporting is just business
The local website uses writers in India, but it's no substitute for in-depth coverage.
By JAMES RAINEY, On The Media
December 7, 2008
As the alleged scourge of American journalism, James Macpherson cuts a rather disappointing figure.
In a crisp blue blazer, with slicked-back gray hair, the onetime garment manufacturer looks like a prep school headmaster. He speaks with the polite self-control of PBS' Jim Lehrer.
Macpherson drew headlines and hate mail last year when it was revealed that his Pasadena Now website intended to report the news from Pasadena using writers in Mumbai and Bangalore, India.
Outrage surged again a week ago, when Maureen Dowd of the New York Times reported on her visit with Macpherson, who told her that newspapers are in "a General Motors moment" and that his website could become a prototype for the future.
This might all seem terribly threatening to a knuckle-walking, retrograde print reporter like me, if I hadn't spent a little time with the Internet publisher and taken a spin through Pasadena Now.
What I found was a small businessman struggling to make a dollar, and a bright, glossy website mostly preoccupied with society happenings, ribbon-cuttings, fundraisers, the arts and, one day this week, gingerbread houses made by local schoolchildren.
I'm as sour on the idea of outsourcing journalism to the subcontinent as the next ink-stained wretch. Too many of my colleagues, at The Times and other papers, have already been pushed out the door.
But the natty and articulate Mr. Macpherson will not be the end of us. His 4-year-old website may one day thrive and find the magic bullet -- how to make money on a news site -- that has eluded virtually every other publisher.
That will not diminish the desire of many thinking people to have a more probing view of the communities they live in. And I still see no alternative for providing that information other than an eyewitness, on the ground, asking questions.
Newspapers and their websites -- even in a diminished state -- still tell those stories most, and best. That's why the movers at Pasadena City Hall and the school district make sure they read the Pasadena Star News and the alternative Pasadena Weekly.
They might peek at Macpherson's Pasadena Now on occasion. Staffers for the city and school district say they like the way the website faithfully publishes their press releases. "But when it takes the time and resources and energy to do something much more in-depth, they don't have the capacity to do as much of that," said Binti Harvey, spokeswoman for Pasadena Unified School District.
That's because Macpherson and his wife, Candice Merrill, run a bare-bones operation. They gather most of what you see on Pasadena Now, with the aid of a few volunteer videographers and photographers and half a dozen writers in India, the first of whom Macpherson found last year by advertising on Craigslist.
The Macphersons transmit press releases, PDF files and reports to their offshore crew, which also watches City Council and school board meetings via streaming video. The Indians produce articles and headlines, earning $7 for every 1,000 words. (By way of comparison, guest opinion writers in the Los Angeles Times get at least $250 for 600 words.)
Lively, unique utterances from the scene are a rarity on Pasadena Now, where canned and reprocessed information fills the news columns. The only fresh item one day last week under "The Latest" heading was an announcement that Hamilton Elementary School had applied for a Blue Ribbon School award.
Other "news" items included a three-day-old statement from the police chief about youth crime, a story about volunteer anti-crime patrols in shopping areas (four days old), and a week-old report on a sexual battery at a high school.
One lead story ("On Saturday, Dec. 6 the Rose Bowl will be hosting the annual UCLA/USC NCAA Division I football classic . . . ") sounded suspiciously as if it had been written by someone who has spent more time on a cricket field than a gridiron.
Despite his insistence that an Indian rewrite team can make his site economically viable, even Macpherson acknowledged that "nobody thousands of miles away can possibly understand the nuances of local issues."
So there he was, the putative king of the news outsourcers, writing in an essay last week about the need for "boots on the ground" to provide grist for complete stories.
Macpherson acknowledged as much last year, when he hired local reporters to cover the schools, City Hall and other beats. But when he couldn't afford to pay them, they walked.
Now, Macpherson's back to a mom and pop operation, editing out of his home off Orange Grove Boulevard.
The entrepreneur has brought on a few ad men recently, working on commission, and said he sees signs that they might help him begin operating in the black.
Macpherson, 53, dreams of a day when merchants can play with the big boys by selling their wares via local websites, with the Internet partner getting a small share of the proceeds.
In the meantime, the man with the men in Mumbai is in survival mode, with dozens of ideas but no money to put more reporters on the street.
In that sense, he may have a lot more in common with the newspaper industry than some of us cranky journalists care to admit.
Rainey is a Times staff writer.
james.rainey@latimes.com
At Pasadena Now, outsourced reporting is just business
The local website uses writers in India, but it's no substitute for in-depth coverage.
By JAMES RAINEY, On The Media
December 7, 2008
As the alleged scourge of American journalism, James Macpherson cuts a rather disappointing figure.
In a crisp blue blazer, with slicked-back gray hair, the onetime garment manufacturer looks like a prep school headmaster. He speaks with the polite self-control of PBS' Jim Lehrer.
Macpherson drew headlines and hate mail last year when it was revealed that his Pasadena Now website intended to report the news from Pasadena using writers in Mumbai and Bangalore, India.
Outrage surged again a week ago, when Maureen Dowd of the New York Times reported on her visit with Macpherson, who told her that newspapers are in "a General Motors moment" and that his website could become a prototype for the future.
This might all seem terribly threatening to a knuckle-walking, retrograde print reporter like me, if I hadn't spent a little time with the Internet publisher and taken a spin through Pasadena Now.
What I found was a small businessman struggling to make a dollar, and a bright, glossy website mostly preoccupied with society happenings, ribbon-cuttings, fundraisers, the arts and, one day this week, gingerbread houses made by local schoolchildren.
I'm as sour on the idea of outsourcing journalism to the subcontinent as the next ink-stained wretch. Too many of my colleagues, at The Times and other papers, have already been pushed out the door.
But the natty and articulate Mr. Macpherson will not be the end of us. His 4-year-old website may one day thrive and find the magic bullet -- how to make money on a news site -- that has eluded virtually every other publisher.
That will not diminish the desire of many thinking people to have a more probing view of the communities they live in. And I still see no alternative for providing that information other than an eyewitness, on the ground, asking questions.
Newspapers and their websites -- even in a diminished state -- still tell those stories most, and best. That's why the movers at Pasadena City Hall and the school district make sure they read the Pasadena Star News and the alternative Pasadena Weekly.
They might peek at Macpherson's Pasadena Now on occasion. Staffers for the city and school district say they like the way the website faithfully publishes their press releases. "But when it takes the time and resources and energy to do something much more in-depth, they don't have the capacity to do as much of that," said Binti Harvey, spokeswoman for Pasadena Unified School District.
That's because Macpherson and his wife, Candice Merrill, run a bare-bones operation. They gather most of what you see on Pasadena Now, with the aid of a few volunteer videographers and photographers and half a dozen writers in India, the first of whom Macpherson found last year by advertising on Craigslist.
The Macphersons transmit press releases, PDF files and reports to their offshore crew, which also watches City Council and school board meetings via streaming video. The Indians produce articles and headlines, earning $7 for every 1,000 words. (By way of comparison, guest opinion writers in the Los Angeles Times get at least $250 for 600 words.)
Lively, unique utterances from the scene are a rarity on Pasadena Now, where canned and reprocessed information fills the news columns. The only fresh item one day last week under "The Latest" heading was an announcement that Hamilton Elementary School had applied for a Blue Ribbon School award.
Other "news" items included a three-day-old statement from the police chief about youth crime, a story about volunteer anti-crime patrols in shopping areas (four days old), and a week-old report on a sexual battery at a high school.
One lead story ("On Saturday, Dec. 6 the Rose Bowl will be hosting the annual UCLA/USC NCAA Division I football classic . . . ") sounded suspiciously as if it had been written by someone who has spent more time on a cricket field than a gridiron.
Despite his insistence that an Indian rewrite team can make his site economically viable, even Macpherson acknowledged that "nobody thousands of miles away can possibly understand the nuances of local issues."
So there he was, the putative king of the news outsourcers, writing in an essay last week about the need for "boots on the ground" to provide grist for complete stories.
Macpherson acknowledged as much last year, when he hired local reporters to cover the schools, City Hall and other beats. But when he couldn't afford to pay them, they walked.
Now, Macpherson's back to a mom and pop operation, editing out of his home off Orange Grove Boulevard.
The entrepreneur has brought on a few ad men recently, working on commission, and said he sees signs that they might help him begin operating in the black.
Macpherson, 53, dreams of a day when merchants can play with the big boys by selling their wares via local websites, with the Internet partner getting a small share of the proceeds.
In the meantime, the man with the men in Mumbai is in survival mode, with dozens of ideas but no money to put more reporters on the street.
In that sense, he may have a lot more in common with the newspaper industry than some of us cranky journalists care to admit.
Rainey is a Times staff writer.
james.rainey@latimes.com
U.S. Military Will Keep Holding Reuters Photographer
From: http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/12/reuters2.html
U.S. Military Will Keep Holding Reuters Photographer
BAGHDAD, IRAQ (December 10, 2008) – The American military is maintaining that Reuters freelance photojournalist Jassam Mohammed is "a threat to Iraq security and stability" based on their own intelligence, and have decided to ignore an Iraqi court's decision that there is no evidence against him as well as to disregard the Central Criminal Court's November order to set him free.
U.S. military spokesman Major Neal Fisher said Mohammed, who has been held since September, will continued to be held in Camp Cropper prison near Baghdad's airport into 2009.
Fisher told Reuters that Mohammed "will be processed for release in a safe and orderly manner after December 31, in the order of his individual threat level, along with all other detainees. Since he already has a decision from the CCCI, when it is his turn for release he will be able to out-process without having to go through the courts as other detainees in his threat classification will have to do."
Jassam was detained after a raid on his home in Mahmudiya by U.S. and Iraqi forces. His photographic equipment was also confiscated. The freelancer works for other Iraqi media, in addition to Reuters News, a Thomson Reuters company.
"I am disappointed he has not been released in accordance with the court order," Reuters News editor-in-chief David Schlesinger said.
In the ruling issued by the Iraqi court at the end of last month, Iraqi prosecutors said they had asked the U.S. military repeatedly for the evidence it had against Jassam but that U.S. forces had failed to provide any material.
Fisher said that the U.S. military was "not bound" to provide military intelligence to Iraqi courts.
The legal situation changes next year when a security pact with the United States enters into force, replacing a United Nations mandate governing the presence of foreign troops and paving the way for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Under the pact, the U.S. military will no longer be able to detain people.
Most of the more than 15,000 detainees currently held in Iraq by U.S. forces will have to be set free as a result. Others who are subject to Iraqi arrest warrants will be transferred to Iraqi prisons. The pact gives no timeline for that process to happen but says it should be conducted in an orderly manner.
Fisher declined to arrange a meeting between Reuters and the U.S. commander of the prisons operations, Brigadier General David Quantock, to discuss Jassam's continuing detention.
"I will not ask him to make this detainee more important than the other 15,800 detainees, when he has already made his decision," Fisher said.
Reuters and international media rights groups have criticized the U.S. military's refusal to deal more quickly with suspicions apparently arising from the legitimate activities of reporters covering acts of violence.
In August, the U.S. military freed a photographer working for Reuters after holding him for three weeks without charges. It had been the third time Ali al-Mashhadani, who also conducts freelance work for the BBC and National Public Radio, had been detained.
U.S. Military Will Keep Holding Reuters Photographer
BAGHDAD, IRAQ (December 10, 2008) – The American military is maintaining that Reuters freelance photojournalist Jassam Mohammed is "a threat to Iraq security and stability" based on their own intelligence, and have decided to ignore an Iraqi court's decision that there is no evidence against him as well as to disregard the Central Criminal Court's November order to set him free.
U.S. military spokesman Major Neal Fisher said Mohammed, who has been held since September, will continued to be held in Camp Cropper prison near Baghdad's airport into 2009.
Fisher told Reuters that Mohammed "will be processed for release in a safe and orderly manner after December 31, in the order of his individual threat level, along with all other detainees. Since he already has a decision from the CCCI, when it is his turn for release he will be able to out-process without having to go through the courts as other detainees in his threat classification will have to do."
Jassam was detained after a raid on his home in Mahmudiya by U.S. and Iraqi forces. His photographic equipment was also confiscated. The freelancer works for other Iraqi media, in addition to Reuters News, a Thomson Reuters company.
"I am disappointed he has not been released in accordance with the court order," Reuters News editor-in-chief David Schlesinger said.
In the ruling issued by the Iraqi court at the end of last month, Iraqi prosecutors said they had asked the U.S. military repeatedly for the evidence it had against Jassam but that U.S. forces had failed to provide any material.
Fisher said that the U.S. military was "not bound" to provide military intelligence to Iraqi courts.
The legal situation changes next year when a security pact with the United States enters into force, replacing a United Nations mandate governing the presence of foreign troops and paving the way for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Under the pact, the U.S. military will no longer be able to detain people.
Most of the more than 15,000 detainees currently held in Iraq by U.S. forces will have to be set free as a result. Others who are subject to Iraqi arrest warrants will be transferred to Iraqi prisons. The pact gives no timeline for that process to happen but says it should be conducted in an orderly manner.
Fisher declined to arrange a meeting between Reuters and the U.S. commander of the prisons operations, Brigadier General David Quantock, to discuss Jassam's continuing detention.
"I will not ask him to make this detainee more important than the other 15,800 detainees, when he has already made his decision," Fisher said.
Reuters and international media rights groups have criticized the U.S. military's refusal to deal more quickly with suspicions apparently arising from the legitimate activities of reporters covering acts of violence.
In August, the U.S. military freed a photographer working for Reuters after holding him for three weeks without charges. It had been the third time Ali al-Mashhadani, who also conducts freelance work for the BBC and National Public Radio, had been detained.
Cut Newsday Photographers Told To "Re-Apply" For Visual Journalist Jobs
From: http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/12/newsday.html
[I mentioned this story at dinner last night.]
Cut Newsday Photographers Told To "Re-Apply" For Visual Journalist Jobs
MELVILLE, NY (December 8, 2008) – Friday evening about 20 photographers at Newsday on Long Island were summoned to a meeting to learn that they had all lost their jobs.
Photographers were called, even those on their days off, and told to come in for a meeting with photography director Jeff Schamberry where they learned that their jobs have been eliminated. They were told that beginning Monday they could "re-apply" for new jobs that have been created in the photography department, positions with the title of "Visual Journalist" or "assistant photo editor."
"We have the 'opportunity' to reapply for either the job of 'Visual Journalist' or as an assistant photography editor," one of the long-time Newsday photographers told News Photographer magazine today. The photographer did not want to be identified by name because the photographer intends to re-apply for one of the new jobs.
"It was horrible," the photographer said about Friday night's meeting. "We were shocked. Personally, I think the handwriting was on the wall. They did this to the art department several months ago, and when that happened I thought that we would be next."
The Newsday photographer said that starting today the 20 photographers can schedule a meeting with the managing editor and photography director ("If we still have one ...") and re-apply for a visual journalist or assistant photo editor job, but that there are not 20 new positions and not everyone will be re-hired.
"We've heard the cuts are going to be drastic," the photographer said, "about 50 percent or more. There won't be 20 new positions."
One estimate says that the re-organized photography department may be made up of only 7 people, cutting 13 positions from the staff.
Reports at the end of last week said that Newsday would trim 5 percent of their overall staff (about 100 workers) in the newsroom and business side, and that the editorial cuts would hit members of the sports and photography departments the hardest.
The New York Observer reported that fired Newsday employees may be offered a buy-out package, and if so they'll have three weeks to accept the offer.
Newsday was sold by Tribune Co. to Cablevision in May for $650 million, but the newspaper's losses continued under its new owners and Tribune's profits from the sale didn't stem losses at the Chicago-based company, which today filed for bankruptcy.
Newsday publisher Tim Knight wrote last week in an internal Newsday memo that the ongoing loss of advertising revenue are to blame for this round of cuts. Facing their own loss of revenue, the paper also announced the newsstand price goes up a quarter, to 75 cents daily and $2 on Sunday.
[I mentioned this story at dinner last night.]
Cut Newsday Photographers Told To "Re-Apply" For Visual Journalist Jobs
MELVILLE, NY (December 8, 2008) – Friday evening about 20 photographers at Newsday on Long Island were summoned to a meeting to learn that they had all lost their jobs.
Photographers were called, even those on their days off, and told to come in for a meeting with photography director Jeff Schamberry where they learned that their jobs have been eliminated. They were told that beginning Monday they could "re-apply" for new jobs that have been created in the photography department, positions with the title of "Visual Journalist" or "assistant photo editor."
"We have the 'opportunity' to reapply for either the job of 'Visual Journalist' or as an assistant photography editor," one of the long-time Newsday photographers told News Photographer magazine today. The photographer did not want to be identified by name because the photographer intends to re-apply for one of the new jobs.
"It was horrible," the photographer said about Friday night's meeting. "We were shocked. Personally, I think the handwriting was on the wall. They did this to the art department several months ago, and when that happened I thought that we would be next."
The Newsday photographer said that starting today the 20 photographers can schedule a meeting with the managing editor and photography director ("If we still have one ...") and re-apply for a visual journalist or assistant photo editor job, but that there are not 20 new positions and not everyone will be re-hired.
"We've heard the cuts are going to be drastic," the photographer said, "about 50 percent or more. There won't be 20 new positions."
One estimate says that the re-organized photography department may be made up of only 7 people, cutting 13 positions from the staff.
Reports at the end of last week said that Newsday would trim 5 percent of their overall staff (about 100 workers) in the newsroom and business side, and that the editorial cuts would hit members of the sports and photography departments the hardest.
The New York Observer reported that fired Newsday employees may be offered a buy-out package, and if so they'll have three weeks to accept the offer.
Newsday was sold by Tribune Co. to Cablevision in May for $650 million, but the newspaper's losses continued under its new owners and Tribune's profits from the sale didn't stem losses at the Chicago-based company, which today filed for bankruptcy.
Newsday publisher Tim Knight wrote last week in an internal Newsday memo that the ongoing loss of advertising revenue are to blame for this round of cuts. Facing their own loss of revenue, the paper also announced the newsstand price goes up a quarter, to 75 cents daily and $2 on Sunday.
Greenberg v. National Georgraphic Comes To An End;
From: http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/12/greenberg.html
This case will have important ramifications for writers too!
Greenberg v. National Geographic Comes To An End; Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Appeal
WASHINGTON, DC (December 10, 2008) – Photographer Jerry Greenberg's long legal battle against the National Geographic Society and a series of appellate court rulings has finally come to an end.
The United States Supreme Court has denied to hear an appeal by Greenberg in which he asked the justices to reverse a lower court's landmark copyright decision in his 11-year-old case against National Geographic.
The Supreme Court denied Greenberg's petition for a writ of certiorari on Monday, which lets stand the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from July holding that the National Geographic Society – and by extension, other publishers – have the right to reproduce their magazines' archive in digital format without paying any additional royalties to freelance photographers.
"The decision by the Supreme Court to let stand the ruling in Greenberg is extremely disappointing," NPPA's general legal counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said today from Buffalo, NY.
"In these terrible economic times it will now allow publishers to create and sell electronic archives of their previously published works without infringing on the copyrights of the contributors to those works. This creates a terrible burden on the ability of photographers to earn a living.”
“It will now be imperative for photographers, authors, artists, and creators to be aware of this decision as they negotiate for the use of their work and make sure that any contract that they agree to clearly delineate those rights and limitations," Osterreicher said.
In November the National Press Photographers Association joined other groups who are concerned about protecting the copyrights and incomes of freelance photographers in filing an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief supporting Greenberg in his appeal.
Greenberg's writ of certiorari asked the Supreme Court to determine whether federal appellate courts in New York and Georgia had reached a correct decision in Jerry Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, suggesting that the 11th Circuit (and the 2nd Circuit in a nearly identical case) had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's 2001 landmark copyright ruling, Tasini v. New York Times.
National Geographic responded to Greenberg's Supreme Court appeal with a brief of their own opposing it. Represented by former Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, Geographic's brief argued that there was no reason for the Supreme Court to hear Greenberg's appeal and to revisit the court's decision in Tasini because the 11th Circuit's ruling had resolved any conflict between the 11th and 2nd Circuits over copyright protections for freelance photographers, and therefore there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene, or to "reverse the course of now-settled law", because of the lower courts' "now harmonious interpretation" of Tasini.
So by refusing to hear Greenberg's appeal the Supreme Court sided with Geographic and affirmed the circuit courts' July finding, which also lets stand the Tasini decision.
Legal scholars have said that reopening Tasini would have implications for thousands of freelance photographers, writers, and illustrators in a long-standing disagreement with publishers over copyright and the use of published works.
Greenberg's case against Geographic stemmed from the National Geographic Society reusing more than 60 of Greenberg's photographs in a 30-disc CD-ROM compilation called "The Complete National Geographic." The digital product included 1,200 past issues of National Geographic magazine.
National Geographic pulled the product off the market in 2003 after Greenberg was awarded damages by a Florida district court. But as the lawsuit dragged on through the appeals process, the final three rulings by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were all in the magazine's favor.
This case will have important ramifications for writers too!
Greenberg v. National Geographic Comes To An End; Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Appeal
WASHINGTON, DC (December 10, 2008) – Photographer Jerry Greenberg's long legal battle against the National Geographic Society and a series of appellate court rulings has finally come to an end.
The United States Supreme Court has denied to hear an appeal by Greenberg in which he asked the justices to reverse a lower court's landmark copyright decision in his 11-year-old case against National Geographic.
The Supreme Court denied Greenberg's petition for a writ of certiorari on Monday, which lets stand the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from July holding that the National Geographic Society – and by extension, other publishers – have the right to reproduce their magazines' archive in digital format without paying any additional royalties to freelance photographers.
"The decision by the Supreme Court to let stand the ruling in Greenberg is extremely disappointing," NPPA's general legal counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said today from Buffalo, NY.
"In these terrible economic times it will now allow publishers to create and sell electronic archives of their previously published works without infringing on the copyrights of the contributors to those works. This creates a terrible burden on the ability of photographers to earn a living.”
“It will now be imperative for photographers, authors, artists, and creators to be aware of this decision as they negotiate for the use of their work and make sure that any contract that they agree to clearly delineate those rights and limitations," Osterreicher said.
In November the National Press Photographers Association joined other groups who are concerned about protecting the copyrights and incomes of freelance photographers in filing an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief supporting Greenberg in his appeal.
Greenberg's writ of certiorari asked the Supreme Court to determine whether federal appellate courts in New York and Georgia had reached a correct decision in Jerry Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, suggesting that the 11th Circuit (and the 2nd Circuit in a nearly identical case) had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's 2001 landmark copyright ruling, Tasini v. New York Times.
National Geographic responded to Greenberg's Supreme Court appeal with a brief of their own opposing it. Represented by former Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, Geographic's brief argued that there was no reason for the Supreme Court to hear Greenberg's appeal and to revisit the court's decision in Tasini because the 11th Circuit's ruling had resolved any conflict between the 11th and 2nd Circuits over copyright protections for freelance photographers, and therefore there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene, or to "reverse the course of now-settled law", because of the lower courts' "now harmonious interpretation" of Tasini.
So by refusing to hear Greenberg's appeal the Supreme Court sided with Geographic and affirmed the circuit courts' July finding, which also lets stand the Tasini decision.
Legal scholars have said that reopening Tasini would have implications for thousands of freelance photographers, writers, and illustrators in a long-standing disagreement with publishers over copyright and the use of published works.
Greenberg's case against Geographic stemmed from the National Geographic Society reusing more than 60 of Greenberg's photographs in a 30-disc CD-ROM compilation called "The Complete National Geographic." The digital product included 1,200 past issues of National Geographic magazine.
National Geographic pulled the product off the market in 2003 after Greenberg was awarded damages by a Florida district court. But as the lawsuit dragged on through the appeals process, the final three rulings by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were all in the magazine's favor.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
News Prediction- A Grim Story
The video Epic 2015 showed some predictions of media being bought out and owned by one company. They predicted Amazon would be taking over a lot of things, however, while I think that large news companies will be bought out consolidated, I do not think one company will own everything. I think it will be a few large companies that own a lot of outlets. Looking at how TV companies are modeled now, FOX has a little of everything. I think the larger companies will go around buying the remaining news outlets that will work and the remaining ones will die off. For instance, the pioneer press will either combine with the Star Tribune or die off completely. The NY Times will still be around (mostly in an online format) but they will be bought by a larger company to stay around. Ultimately I envision news monopolies to form across the country. With the lack of competition, there will be a lack of worthwhile news- fluff stories and filler pieces will be all that is left. This will cause those that want to be informed to go out and search for what they can on their own. Ultimately this will cause a cultural divide between the informed and the uninformed.
As much as I do not want to see it happen, I also predict advertising will begin to play a larger role in the news. Struggling news media will succumb to advertisers in a last ditch effort to remain profitable. As we would all expect, this will taint the authority of the news and people will go in search of other options.
I think that national TV news will stay around, the 24 news networks may merge together. Perhaps all NBC properties (MSNBC, CNBC, etc) will unite under one heading instead of having multiple outlets. I think print newspapers as we know them will one day seize to exist. They will only be around in an online form, but we will have to pay for them. I give them 10 years before this happens. I am still unsure as to what will happen to the journalists in general. I think they will ban together (similar to what is starting to happen in Minneapolis) to give integrity to the news. I think professional journalists will help vet the citizen journalists informing others who they trust and are providing accurate information. Through this process, professional journalists will help train and citizen journalists as it will be up to us to keep each other informed.
As much as I do not want to see it happen, I also predict advertising will begin to play a larger role in the news. Struggling news media will succumb to advertisers in a last ditch effort to remain profitable. As we would all expect, this will taint the authority of the news and people will go in search of other options.
I think that national TV news will stay around, the 24 news networks may merge together. Perhaps all NBC properties (MSNBC, CNBC, etc) will unite under one heading instead of having multiple outlets. I think print newspapers as we know them will one day seize to exist. They will only be around in an online form, but we will have to pay for them. I give them 10 years before this happens. I am still unsure as to what will happen to the journalists in general. I think they will ban together (similar to what is starting to happen in Minneapolis) to give integrity to the news. I think professional journalists will help vet the citizen journalists informing others who they trust and are providing accurate information. Through this process, professional journalists will help train and citizen journalists as it will be up to us to keep each other informed.
Breathless
Final Blog Assignment
• Which present-day news media will still be around, which, if any, are likely to disappear, and how will they evolve? What new forms of news media do you foresee?
o All forms of present-day news media will be around, aside form the daily newspaper, as we know it. Even it will evolve in to a daily online news feed tailored to individuals. It will move online outside of printed high-end publications for the intellectual, business, government and academic elite. In the end, the battle will be for influence instead of eyeballs.
o Free Radio will boom and be offered over the Internet by sites like Pandora and be radios’ only framework.
o TV will merge with home computer producing single- screen experience as a norm for each individual. All the same outlets will be available on personal mobile devices. These will receive personalized data and targeted advertisement by an over simplified-consumer brand grouping as a reaction to consumer-centrism. TiVo – or a similar DVR device will be used to record all shows on demand and without advertisements.
o Niche radio and TV channels will expand infinitely to match vastness of the web where both TV and radio will exist.
o Ad Money will be recouped through product placement deals within shows and celebrity endorsements.
o The Viewers will be offered a “paycheck” to view advertisements. This payment may consist of bonus shows of choice for free.
o Internet will be the connecting force among all distribution outlets and will be provided for free to consumers throughout all major cities- and growing outlying communities.
• What role will economics play in shaping the future of our news media system? How will we pay for news?
o Non Profit Supported
• Think Tank & Intelligence Communities funded
• “Philanthro-capitalism” / “venture capitalism” will grow
• Public Trusts like Poynter Foundation will throw in for local support.
o Individual Investment
• Select Pay Subscriptions will maintain (Like The Economist & WSJ online)
o Government Funded
• Issues of tax-funded government messaging will emerge
o Business-oriented generated reports purchased by Business Analysts, companies with special-interests and Wall Street types.
• What consequences will the changes that you foresee have for the way our democracy functions?
o The “Fourth Estate” will no longer be the watchdogs and gatekeepers in their traditional sense. They will need to adopt the role of “beacons of quality” in the dark, to be followed by the masses as the masses gather information behind them.
o They will need to be editors and interpreters of the information supplied by crowds. They will be able and willing to provide context and analysis in the midst of information overload.
o Their valued and trusted opinions and insights will become the touch points from which ‘pro-sumers’ can build or question. (See definition below)*
o Transparency will be all-important in their information gathering, analysis and dispersion. Interaction with their audiences will be mandatory and daily.
o It is possible their role may be staffed by a team of respondents to speak with one voice reflecting the figurehead.
• What role will non-professionals play in the production and distribution of news?
o They will be “Pro-sumers”*: both consumers and producers of news, able to edit and distribute quality material. Unfortunately, the quality may be low or high, truthful or fanciful.
o Sites will need to seek legitimization and consumers will vet sources of information through crowdsourcing. Their source of legitimization will be built through the constant information exchange provided by social networking sites and forums like Twitter. Also, rating systems will develop organically in all forums where consumers gather. These rating systems will then stand on there own and be used as guides to the vast information landscape.
o They will fall into and out of favor, be cannibalized by “new and better” methods of judgment.
Why will it happen this way?
o It is in man’s nature to seek order in chaos, and certainly the infinite information available as a result of the Internet is “chaos” to a human mind.
o We will usher in an era of mass collaboration. Widespread input will be the norm but in this noise, we will search for a voice to make sense of it all – a leader of the masses.
o Ultimately then, we will rebel against that leader. The cycles being trend-countertrend-trend- countertrend…hi-tech to hi-touch, bits and bytes of news to broader and deeper news context, opinion leaders to mass collaboration.
o Finally and ultimately, the answer to “why” remains: “It’s the economy, Sir.”
With any luck at all, media consumers will find and acknowledge the middle road before they jump it. I will not be holding my breath.
• Which present-day news media will still be around, which, if any, are likely to disappear, and how will they evolve? What new forms of news media do you foresee?
o All forms of present-day news media will be around, aside form the daily newspaper, as we know it. Even it will evolve in to a daily online news feed tailored to individuals. It will move online outside of printed high-end publications for the intellectual, business, government and academic elite. In the end, the battle will be for influence instead of eyeballs.
o Free Radio will boom and be offered over the Internet by sites like Pandora and be radios’ only framework.
o TV will merge with home computer producing single- screen experience as a norm for each individual. All the same outlets will be available on personal mobile devices. These will receive personalized data and targeted advertisement by an over simplified-consumer brand grouping as a reaction to consumer-centrism. TiVo – or a similar DVR device will be used to record all shows on demand and without advertisements.
o Niche radio and TV channels will expand infinitely to match vastness of the web where both TV and radio will exist.
o Ad Money will be recouped through product placement deals within shows and celebrity endorsements.
o The Viewers will be offered a “paycheck” to view advertisements. This payment may consist of bonus shows of choice for free.
o Internet will be the connecting force among all distribution outlets and will be provided for free to consumers throughout all major cities- and growing outlying communities.
• What role will economics play in shaping the future of our news media system? How will we pay for news?
o Non Profit Supported
• Think Tank & Intelligence Communities funded
• “Philanthro-capitalism” / “venture capitalism” will grow
• Public Trusts like Poynter Foundation will throw in for local support.
o Individual Investment
• Select Pay Subscriptions will maintain (Like The Economist & WSJ online)
o Government Funded
• Issues of tax-funded government messaging will emerge
o Business-oriented generated reports purchased by Business Analysts, companies with special-interests and Wall Street types.
• What consequences will the changes that you foresee have for the way our democracy functions?
o The “Fourth Estate” will no longer be the watchdogs and gatekeepers in their traditional sense. They will need to adopt the role of “beacons of quality” in the dark, to be followed by the masses as the masses gather information behind them.
o They will need to be editors and interpreters of the information supplied by crowds. They will be able and willing to provide context and analysis in the midst of information overload.
o Their valued and trusted opinions and insights will become the touch points from which ‘pro-sumers’ can build or question. (See definition below)*
o Transparency will be all-important in their information gathering, analysis and dispersion. Interaction with their audiences will be mandatory and daily.
o It is possible their role may be staffed by a team of respondents to speak with one voice reflecting the figurehead.
• What role will non-professionals play in the production and distribution of news?
o They will be “Pro-sumers”*: both consumers and producers of news, able to edit and distribute quality material. Unfortunately, the quality may be low or high, truthful or fanciful.
o Sites will need to seek legitimization and consumers will vet sources of information through crowdsourcing. Their source of legitimization will be built through the constant information exchange provided by social networking sites and forums like Twitter. Also, rating systems will develop organically in all forums where consumers gather. These rating systems will then stand on there own and be used as guides to the vast information landscape.
o They will fall into and out of favor, be cannibalized by “new and better” methods of judgment.
Why will it happen this way?
o It is in man’s nature to seek order in chaos, and certainly the infinite information available as a result of the Internet is “chaos” to a human mind.
o We will usher in an era of mass collaboration. Widespread input will be the norm but in this noise, we will search for a voice to make sense of it all – a leader of the masses.
o Ultimately then, we will rebel against that leader. The cycles being trend-countertrend-trend- countertrend…hi-tech to hi-touch, bits and bytes of news to broader and deeper news context, opinion leaders to mass collaboration.
o Finally and ultimately, the answer to “why” remains: “It’s the economy, Sir.”
With any luck at all, media consumers will find and acknowledge the middle road before they jump it. I will not be holding my breath.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Predictions
My after school job in high school was working at a record store. It was about the same time that CDs were just starting to catch on and come down in price. Around that time that everyone started to predict the end of vinyl albums. Twenty years later and everyone is predicting the end of CDs and music distribution by record companies. However, vinyl records are making a comeback, and not just with DJs and indie music fans. Granted, the casual music fan isn’t rushing out to pick up the latest Beyonce record on vinyl, but it’s a growing (and apparently profitable) niche.
It’s funny but, people have also been predicting the demise of the print media for the last 25 years or so and it’s still here. Sure, there have been contractions and consolidations. I remember when “the end is near” predictions first started there were morning and afternoon newspapers in Minneapolis. Ah, but that was B.C. (before cable). Inevitably it seems everyone points a finger at the rise of cable television as the beginning of the end for print media. Well, it’s been an excruciatingly long, slow death, if it is in fact even dying.
I believe it’s going to away much in the same way vinyl records have gone away. In other words – it’s not. The demand may go down, but I don’t think it’s going to completely replaced. Things will change. Online newspapers will grow, certainly. The profitability of web versus traditional print media makes that change inevitable. Or perhaps that would be better explained as the cost of traditional print media makes the web all the more attractive.
With the shift to web-based newspapers (news outlets? news sources? news-delivery? – I dunno, but we’re going to need a new term) will come a shift in the economic model news media uses. Much like vinyl records the online newspapers (news media isn’t quite specific enough, it’s too inclusive of streaming T.V. news, streaming movies, etc. we really need to find a new term) will operate in a niche, albeit on a (hopefully) larger scale. Much like the casual music listeners aren’t the right target for vinyl records, the new online newspapers might not be the right market for casual news consumer. Basically, the legacy print media need to recognize that they can’t be all things to all people. Maybe this means that larger news organizations will need to create different venues for different audiences.
The biggest hurdle to quality journalism is the financial model so many media companies are operating under. A new model must be developed, one that recognizes that a reasonable profit is enough instead of constantly pushing to maximize profits. It’s very possible that an NPR like model will develop, where people “belong” to one or more news provider services as a contributing member. This could end up being a very empowering community development tool and I can see it being used along with the social media links like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. in bringing readers (viewers, visitors, whatever) together.
I predict problems with the growth of community journalism. I see the reason for this growth is mostly driven by economic forces and not as a way to personalize or get closer to the news “consumer”. A switch to a web-based delivery system could remove the economic factors and still allow for ways to engage with the community. Professional standards and ethics is the biggest potential problem and expecting editors to be gatekeepers and teachers as well as the last and perhaps only line of defense is too much to expect from someone. I honestly predict that what’s going to happen in the near future is that many who are currently writing and shooting for free or low pay will get to a point where they will find they either have a serious passion for the work and decide to do it professionally or they will find that the time and other investments aren’t rewarding enough and drop out.
As that shake out happens, I believe the public will grow more concerned about where their news comes from and start to look for the trained and best able to explain what the days events mean. I guess this is the “Islands of Quality” concept that was being discussed in class.
I can see partisan media continuing to grow until it is very easy to search out the viewpoints that you agree with and completely avoid those with which you disagree. However, I see a backlash happen that brings with it nostalgia for old school journalism – hard hitting, in depth, investigative journalism, stories that make a difference.
But maybe this is all wishful thinking on my part.
It’s funny but, people have also been predicting the demise of the print media for the last 25 years or so and it’s still here. Sure, there have been contractions and consolidations. I remember when “the end is near” predictions first started there were morning and afternoon newspapers in Minneapolis. Ah, but that was B.C. (before cable). Inevitably it seems everyone points a finger at the rise of cable television as the beginning of the end for print media. Well, it’s been an excruciatingly long, slow death, if it is in fact even dying.
I believe it’s going to away much in the same way vinyl records have gone away. In other words – it’s not. The demand may go down, but I don’t think it’s going to completely replaced. Things will change. Online newspapers will grow, certainly. The profitability of web versus traditional print media makes that change inevitable. Or perhaps that would be better explained as the cost of traditional print media makes the web all the more attractive.
With the shift to web-based newspapers (news outlets? news sources? news-delivery? – I dunno, but we’re going to need a new term) will come a shift in the economic model news media uses. Much like vinyl records the online newspapers (news media isn’t quite specific enough, it’s too inclusive of streaming T.V. news, streaming movies, etc. we really need to find a new term) will operate in a niche, albeit on a (hopefully) larger scale. Much like the casual music listeners aren’t the right target for vinyl records, the new online newspapers might not be the right market for casual news consumer. Basically, the legacy print media need to recognize that they can’t be all things to all people. Maybe this means that larger news organizations will need to create different venues for different audiences.
The biggest hurdle to quality journalism is the financial model so many media companies are operating under. A new model must be developed, one that recognizes that a reasonable profit is enough instead of constantly pushing to maximize profits. It’s very possible that an NPR like model will develop, where people “belong” to one or more news provider services as a contributing member. This could end up being a very empowering community development tool and I can see it being used along with the social media links like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. in bringing readers (viewers, visitors, whatever) together.
I predict problems with the growth of community journalism. I see the reason for this growth is mostly driven by economic forces and not as a way to personalize or get closer to the news “consumer”. A switch to a web-based delivery system could remove the economic factors and still allow for ways to engage with the community. Professional standards and ethics is the biggest potential problem and expecting editors to be gatekeepers and teachers as well as the last and perhaps only line of defense is too much to expect from someone. I honestly predict that what’s going to happen in the near future is that many who are currently writing and shooting for free or low pay will get to a point where they will find they either have a serious passion for the work and decide to do it professionally or they will find that the time and other investments aren’t rewarding enough and drop out.
As that shake out happens, I believe the public will grow more concerned about where their news comes from and start to look for the trained and best able to explain what the days events mean. I guess this is the “Islands of Quality” concept that was being discussed in class.
I can see partisan media continuing to grow until it is very easy to search out the viewpoints that you agree with and completely avoid those with which you disagree. However, I see a backlash happen that brings with it nostalgia for old school journalism – hard hitting, in depth, investigative journalism, stories that make a difference.
But maybe this is all wishful thinking on my part.
The Future
Looking out into the future ten years, I am certain that we will see marked changes in both the print and broadcast mediums and in mainstream media in particular. I envision that we will continue to witness an evolutionary process that is being facilitated by the introduction of ever new technology driven communication of the news, while at the same time the decline of mainstream media is being rapidly accelerated by economic forces.
Although I do not envision the demise of any medium within the next ten years I believe that there will be some individual players, particularly in the print medium that may not be able to hang on long enough to weather the present economic crisis. The economic models that once ensured the profitability of mainstream media no longer work and the opportunities to further cut operating costs are dwindling for most, and their basic cost structure will make them increasingly uncompetitive. Not only have U.S. newspaper circulation counts declined to where they were sixty years ago but they will never regain the dominance in important revenue generators such as automotive and employment classifieds. Web based classified listings, such as ebay and Craig’s List, have seriously eroded the revenue streams derived from other classified categories as well. These challenges are not limited to newspapers; other print media such as magazines as well as broadcast mediums are suffering meaningful declines in advertiser revenue as a result of the economic downturn. At this time, retail advertising is perhaps the single remaining robust source of advertiser revenue for many and even this is at risk because of the increasing number of stores closing or going out of business.
Today’s bankruptcy filing by the Chicago Tribune and reports of the necessity of The New York Times to seriously consider mortgaging their headquarters to help make ends meet, at least for now, underscores the role economics has and will continue to play in shaping The Future of the News. These types of events seem to be hitting closer and closer to home. Last weeks Star Tribune’s plea to its union membership indicated that concessions are absolutely crucial as “the survival of the company is at stake.” Some daily newspapers are no longer being published daily and others have or are contemplating merging with one time rivals to prolong their existence.
I remain unsure as to how all of the news in the age of the digital revolution is going to be funded. I am sure that advertisements will somehow play a role and maybe I would pay a subscriber fee to have access to certain news sites. I am told that there was a time when it was certain that no one would ever pay for watching TV because you can get it over the airwaves for free. However, might we be witnessing a trade of mainstream media’s often times monopolistic mindset into a “build it and they will come” theory of funding technology driven media with an economic model similar to the “new economics” that lead the crash of tech stocks earlier this decade? Might Twitter be an example of this thinking?
There are many who believe that history will note that the 2008 presidential election marked the beginning of a rapid decline in mainstream media’s influence over national politics. A continued erosion of mainstream media’s credibility coupled with the newly active involvement of a large web savvy but previously apathetic segment of the voting public maybe arguably good for democracy but not so for the viability of mainstream media.
Many newspapers, as part of their cost cutting efforts, have been reducing their staff levels, which I believe compromises the quality of their core product, the news. It is certain that with the 2008 elections over that many publishers have already or will be letting go those individuals whose focus or expertise rested in the political arena. These types of staff reductions will certainly hasten the decline of credible reporting and analysis, and along with it mainstream medias’ future influence on politics. Outsourcing, crowdsourcing, freelance writers, reporters, and photographers, as well as amateur contributors will be expected to fill in the void left by the full time professionals who have exited the field.
Some attempts at re-styling the form, appearance and content by some newspapers in an effort to appeal to a younger demographic tended to alienate their core readership which led to unanticipated further declines in circulation.
To me it appears that we will be witnessing secular changes that will affect the future of the news. I believe it will not be analogous to the automobile replacing the horse and buggy but more like the changes that took place to radio broadcasting when television was introduced. Perhaps the most resent innovation that I have heard of is a “mashup” called Dipity that is being fed by the news found on Twitter, Flickr, Digg, etc.
I believe that the future holds the greatest opportunity for some yet to be defined cross-media/multi-platform approach to delivering the news that will capitalize upon the best aspects of each component. However, with technology changing so many of the aspects of the world will live at an ever increasing rate I find it difficult to accurately predict just exactly what the world of the news will look like ten years out. If you had been asleep for the last ten years and just awoke today you would certainly be astonished at how technology has changed the world since you last saw it in 1998 and in ways you had never envisioned
Although I do not envision the demise of any medium within the next ten years I believe that there will be some individual players, particularly in the print medium that may not be able to hang on long enough to weather the present economic crisis. The economic models that once ensured the profitability of mainstream media no longer work and the opportunities to further cut operating costs are dwindling for most, and their basic cost structure will make them increasingly uncompetitive. Not only have U.S. newspaper circulation counts declined to where they were sixty years ago but they will never regain the dominance in important revenue generators such as automotive and employment classifieds. Web based classified listings, such as ebay and Craig’s List, have seriously eroded the revenue streams derived from other classified categories as well. These challenges are not limited to newspapers; other print media such as magazines as well as broadcast mediums are suffering meaningful declines in advertiser revenue as a result of the economic downturn. At this time, retail advertising is perhaps the single remaining robust source of advertiser revenue for many and even this is at risk because of the increasing number of stores closing or going out of business.
Today’s bankruptcy filing by the Chicago Tribune and reports of the necessity of The New York Times to seriously consider mortgaging their headquarters to help make ends meet, at least for now, underscores the role economics has and will continue to play in shaping The Future of the News. These types of events seem to be hitting closer and closer to home. Last weeks Star Tribune’s plea to its union membership indicated that concessions are absolutely crucial as “the survival of the company is at stake.” Some daily newspapers are no longer being published daily and others have or are contemplating merging with one time rivals to prolong their existence.
I remain unsure as to how all of the news in the age of the digital revolution is going to be funded. I am sure that advertisements will somehow play a role and maybe I would pay a subscriber fee to have access to certain news sites. I am told that there was a time when it was certain that no one would ever pay for watching TV because you can get it over the airwaves for free. However, might we be witnessing a trade of mainstream media’s often times monopolistic mindset into a “build it and they will come” theory of funding technology driven media with an economic model similar to the “new economics” that lead the crash of tech stocks earlier this decade? Might Twitter be an example of this thinking?
There are many who believe that history will note that the 2008 presidential election marked the beginning of a rapid decline in mainstream media’s influence over national politics. A continued erosion of mainstream media’s credibility coupled with the newly active involvement of a large web savvy but previously apathetic segment of the voting public maybe arguably good for democracy but not so for the viability of mainstream media.
Many newspapers, as part of their cost cutting efforts, have been reducing their staff levels, which I believe compromises the quality of their core product, the news. It is certain that with the 2008 elections over that many publishers have already or will be letting go those individuals whose focus or expertise rested in the political arena. These types of staff reductions will certainly hasten the decline of credible reporting and analysis, and along with it mainstream medias’ future influence on politics. Outsourcing, crowdsourcing, freelance writers, reporters, and photographers, as well as amateur contributors will be expected to fill in the void left by the full time professionals who have exited the field.
Some attempts at re-styling the form, appearance and content by some newspapers in an effort to appeal to a younger demographic tended to alienate their core readership which led to unanticipated further declines in circulation.
To me it appears that we will be witnessing secular changes that will affect the future of the news. I believe it will not be analogous to the automobile replacing the horse and buggy but more like the changes that took place to radio broadcasting when television was introduced. Perhaps the most resent innovation that I have heard of is a “mashup” called Dipity that is being fed by the news found on Twitter, Flickr, Digg, etc.
I believe that the future holds the greatest opportunity for some yet to be defined cross-media/multi-platform approach to delivering the news that will capitalize upon the best aspects of each component. However, with technology changing so many of the aspects of the world will live at an ever increasing rate I find it difficult to accurately predict just exactly what the world of the news will look like ten years out. If you had been asleep for the last ten years and just awoke today you would certainly be astonished at how technology has changed the world since you last saw it in 1998 and in ways you had never envisioned
Sunday, November 9th, 2018
Early in the morning, I stumble groggily to the front door to search for my Sunday paper. Only when the cold December wind stings my face am I fully roused. I scratch my head and wonder why I still look for a newspaper, there has not been a daily paper in my city for nearly five years. USA Today, The Times, the Post and the Wall street journal are still available, but they are a mere shadow of their former selves, and they are prohibitively expensive. At least I can read the news of the day at MyGoogleNews.com/profile/frankstrahan. I will enjoy a cup of coffee and the news selected specifically for me.
If I need something else, I can always listen to the radio. I can chose between any of the three corporations that now control most of the airwaves. Disney, Clear Channel, and Fox have own their versions of news on many stations, so I just have to choose my poison. I miss National Public Radio. When things got really bad in 2009, the lost all of their federal support, and listener support just could not keep up.
Has this all come about because of the balkanization of media? Cable television has fractured television viewing, Internet access has splintered the shared experience to almost nothing. Newspapers have fallen apart due to declining readership and poor management, and citizen journalists now compete for everyone's news viewing time. Things were falling apart for conventional media, and they sought a new way of doing business. Conventional media found a solution in the business model of Craig's list, Facebook and YouTube. Trading in personal information became very popular. Collecting and selling personal information funds news organizations, and targets content to the user in a way never imagined 10 years ago. I imagine that eventually this source of income will dry up too, and any remaining media outlets will join forces to survive.
So what can I do to find so truth in the news of the day that I seek? I will unplug, and talk to my neighbors. I will go to city council meetings, and be involved in the real world. Maybe I could publish a local , neighborhood newspaper….
be careful of what you wish for...
2019. Over the last ten years we've seen a continuing growth in electronic devices and means for delivering content. Where and how to get content (i.e., news) is no longer a problem—no child, no adult has been left behind in the United States. The government, at an incredible cost to society, is making some type of device available to children in grade school and great-great grandma in the hinterlands. The twenty-somethings that ten years ago were enthralled with the ability to be connected with anyone, anytime, anywhere are saying enough!
2019 now sees a society that wants to rollback. Frustrated with how what was once called “”new media” and seemingly a good thing has become a source of pain—too much access to me by too many people, particularly my government.
In reflection, citizen journalism is now one of those things that “seemed like a good idea at the time.” Wow! First-hand reporting from people on the scene that had no agenda (unlike those media elite that we loathed!). But now we see the results. Everybody trying to tell me everything all the time. Now those thirty-somethings are finding they don’t what to believe or even where to go to get something they can believe. Yeah, nice that now-two term former President Obama wanted to talk directly to us but, even with his good intentions wenow know that he wasn’t the messiah. He wasn’t infallible. And, even worse, he wasn’t challenged.
The now twenty-somethings revolt against what they see happening. A new movement begins. Call it nostalgia. Call it revolting. They want “change.” Concerned more about their privacy, they watched what has been happening over the last ten years and don’t want they style of life. They’re not introverts, just a movement that did look at the Constitution and conclude that maybe those old guys got it right. Maybe those rights they gave to the press should be practiced once again. No more free passes and direct access. They want a press that challenges what government wants to do to us and for us. They’re pissed we bailed out everybody ten years ago but the one group that the Founding Fathers saw a need to give special rights to protect our freedom.
So, what do we see in 2019. A resurgence of media with business models adapted to the times that are free and independent and have this thing they call a “code of ethics.” Hmm… not such a bad thing.
2019 now sees a society that wants to rollback. Frustrated with how what was once called “”new media” and seemingly a good thing has become a source of pain—too much access to me by too many people, particularly my government.
In reflection, citizen journalism is now one of those things that “seemed like a good idea at the time.” Wow! First-hand reporting from people on the scene that had no agenda (unlike those media elite that we loathed!). But now we see the results. Everybody trying to tell me everything all the time. Now those thirty-somethings are finding they don’t what to believe or even where to go to get something they can believe. Yeah, nice that now-two term former President Obama wanted to talk directly to us but, even with his good intentions wenow know that he wasn’t the messiah. He wasn’t infallible. And, even worse, he wasn’t challenged.
The now twenty-somethings revolt against what they see happening. A new movement begins. Call it nostalgia. Call it revolting. They want “change.” Concerned more about their privacy, they watched what has been happening over the last ten years and don’t want they style of life. They’re not introverts, just a movement that did look at the Constitution and conclude that maybe those old guys got it right. Maybe those rights they gave to the press should be practiced once again. No more free passes and direct access. They want a press that challenges what government wants to do to us and for us. They’re pissed we bailed out everybody ten years ago but the one group that the Founding Fathers saw a need to give special rights to protect our freedom.
So, what do we see in 2019. A resurgence of media with business models adapted to the times that are free and independent and have this thing they call a “code of ethics.” Hmm… not such a bad thing.
A Few Predictions for the Future of News
As broadband Internet availability increases throughout the U.S. and hand-held devices become more powerful, more and more news will be delivered via the Web. It will not be long before we can harness all of the power of the Internet on our cell phones at broadband speeds. Plenty of written word news will survive, but on-demand video will continue to grow in popularity as more of us carry devices that quickly deliver it. As mobile interfaces improve and more content is easily accessed and navigated on hand-held devices, media organizations will become more specialized. We will no longer expect news organizations to also be a primary source of information about food, entertainment, travel or other lifestyle concerns -- we will seek information from experts in each subject. Americans will continue to worship their televisions, but soon the Internet will make it possible to watch any program on-demand, which will make it possible to take self-customization to a new level. All of this is going to make things difficult for advertisers, until they figure out new ways to deliver their messages.
As the global economic crisis continues to develop, it seems as if the organizations with best chance of surviving are the most financially healthy of the major news outlets and efficiently run, web-only enterprises. Today, the news collection and delivery business is worth many billions of dollars in the U.S., but to most investors there is no growth potential. The news in recent days and weeks of media organizations filing for bankruptcy and restructuring their newsrooms will almost certainly mean that fewer people will remain paid journalists in the near and long term. Many journalist will find new jobs at their trade, but even more will not as the industry consolidates. I think that from the mess, a small handful of highly respectable news organizations will (re)emerge. The product may come at a more direct expense to the audience (not as highly-subsidized by advertisers), or perhaps a few will flourish as non-profits. But, like any marketplace niche, the needs of news-junkie will be met.
The U.S. democracy is facing countless threats, both internally and externally generated. To some extent the news media is culpable for not clearly illuminating those threats, they should be held responsible. however, their failure is largely a failure of the marketplace to demand a different level coverage.
As the global economic crisis continues to develop, it seems as if the organizations with best chance of surviving are the most financially healthy of the major news outlets and efficiently run, web-only enterprises. Today, the news collection and delivery business is worth many billions of dollars in the U.S., but to most investors there is no growth potential. The news in recent days and weeks of media organizations filing for bankruptcy and restructuring their newsrooms will almost certainly mean that fewer people will remain paid journalists in the near and long term. Many journalist will find new jobs at their trade, but even more will not as the industry consolidates. I think that from the mess, a small handful of highly respectable news organizations will (re)emerge. The product may come at a more direct expense to the audience (not as highly-subsidized by advertisers), or perhaps a few will flourish as non-profits. But, like any marketplace niche, the needs of news-junkie will be met.
The U.S. democracy is facing countless threats, both internally and externally generated. To some extent the news media is culpable for not clearly illuminating those threats, they should be held responsible. however, their failure is largely a failure of the marketplace to demand a different level coverage.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Predictions for the Future of News
Ten years ago, I was a new Internet user and relied heavily on TV and print newspapers as my primary sources of news. While television as a source of news is still a subtle presence in my life, today the Internet has completely usurped the role of print newspapers. I cancelled my subscription to the Star Tribune’s print edition long ago and I can’t recall the last time I picked-up an actual newspaper. If I’m their target market, it’s easy to see why the industry is struggling.
After living such a dramatic decade of change in the way in which I get news, I believe I am more keenly aware of the signs to where I see technology going in the future.
Looking 10 years ahead, I see the Internet expanding beyond computers and moving more to meld with television, mobile devices, and other household applications. Machines, such as refrigerators and cars, are already incorporating qualities seen in personal computers, such as the capability for Internet and video. I expect this trend to expand into other household and service-focused uses.
I don’t believe newspapers will disappear, but instead become more specialized. I think newspapers will be used more for leisure and education, versus a time-critical news source. I think that economics will largely drive this change and the future of news will also be determined by the financial feasibility of the business model.
I have no idea how we will pay for news in the future. Maybe one day the cost will be built into our taxes or maybe people will buy news like cars – the more money you have, the better quality car/news you can afford. This will undoubtedly result in a greater knowledge gap between classes and impact the way in which our democracy functions – further segmenting the haves and have nots.
Beyond the general public, I am scared for the role non-professionals are beginning to play in the production and distribution of news – undercutting the work of those who have invested time and money in learning the trade. I think the presence of non-professionals, while it can provide healthy competition to a degree, makes it even harder for professionals to survive in this changing medium. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
This course has provided stimulating discussions into the future of news. I would love the opportunity to take this class in 10 years, to see if our predictions come to fruition and how news has changed. Only time will tell.
After living such a dramatic decade of change in the way in which I get news, I believe I am more keenly aware of the signs to where I see technology going in the future.
Looking 10 years ahead, I see the Internet expanding beyond computers and moving more to meld with television, mobile devices, and other household applications. Machines, such as refrigerators and cars, are already incorporating qualities seen in personal computers, such as the capability for Internet and video. I expect this trend to expand into other household and service-focused uses.
I don’t believe newspapers will disappear, but instead become more specialized. I think newspapers will be used more for leisure and education, versus a time-critical news source. I think that economics will largely drive this change and the future of news will also be determined by the financial feasibility of the business model.
I have no idea how we will pay for news in the future. Maybe one day the cost will be built into our taxes or maybe people will buy news like cars – the more money you have, the better quality car/news you can afford. This will undoubtedly result in a greater knowledge gap between classes and impact the way in which our democracy functions – further segmenting the haves and have nots.
Beyond the general public, I am scared for the role non-professionals are beginning to play in the production and distribution of news – undercutting the work of those who have invested time and money in learning the trade. I think the presence of non-professionals, while it can provide healthy competition to a degree, makes it even harder for professionals to survive in this changing medium. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
This course has provided stimulating discussions into the future of news. I would love the opportunity to take this class in 10 years, to see if our predictions come to fruition and how news has changed. Only time will tell.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
2019: The Now of News
The shakeout of 2010 was stormy. The year looked nothing like the movie 2010: A Space Odyssey predicted. There of course were talking cars, but the HAL was no where to be found. Most of the newspapers either folded while trying to keep print publications alive, or turned to the web as it underwent its evolution to a real force in the delivery of news and content directly to the user. President Obama’s well crafted economic recovery and thoughtful governance in his first term, ushered him into his second term. His interactive communications with the population made the Modular-evolvable Handheld and Cross-generational User-friendly Interactive Portable Information Device (MeHCgUfIPID) important to the current constituency. The next generation will be another challenge. This technology, with its full web capability, web based application software, person to person info transfer and body heat, friction, or solar energy architecture have become ubiquitous and cheap. The biggest design advance in 2012 was the bendable/foldable flex screen and the brainwave reader which, when properly trained, allowed one to operate their device using thought. Thankfully, by 2019, the brain wave reader no longer tuned-in to every person within 5 feet of the reader—it was a confusing time, and many people stuck with keyboard or voice recognition software since it much more reliable. The Brain Wave Receiver technology’s recent refinement means that the quiet of the keyboard entry can return after the years of inconsiderate chatterboxes talking to their devices in public spaces.
News has changed with the new technology too. The Brain Wave Reader means that if something comes to mind, one can activate their device to research the topic. The immediacy of news is constantly broadcast through public news broker agencies whose feeds come direct from the public feeds to the brokers who act as low-level editors. The amount of content they get is astonishing though, and so some choose to publish their own content sans editorial control creating even more My-voice web content. There are also newswire feeds direct from the professional journalist and photojournalist brokers who collect and stream news to their subscriber base, but since the content is reduced, the quality is much better.
The strange caste system that has developed in the face of citizen journalism means the more informed, and the better informed are those who pay the annual newswire subscription. The big benefit is the reduction in advertising interruptions. If you want your information free, but unfiltered, unrefined, and advertising laden, the public sourcing is always available, but one needs to be more skeptical of the information. Most who can afford the subscriptions, also get the public feed, however, just to get a fuller picture of the daily happenings since the even the pro’s can’t cover nearly as much as the masses. The short side of this is of course if you use public transport or walk down the streets of any city. The streets are filled with commentators, spilling their opinions onto the web about everything and anything. The person who uses the freely sourced public provided information will need to learn to filter out the information in which they have interest. Thankfully, public journalism has reached its crescendo. It seems that the need to be heard, seen and published has backfired enough times and become a turbulent force in many peoples lives, that the freedom of expression frenzy has been relinquished for the quiet and peace of moderated personal anonymity. The journalism professionals are becoming more valued and appreciated. Unfortunately, many of the most talented among them have left the profession for more lucrative employment.
News has changed with the new technology too. The Brain Wave Reader means that if something comes to mind, one can activate their device to research the topic. The immediacy of news is constantly broadcast through public news broker agencies whose feeds come direct from the public feeds to the brokers who act as low-level editors. The amount of content they get is astonishing though, and so some choose to publish their own content sans editorial control creating even more My-voice web content. There are also newswire feeds direct from the professional journalist and photojournalist brokers who collect and stream news to their subscriber base, but since the content is reduced, the quality is much better.
The strange caste system that has developed in the face of citizen journalism means the more informed, and the better informed are those who pay the annual newswire subscription. The big benefit is the reduction in advertising interruptions. If you want your information free, but unfiltered, unrefined, and advertising laden, the public sourcing is always available, but one needs to be more skeptical of the information. Most who can afford the subscriptions, also get the public feed, however, just to get a fuller picture of the daily happenings since the even the pro’s can’t cover nearly as much as the masses. The short side of this is of course if you use public transport or walk down the streets of any city. The streets are filled with commentators, spilling their opinions onto the web about everything and anything. The person who uses the freely sourced public provided information will need to learn to filter out the information in which they have interest. Thankfully, public journalism has reached its crescendo. It seems that the need to be heard, seen and published has backfired enough times and become a turbulent force in many peoples lives, that the freedom of expression frenzy has been relinquished for the quiet and peace of moderated personal anonymity. The journalism professionals are becoming more valued and appreciated. Unfortunately, many of the most talented among them have left the profession for more lucrative employment.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Final Blog Assignment
In preparation for our final class session, please write a post in which you describe your vision of the future of news.
We have discussed a lot of different forces that are shaping the future of the news media: economic forces, the emergence of new technologies. demographic changes, etc.
And we have also looked at a lot of different kinds of news media and communications platforms, from printed newspapers and broadcast television to blogs, social networking sites and Twitter.
Now, let's try to look 10 years into the future, and imagine how these forces will continue to interact and evolve. Think about some of the following questions:
Which present-day news media will still be around, which, if any, are likely to disappear, and how will they evolve? What new forms of news media do you foresee?
What role will economics play in shaping the future of our news media system? How will we pay for news?
What consequences will the changes that you foresee have for the way our democracy functions?
What role will non-professionals play in the production and distribution of news?
As much as possible, say why you think things will develop as you predict.
Please write at least 300 words, but you are welcome to write more.
You are welcome to recycle your work on this blog post as part of your final paper, if it is appropriate to the topic you have chosen.
You may want to revisit Epic2015 for inspiration. Available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQDBhg60UNI and lots of other places.
We have discussed a lot of different forces that are shaping the future of the news media: economic forces, the emergence of new technologies. demographic changes, etc.
And we have also looked at a lot of different kinds of news media and communications platforms, from printed newspapers and broadcast television to blogs, social networking sites and Twitter.
Now, let's try to look 10 years into the future, and imagine how these forces will continue to interact and evolve. Think about some of the following questions:
Which present-day news media will still be around, which, if any, are likely to disappear, and how will they evolve? What new forms of news media do you foresee?
What role will economics play in shaping the future of our news media system? How will we pay for news?
What consequences will the changes that you foresee have for the way our democracy functions?
What role will non-professionals play in the production and distribution of news?
As much as possible, say why you think things will develop as you predict.
Please write at least 300 words, but you are welcome to write more.
You are welcome to recycle your work on this blog post as part of your final paper, if it is appropriate to the topic you have chosen.
You may want to revisit Epic2015 for inspiration. Available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQDBhg60UNI and lots of other places.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Talk of the Nation Approaches Underwriting by Sponsors
Talk of the Nation with Neal Conan covered the sponsor credits, more specifically, sponsorship from E-verify--a program offered by Homeland Security. They had a non-employee ombudsman on with Neal Conan to spell out the way in which sponsorship and the programming is delivered. Worth a listen.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Will the erosion of trust in media be slowed or even reversed by the continued development of new news organizations?
(My apologies for the lack of documentation for the data referenced below. I am happy to provide it if you feel like it would be helpful to you in your projects.)
The general public's increasing mistrust of mainstream media sources is fairly well documented. A 2001 study showed that people regard television news with the most suspicion, but are to a lesser degree also distrustful of news they learn from online sources and newspapers. (I am searching for more information about whether this data holds up in the post-blogging world.)
People with a high "need for cognition" choose to interact a great deal with media sources, even though they do not trust the news they learn. Media mistrust has been linked to a lack of trust in the government, perhaps because people see the two "institutions" as inextricably linked.
In this environment, is it possible for emerging news organizations (Talking Points Memo, for example) to establish reputations as credible and trustworthy sources? Additionally, can they raise bar for main stream media? I am going to try to make an argument that they can. Key factors in this change -- the "new media's" transparency and their willingness to engage in conversations with readers.
The general public's increasing mistrust of mainstream media sources is fairly well documented. A 2001 study showed that people regard television news with the most suspicion, but are to a lesser degree also distrustful of news they learn from online sources and newspapers. (I am searching for more information about whether this data holds up in the post-blogging world.)
People with a high "need for cognition" choose to interact a great deal with media sources, even though they do not trust the news they learn. Media mistrust has been linked to a lack of trust in the government, perhaps because people see the two "institutions" as inextricably linked.
In this environment, is it possible for emerging news organizations (Talking Points Memo, for example) to establish reputations as credible and trustworthy sources? Additionally, can they raise bar for main stream media? I am going to try to make an argument that they can. Key factors in this change -- the "new media's" transparency and their willingness to engage in conversations with readers.
Ouch: Gannett Reporters Cover Their Own Layoffs: Blogging and Crowdsourcing
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=155039
Yesterday Gannett laid off hundreds of employees around the country. Today, former Gannett reporter and editor Jim Hopkins, who now publishes the Gannett Blog, is once again tracking the paper-specific job losses via crowdsourcing.
Yesterday Gannett laid off hundreds of employees around the country. Today, former Gannett reporter and editor Jim Hopkins, who now publishes the Gannett Blog, is once again tracking the paper-specific job losses via crowdsourcing.
Strib Update from MinnPost
A $30 million problem: What's next for the Strib?
Star Tribune staffers sometimes refer to the place as "425 Portland," its downtown address. Even before Tuesday’s announcement that another $30 million in cuts are coming, one wag suggested the place be re-dubbed "212 and a half Portland." http://tinyurl.com/6krfwj
Star Tribune staffers sometimes refer to the place as "425 Portland," its downtown address. Even before Tuesday’s announcement that another $30 million in cuts are coming, one wag suggested the place be re-dubbed "212 and a half Portland." http://tinyurl.com/6krfwj
The Future Role of Social Networks in the American Democracy Through the Lens of Privacy and Permanence
Online social networks (OSN) area phenomenon that has been building steadily for several years, and seemingly culminating with a prominent spot in the United States presidential election of 2008. They have been hailed as the next big thing in politics, and the crown jewel that pushed Barack Obama over the top, and into the White House (though not all are convinced of power of the all-mighty OSN). OSN's such as Facebook and MySpace are gaining a more prominent place at the communications or media "table" almost daily. This is in spite of the growing privacy problem that they cannot seem to shake. Users of OSN want to be able to share information with all those that they deem worthy , and the networks tell them how to limit others access, what will be shared, what will be saved, etc. The users must also agree to the term of use, so they are informed of the policies. The privacy paradox comes into play when user information is shared in a manner the user did not desire (though may have consented to). This is typical for the Web 2.0 technology that gave rise to OSN phenomenon. Another part of the privacy issue is permanence. OSN data can be permanent, coming back to haunt users later in life. As OSN continue to grow and evolve as a political tool or force in the American democracy, how will issues of privacy and permanence shape their future?
In light of that question, I will examine the future role of Facebook and MySpace, and their ability to shape elections and policy in the United States. I will also explore the use of OSN as a tool well used by one campaign, barely tested by the other. Is it a tool for immediate payoff only (voting now), or does it serve to build a loyal base for years to come (branding)?
A couple of websites that have been very helpful are FirstMonday , a peer reviewed journal of internet studies, and The Center for Digital Democracy. (These links are to the homepages of the twosite, not specific works to be used in my paper)
urls in case embedded links don't work:
http://www.democraticmedia.org/
Just as news publishers come to terms with Web 2.0, along comes Web 3.0 to shake things up
I'm modifying my previous post about my final project proposal. While I will include some of the ways the Internet and the development of web 2.0 social networking tools have affected journalism with the emergence of citizen journalism and the devastation being wrought on the business models of media outlets everywhere, I want to explore the emergence of web 3.0 and how the "semantic web" may change parts of the very definitions of journalism. The role of journalist may expand to include computer programmers as well as writers and photographers (or should I say multi-media specialists?) There are some in the industry that feel the tools and methods of web 3.0 may offer new opportunities for the survival of all forms of legacy media and which will necessitate a concentration on increased local coverage and the use of citizen journalists, among other things, like this Knight proposal from the People's Times in New Zealand.
Jeff Jarvis: "Owning content may not be valuable. it may be links, it may be embedding..the essential structure of media is yet to change." (1:47 video, Shot with a Flip camera, talking about the Digital News Affairs 2009 Conference)
There has been a quiet buzz going on around this issue. Like so much else in the media industry there are lots of questions and uncertainties. There is enough interest to justify conferences and grants to explore possibilities. The writings of Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis (see above) and others are looking into this, and the Knight News Challenge has provided grants to such internet and pioneers as Tim Berners-Lee and Martin Moore and Dan Pacheco of the The Bakersfield Californian to do research. There is also software being developed like Calais, "a free program that scans content and suggests meta tags that computers can read to automate the process of relating and linking information by topic." How this affects journalism- and IF it does- will be interesting to investigate.
Jeff Jarvis: "Owning content may not be valuable. it may be links, it may be embedding..the essential structure of media is yet to change." (1:47 video, Shot with a Flip camera, talking about the Digital News Affairs 2009 Conference)
There has been a quiet buzz going on around this issue. Like so much else in the media industry there are lots of questions and uncertainties. There is enough interest to justify conferences and grants to explore possibilities. The writings of Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis (see above) and others are looking into this, and the Knight News Challenge has provided grants to such internet and pioneers as Tim Berners-Lee and Martin Moore and Dan Pacheco of the The Bakersfield Californian to do research. There is also software being developed like Calais, "a free program that scans content and suggests meta tags that computers can read to automate the process of relating and linking information by topic." How this affects journalism- and IF it does- will be interesting to investigate.
Can there be such a thing as "too much democracy?" Is there a danger that the digital revolution will give too much power to citizens who aren't compe
I have found that there is a fair amount of polarized opinions on this topic/question. An example of this divergent thinking can be found in the contrast between the sentiments expressed in the book entitled the Citizen Renaissance and the arguments of the political theorist Samuel P. Huntington.
The book Citizen Renaissance, which is presently in draft form, may be an example of a Digital Revolution innovation as it solicits all those who enter its web site to “Please contribute your thoughts and help finish the book”. Might this in itself be an example of too much democracy? Will it become common practice to solicit pubic commentary via the Internet before we publish a book? In any case, I believe it to be a great example of the Internets’ capacity to facilitate sharing and collaboration.
In its’ third chapter: The Digital Revolution and a New Democracy, the author with fervent optimism and assertiveness makes declarations such as the following:
The Digital Revolution has democratized communications in a radical way so that top down messaging has become a thing of the past.
Power now rests with the people and people now expect to be heard as a right.
In the digital democracy, we are inquiring, less respectful, or even trusting of authority.
The audience may be fractured and fragmented but they can coalesce on-line into a force for change because the beauty of the digital is the effective democrat- ization of people and opinions.
In The Crisis of Democracy, Samuel Huntington, et al. argues differently. In his theory of political cycles:
“Increased political participation leads to increased policy polarization within society;
Increased policy polarization leads to increasing distrust and a sense of decreasing political efficacy among individuals;
A sense of decreasing political efficacy lead to decreased political participation.”
Huntington believes that: “There are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” “(T)he danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains…”
The first two of my links leads to articles that seem, albeit somewhat anecdotally, to support the notion that there may be such a thing as “too much democracy.”
www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/05.28.98/election-9821.html
www.loweringthebar.net/2007/09/bulgaria-suffer.html
www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
www.uoregon.edu/~jboland/hntngton.html
The book Citizen Renaissance, which is presently in draft form, may be an example of a Digital Revolution innovation as it solicits all those who enter its web site to “Please contribute your thoughts and help finish the book”. Might this in itself be an example of too much democracy? Will it become common practice to solicit pubic commentary via the Internet before we publish a book? In any case, I believe it to be a great example of the Internets’ capacity to facilitate sharing and collaboration.
In its’ third chapter: The Digital Revolution and a New Democracy, the author with fervent optimism and assertiveness makes declarations such as the following:
The Digital Revolution has democratized communications in a radical way so that top down messaging has become a thing of the past.
Power now rests with the people and people now expect to be heard as a right.
In the digital democracy, we are inquiring, less respectful, or even trusting of authority.
The audience may be fractured and fragmented but they can coalesce on-line into a force for change because the beauty of the digital is the effective democrat- ization of people and opinions.
In The Crisis of Democracy, Samuel Huntington, et al. argues differently. In his theory of political cycles:
“Increased political participation leads to increased policy polarization within society;
Increased policy polarization leads to increasing distrust and a sense of decreasing political efficacy among individuals;
A sense of decreasing political efficacy lead to decreased political participation.”
Huntington believes that: “There are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” “(T)he danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains…”
The first two of my links leads to articles that seem, albeit somewhat anecdotally, to support the notion that there may be such a thing as “too much democracy.”
www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/05.28.98/election-9821.html
www.loweringthebar.net/2007/09/bulgaria-suffer.html
www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
www.uoregon.edu/~jboland/hntngton.html
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
How journalism will evolve: partisan, paid for, geared towards the professional.
Continuing from last week:
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
I think it is important to note this is blogging by professional journalists, not Citizen Journalism.
Mossberg got the most appreciative response of the panel during a discussion about citizen journalism: "It's like citizen surgery!" said
Mossberg.
http://reportr.net/2007/05/31/the-space-between-professional-and-citizen-journalism/?referer=sphere_related_content/
Getting into an argument about who is a professional journalist and whether so-called citizen journalism is good or bad for the profession is a dead-end discussion. There is room for both.
More interesting are comments by Herrmann on the BBC Editors’ blog on how the phenomenon of social media - blogs, stories and pictures from the audience, and interactivity in general, has affected BBC journalism:
Two key strands of our day-to-day journalism – readers’ comments and opinions, and newsgathering based on information from the audience – have become an indispensable part of what we do, and talked about some of the logistical and editorial challenges this presents.
http://reportr.net/2008/11/26/insights-into-why-bbc-journalists-blog/
Insights into why BBC journalists blog
November 26, 2008 in BBC, blogs, broadcast, journalism, social media Tags: BBC, Robert Peston, Nick Robinson
One of my research interests is blogs at the BBC, so I was fascinated by the tweets coming from Paul Bradshaw and Dan Bennett on the session on blogging at the internal Future of Journalism conference organised by the BBC’s College of Journalism.
Bradshaw outlined the BBC blogs rules: authenticity, single author, impartiality, comments, commitment and obeying the rules of the blogosphere.
By all accounts, the star of the session was the BBC’s business editor and influential blogger Robert Peston. His blog had almost 8 million page views in October.
The BBC’s Jem Stone has posted his notes from Peston’s talk on his blog. Among the highlights from Peston’s comments:
I do see the blog as the absolute cornerstone of the way that I work. It’s central to everything that I do at the BBC.
The enormous personal benefits are you get to know a load of stuff that you can’t use in a 2-3 minute package on the Ten. Getting out detail that you can’t get into anywhere else is fantastic.
It also reasserts your ownership and authority when it comes to a story.
The comments are quite challenging and interesting and often generate ideas about where to go with a story.
All the standards I apply to my blog are the standards I apply to any other bit of my broadcasting.
I wouldn’t overstate the risks with blogs. Any time a reporter goes on the BBC News channel or Today programme, there is a huge risk in a two way. At least with the written word you will read it over a few times.At least you get a second pair of eyes. I assume there are many more checks and balances than with most “lives”. I think the reputational risks are diminished.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about this session is that blogs are a relative new innovation at the BBC. The first truly official blog by a journalist was launched in December 2005 by Nick Robinson. Now the corporation has more than 80 blogs, almost half of them by journalists.
It has come a long way since a BBC columnist wrote in 2003:
Blogging is not journalism. Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.
BBC NEWS | dot.life | Twitter - the Mumbai myths
"What Twitter has done is to provide instant information about anything that is happening near its millions of users, coupled with a brilliant way of sharing that information. What it doesn't do is tell us what is true and what isn't - and that makes the work of mainstream media outlets and professional reporters all the more relevant."
(tags: twitter BBC citizenjournalism web_2.0 UGC)
Continuing from last week:
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
I think it is important to note this is blogging by professional journalists, not Citizen Journalism.
Mossberg got the most appreciative response of the panel during a discussion about citizen journalism: "It's like citizen surgery!" said
Mossberg.
http://reportr.net/2007/05/31/the-space-between-professional-and-citizen-journalism/?referer=sphere_related_content/
Getting into an argument about who is a professional journalist and whether so-called citizen journalism is good or bad for the profession is a dead-end discussion. There is room for both.
More interesting are comments by Herrmann on the BBC Editors’ blog on how the phenomenon of social media - blogs, stories and pictures from the audience, and interactivity in general, has affected BBC journalism:
Two key strands of our day-to-day journalism – readers’ comments and opinions, and newsgathering based on information from the audience – have become an indispensable part of what we do, and talked about some of the logistical and editorial challenges this presents.
http://reportr.net/2008/11/26/insights-into-why-bbc-journalists-blog/
Insights into why BBC journalists blog
November 26, 2008 in BBC, blogs, broadcast, journalism, social media Tags: BBC, Robert Peston, Nick Robinson
One of my research interests is blogs at the BBC, so I was fascinated by the tweets coming from Paul Bradshaw and Dan Bennett on the session on blogging at the internal Future of Journalism conference organised by the BBC’s College of Journalism.
Bradshaw outlined the BBC blogs rules: authenticity, single author, impartiality, comments, commitment and obeying the rules of the blogosphere.
By all accounts, the star of the session was the BBC’s business editor and influential blogger Robert Peston. His blog had almost 8 million page views in October.
The BBC’s Jem Stone has posted his notes from Peston’s talk on his blog. Among the highlights from Peston’s comments:
I do see the blog as the absolute cornerstone of the way that I work. It’s central to everything that I do at the BBC.
The enormous personal benefits are you get to know a load of stuff that you can’t use in a 2-3 minute package on the Ten. Getting out detail that you can’t get into anywhere else is fantastic.
It also reasserts your ownership and authority when it comes to a story.
The comments are quite challenging and interesting and often generate ideas about where to go with a story.
All the standards I apply to my blog are the standards I apply to any other bit of my broadcasting.
I wouldn’t overstate the risks with blogs. Any time a reporter goes on the BBC News channel or Today programme, there is a huge risk in a two way. At least with the written word you will read it over a few times.At least you get a second pair of eyes. I assume there are many more checks and balances than with most “lives”. I think the reputational risks are diminished.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about this session is that blogs are a relative new innovation at the BBC. The first truly official blog by a journalist was launched in December 2005 by Nick Robinson. Now the corporation has more than 80 blogs, almost half of them by journalists.
It has come a long way since a BBC columnist wrote in 2003:
Blogging is not journalism. Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.
BBC NEWS | dot.life | Twitter - the Mumbai myths
"What Twitter has done is to provide instant information about anything that is happening near its millions of users, coupled with a brilliant way of sharing that information. What it doesn't do is tell us what is true and what isn't - and that makes the work of mainstream media outlets and professional reporters all the more relevant."
(tags: twitter BBC citizenjournalism web_2.0 UGC)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
How social media is changing elections and politicians.
For my final paper, I want to evaluate how social media and technology have changed and are continuing to change elections as well as how it makes politicians accessible. By analyzing these pieces I can project if these changes are benefiting politics or just becoming a nuisance.
I've found a couple articles in previous posts about technology usage in regards to the election and will use those in conjunction with with these new sources. In order to predict what is going to happen in the future (and if it is good for us) one needs to thoroughly understand the past. That will be the first section of my paper and from that I will look at how elections and politicians themselves have changed to incorporate social media into their lives.
It takes technology to elect a president (http://www.businessweek.com).
This article takes a look at how technology has affected elections in the past and their predictions for what will be important in the 2012 election.
Copenhaver ventures to online world (http://chronicle.augusta.com).
This article looks at a local mayor and his use of facebook. He finds it useful to gain feedback and connect with his constituents, however this brings up an interesting problem with social media, how much feedback is too much feedback?
At this point, I have a couple paths to follow within my topic question and I may have to let the rest of my research lead me the rest of the way.
I've found a couple articles in previous posts about technology usage in regards to the election and will use those in conjunction with with these new sources. In order to predict what is going to happen in the future (and if it is good for us) one needs to thoroughly understand the past. That will be the first section of my paper and from that I will look at how elections and politicians themselves have changed to incorporate social media into their lives.
It takes technology to elect a president (http://www.businessweek.com).
This article takes a look at how technology has affected elections in the past and their predictions for what will be important in the 2012 election.
Copenhaver ventures to online world (http://chronicle.augusta.com).
This article looks at a local mayor and his use of facebook. He finds it useful to gain feedback and connect with his constituents, however this brings up an interesting problem with social media, how much feedback is too much feedback?
At this point, I have a couple paths to follow within my topic question and I may have to let the rest of my research lead me the rest of the way.
What should the press be doing to avoid information overload while satisfying consumption demands?
In a rush to respond to current technological advancements in the delivery of content, print and TV news is succumbing to the “bandwagon effect” of using the internet to deliver content via video, podcasting, blogging—well, the entire spectrum of social networking. Maybe instead of riding the bandwagon they should be leading the way in providing information in a way that provides context and meaning for the consumer.
The issue isn’t the survival of journalism. It’ll survive. Maybe not in the format that we know today, but it’ll survive. The evolutionary process will continue and we will have this thing called journalism. It’s strong enough to survive as story telling form.
The issue may well be will it thrive.
Take, for example, The Huffington Post. By all accounts, accepted by many as a form of today’s journalism. Are they prototype for the model of journalism that will thrive? Today the have raised $25 million of the $100 million in their fundraising plan. Today with their aggregate news blog they, as an institution, are bigger than Lee Enterprises and Media General and are almost as large as McClatchy. (The Rash Report: WCCO Report: 12-2-2008) What are they doing to avoid information overload to satisfy consumer demands? Through building community they are able to sell ads. Is that the solution?
In my final paper I’ll reflect on what the press, print and TV, can do to provide news to consumers that satisfies their desires without providing so much or in such a way that it turns consumers off!
The issue isn’t the survival of journalism. It’ll survive. Maybe not in the format that we know today, but it’ll survive. The evolutionary process will continue and we will have this thing called journalism. It’s strong enough to survive as story telling form.
The issue may well be will it thrive.
Take, for example, The Huffington Post. By all accounts, accepted by many as a form of today’s journalism. Are they prototype for the model of journalism that will thrive? Today the have raised $25 million of the $100 million in their fundraising plan. Today with their aggregate news blog they, as an institution, are bigger than Lee Enterprises and Media General and are almost as large as McClatchy. (The Rash Report: WCCO Report: 12-2-2008) What are they doing to avoid information overload to satisfy consumer demands? Through building community they are able to sell ads. Is that the solution?
In my final paper I’ll reflect on what the press, print and TV, can do to provide news to consumers that satisfies their desires without providing so much or in such a way that it turns consumers off!
Choose your own News
This doesn't have anything to do with my paper for this class, but rather to the question of what is happening to news?
This news station in Little Rock, AR is allowing people to vote on the news stories they want covered.
http://cfc.katv.com/external.cfm?p=chooseyournews&h=2000
As of 4:30 on Tuesday, this is where the polls are. Interesting the topics to choose from.
C-Span campaign 2008 bus in Little Rock (56%)
Nashville Murder for hire trial (29%)
What illnesses are going around (15%)
Any thoughts on this? I like the way they are merging 'new media' with journalism, but something about letting viewers choose what the news reports on seems like a bad idea to me.
This news station in Little Rock, AR is allowing people to vote on the news stories they want covered.
http://cfc.katv.com/external.cfm?p=chooseyournews&h=2000
As of 4:30 on Tuesday, this is where the polls are. Interesting the topics to choose from.
C-Span campaign 2008 bus in Little Rock (56%)
Nashville Murder for hire trial (29%)
What illnesses are going around (15%)
Any thoughts on this? I like the way they are merging 'new media' with journalism, but something about letting viewers choose what the news reports on seems like a bad idea to me.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Do professional photographers have a place in the face of citizen journalists or are they destined to become disinter-mediated?
I am sticking with the main question I had posted in my blog last week. I have written a lot on the subject for my paper already and am so committed. I have a couple of new sources that I am considering, however, one of them is a book by Susan Sontag called "On Photography" so you will have to but it or check it out of the library to read it. The other is a recent program played on NPR/MPR called "On The Media" called "Snap Judgments" in which they covered the story on Jill Greenberg--the portrait photographer for "The Atlantic" This news program was seeded by the Greenberg photographs, but it was more a survey of portrait photographers, which touched on a number of subjects that I am including in my paper. It shows the power of the photograph, the responsibility of the photographer, and the falsehood of the photograph. It also shows how important and tricky ethics in photojournalism can be. It leads of course to the question of how well citizen journalists can work within such a structure. Greenberg knew what she was doing—she knew how to make McCain into a pariah, and chose to make that photo whether ethical or not. What does that mean for citizen journalists who may do such a thing by misunderstanding the medium's power to distort reality? What of the readers who approach a trusted news source to get the news only to get an accidental distortion instead of a conceived interpretation of the news? Who is better to make these interpretations than those who know the rules and break them or those who don't know the rules in the first place?
Here is the audio from that program:
Another recent source is one I found from Professor Iggers' email a while back regarding Vincent LaForet's writings on the state of photography. In that article, he made reference to another article called "The Cloud is Falling" which is helpful in its reference to the parallels between the music industry and photography which will no doubt be a part of my final paper.
Here is the audio from that program:
Another recent source is one I found from Professor Iggers' email a while back regarding Vincent LaForet's writings on the state of photography. In that article, he made reference to another article called "The Cloud is Falling" which is helpful in its reference to the parallels between the music industry and photography which will no doubt be a part of my final paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)