Sunday, November 30, 2008
U of M Wikipedia study
Here is a link to more information about that U of M Wikipedia study I mentioned in class.
Digital democracy
For my final project I am investigating how the digital revolution is and could impact the way government/democracy works. Through my scan of research on the subject, I previously posted three good sources for different perspectives on this issue. Here are two additional sources I plan to use that explore different angles:
A CNN article, written by Craig Newmark of Craig's List, offers a number of examples of how the Internet is changing the way democracy works. In the article he lists examples of what different cities around the country are already doing. This provided some up to date leads for my project.
The second source is an article in The Independent in the UK, which gives some critical voice to the questions we have been exploring in our class, such as: Is more participation really a good thing?
Both of these items provide useful information for my project and hit on topics we have discussed in class.
A CNN article, written by Craig Newmark of Craig's List, offers a number of examples of how the Internet is changing the way democracy works. In the article he lists examples of what different cities around the country are already doing. This provided some up to date leads for my project.
The second source is an article in The Independent in the UK, which gives some critical voice to the questions we have been exploring in our class, such as: Is more participation really a good thing?
Both of these items provide useful information for my project and hit on topics we have discussed in class.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Explanatory Journalism:
The Giant Pool of Money
Included in the CJR article "Overload" is the explanation of explanatory journalism as a way for journalism to survive. The concept is as it sounds - explain the news. I mentioned in class they gave as an example a piece on This American Life as an example of this type of journalism at its best. I'm pasting two paragraphs from the article and then am posting the 13-minute piece NPR did on "All Things Considered" that is part of the longer, 56-minute project.
"As it turns out, explanatory journalism may have a promising future in the market for news. On May 9, in partnership with NPR News, This American Life dedicated its hour-long program to explaining the housing crisis. “The Giant Pool of Money” quickly became the most popular episode in the show’s thirteen-year history. CJR praised the piece (in “Boiler Room,” the essay by Dean Starkman in our September/October issue) as “the most comprehensive and insightful look at the system that produced the credit crisis.” And on his blog, PressThink, Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, wrote that the program was “probably the best work of explanatory journalism I have ever heard.” Rosen went on to note that by helping people understand an issue, explanatory journalism actually creates a market for news. It gives people a reason to tune in. 'There are some stories—and the mortgage crisis is a great example—where until I grasp the whole, I am unable to make sense of any part,” he writes. “Not only am I not a customer for news reports prior to that moment, but the very frequency of the updates alienates me from the providers of those updates because the news stream is adding daily to my feeling of being ill-informed, overwhelmed, out of the loop.'
"As it turns out, explanatory journalism may have a promising future in the market for news. On May 9, in partnership with NPR News, This American Life dedicated its hour-long program to explaining the housing crisis. “The Giant Pool of Money” quickly became the most popular episode in the show’s thirteen-year history. CJR praised the piece (in “Boiler Room,” the essay by Dean Starkman in our September/October issue) as “the most comprehensive and insightful look at the system that produced the credit crisis.” And on his blog, PressThink, Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, wrote that the program was “probably the best work of explanatory journalism I have ever heard.” Rosen went on to note that by helping people understand an issue, explanatory journalism actually creates a market for news. It gives people a reason to tune in. 'There are some stories—and the mortgage crisis is a great example—where until I grasp the whole, I am unable to make sense of any part,” he writes. “Not only am I not a customer for news reports prior to that moment, but the very frequency of the updates alienates me from the providers of those updates because the news stream is adding daily to my feeling of being ill-informed, overwhelmed, out of the loop.'
Rather than simply contributing to the noise of the unending torrent of headlines, sound bites, and snippets, NPR and This American Life took the time to step back, report the issue in depth, and then explain it in a way that illuminated one of the biggest and most complicated stories of the year. As a result of the program’s success, NPR News formed a multimedia team in late August to explain the global economy through a blog and podcast, both of which are called “Planet Money.” And on October 3, This American Life and NPR aired a valuable follow-up episode, “Another Frightening Show About the Economy,” which examined the deepening credit crisis, including how it might have been prevented and Washington’s attempts at a bailout."
Word Press
Freebie tips and tricks...
Some of you talked about using this... the home page for this site has some other useful tools as well...
Some of you talked about using this... the home page for this site has some other useful tools as well...
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
News Photographer Magazine Article Discussed in Class
Unfortunately, News Photographer only published this story in the magazine and doesn't see to allow access to it online--even to members. Anyway, I will try to remember to bring it for next week's class. This article was written by the news director herself, Julie Moravchik. If one searches the internet for her name, there are several articles that are listed that are mentioned in the article she wrote. Here is but one example.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
competent citizens
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 competent to use it?
There appears to be a wide range of thought on the topic of shifting political power due to the Internet, from utopian rhetoric to pessimism surrounding the existence of invisible controls and restraints on digital associations.
Within the editorial commentary of Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn found in Democracy and the New Media (Cambridge: MIT press, 2003) the idea is raised that “the pervasive talk about revolutionary change implies that here is some fundamental dissatisfaction with the established order.” Is this really the case?
The perceived danger that citizens who are politically incompetent will yield to much power may be much ado about nothing?
Jenkins and Thorburn are those who argue that the “digital revolution” is actually a “digital evolution” when they assess digital media’s effects upon democratic processes.
“The Web is a billion people on a billion soapboxes all speaking at once. But who is listening?” They discuss the effect that the Internet has upon democracy will be found to first cause changes in cultural forms before electoral politics. “It may take some time to discern the full influence of the Internet on American civic life.” However, the new sense of community and the expansion of “the range of voices that can be heard in a national debate, ensuring that no one voice can speak with unquestioned authority” promotes the creation of a “citizenry less dependent on official voices of expertise and authority.”
Within the same editorial commentary is found the thoughts of journalist Howard Rheingold, promoting the idea that the “virtual community” of online citizens will need to educate themselves in order to properly “leverage” the potential power brought to them by the new media. “The technology will not in itself fulfill that potential: this latent technical power must be used intelligently and deliberately by an informed population…” (The Virtual Community; Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Cambridge; MIT Press, 2000)
http://web.mit.edu/transition/subs/demointro.html
http://www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
There appears to be a wide range of thought on the topic of shifting political power due to the Internet, from utopian rhetoric to pessimism surrounding the existence of invisible controls and restraints on digital associations.
Within the editorial commentary of Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn found in Democracy and the New Media (Cambridge: MIT press, 2003) the idea is raised that “the pervasive talk about revolutionary change implies that here is some fundamental dissatisfaction with the established order.” Is this really the case?
The perceived danger that citizens who are politically incompetent will yield to much power may be much ado about nothing?
Jenkins and Thorburn are those who argue that the “digital revolution” is actually a “digital evolution” when they assess digital media’s effects upon democratic processes.
“The Web is a billion people on a billion soapboxes all speaking at once. But who is listening?” They discuss the effect that the Internet has upon democracy will be found to first cause changes in cultural forms before electoral politics. “It may take some time to discern the full influence of the Internet on American civic life.” However, the new sense of community and the expansion of “the range of voices that can be heard in a national debate, ensuring that no one voice can speak with unquestioned authority” promotes the creation of a “citizenry less dependent on official voices of expertise and authority.”
Within the same editorial commentary is found the thoughts of journalist Howard Rheingold, promoting the idea that the “virtual community” of online citizens will need to educate themselves in order to properly “leverage” the potential power brought to them by the new media. “The technology will not in itself fulfill that potential: this latent technical power must be used intelligently and deliberately by an informed population…” (The Virtual Community; Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Cambridge; MIT Press, 2000)
http://web.mit.edu/transition/subs/demointro.html
http://www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
How Social Media is affecting politics
It's hard to know where we are going if we don't know where we've been. This article takes a look at the 2004 election and compares it to the online social resources that we have now. The article highlights the ease of gaining knowledge and the ability to really get to know a candidate. I think having readily available information not only makes it easier for people to stay informed, but it also makes me want to be informed. If I can, I want to look into motivation for why people stay informed and what drives them to interact with others over politics.
One of my original questions was how politicians are interacting with social media. I found this article that lists members of congress who twitter. It is on a new website that I haven't heard of before, source watch. It is a wikipedia-esque site that "is a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda." While its hard to know who is actually writing the "tweets" it will be interesting to track what they are saying, and who is following them.
Tech President website is a "new group blog that covers how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa, how content generated by voters is affecting the campaign." The blog started in Jan 07 with several authors with various politcal backgrounds and continues tracking how technology is and will effect the presidency and politics in general. This will be a great source to provide a historical perspective and give some insight of what 'experts' think will happen.
I haven't figured out how this site will help yet (I mostly just find it interesting). Even orange juice is getting involved in the politics game. The tool they have created provides a visual representation of what's being said on twitter and the positive and negative connotations.
A big challenge for this paper will be narrowing down my focus. I think my sources are across the board and one thing that I will need to do in the weeks to come is pare down where I am going and identify what is the most telling.
One of my original questions was how politicians are interacting with social media. I found this article that lists members of congress who twitter. It is on a new website that I haven't heard of before, source watch. It is a wikipedia-esque site that "is a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda." While its hard to know who is actually writing the "tweets" it will be interesting to track what they are saying, and who is following them.
Tech President website is a "new group blog that covers how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa, how content generated by voters is affecting the campaign." The blog started in Jan 07 with several authors with various politcal backgrounds and continues tracking how technology is and will effect the presidency and politics in general. This will be a great source to provide a historical perspective and give some insight of what 'experts' think will happen.
I haven't figured out how this site will help yet (I mostly just find it interesting). Even orange juice is getting involved in the politics game. The tool they have created provides a visual representation of what's being said on twitter and the positive and negative connotations.
A big challenge for this paper will be narrowing down my focus. I think my sources are across the board and one thing that I will need to do in the weeks to come is pare down where I am going and identify what is the most telling.
Revamped Final: Possible Evolution of Newspapers
5) Will newspapers survive and how will they evolve?
Jeffrey Cole, director of the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. He said: “Traditionally 70 percent of a big-city newspaper has been advertising. There will never come a day that 70 percent of thenewyorktimes.com will be advertising. But while their revenues from advertising may be smaller, they also — if you look at a newspaper’s budget, only 30 percent of it goes to editorial, goes to writers and editors. Seventy percent of it goes to printing and distribution, and those costs almost disappear in a digital world.”
When drastic cuts are required, it seems crazy to focus them on the minority portion of one’s business. Consider taking a chunk out of the printing and distribution side of their expenses by getting out of print, in whole or in part. There are many downsides and risks to that move, of course, but as one attendee at the API summit said, “We have nothing to lose.”
http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/the-newspaper-summit-lots-of-lines-all-going-the-wrong-way/
The Islands of Quality Strategy:
Business people will pay a lot for high quality information and, even more, for great analysis That's why Rupert Murdoch went for the Wall Street Journal and its global potential and organizations like Oxford Analytica and RAND will succeed.
Who and what are these islands of quality knowledge?
Gatekeepers at boutique groups like Analytica and the Economist will have outsized influence as Lippman predicted.
Oxford Analytica-- which has Oxford dons do high-powered analysis of international economics and politics, including a Global Stress Points matrix designed by the former head of MI-6...
For People Who Need Full information rapidly.
What makes an island of quality?
Elements? Emerging?
Who is their audience?
Business , Investment, Political, Advertising, Government and Academic Communities at a minimum. Willing to pay top dollar for info
Lippman’s predictions coming true as potential lifeboat the industry
Further divergence between masses and intelligensia
What’s worth paying for in New Journalism:
Not just regular info given, but expert analysis of superstar analysts like Tom Freidman, Broeder…Context
Will Pay for Reliability and Verification of these sources.
Mostly, groups listed will pay for the Choices made by those who edit and report in these forums. Their sifting through the excess of information to pare down that which is pertinent and vital is a huge time saver for the consumer.
The Elite Newspaper of the Future Philip Meyers
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4605
The End of 'Objectivity' in New Journalism Era: A Good Thing?
Editor & Publisher
Joe Strupp
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003889304
CJR
Robert Kuttner
http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/the_race.php?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank
Think Tanks As:
think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them.
Or
because of the private nature of the funding of some think tanks, their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue that members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results which ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors.
The Trusted Beacon Strategy:
. Super-investor Warren Buffett is right when he says taking the time to educate a key reporter can help raise the collective I.Q. of the country.
By the same token, we the audience, and our children have a media literacy imperative: constant learning about how to choose the trustworthy messengers in the digital torrent competing for our attention
How journalism will evolve: partisan, paid for, geared towards the professional.
Jeffrey Cole, director of the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. He said: “Traditionally 70 percent of a big-city newspaper has been advertising. There will never come a day that 70 percent of thenewyorktimes.com will be advertising. But while their revenues from advertising may be smaller, they also — if you look at a newspaper’s budget, only 30 percent of it goes to editorial, goes to writers and editors. Seventy percent of it goes to printing and distribution, and those costs almost disappear in a digital world.”
When drastic cuts are required, it seems crazy to focus them on the minority portion of one’s business. Consider taking a chunk out of the printing and distribution side of their expenses by getting out of print, in whole or in part. There are many downsides and risks to that move, of course, but as one attendee at the API summit said, “We have nothing to lose.”
http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/the-newspaper-summit-lots-of-lines-all-going-the-wrong-way/
The Islands of Quality Strategy:
Business people will pay a lot for high quality information and, even more, for great analysis That's why Rupert Murdoch went for the Wall Street Journal and its global potential and organizations like Oxford Analytica and RAND will succeed.
Who and what are these islands of quality knowledge?
Gatekeepers at boutique groups like Analytica and the Economist will have outsized influence as Lippman predicted.
Oxford Analytica-- which has Oxford dons do high-powered analysis of international economics and politics, including a Global Stress Points matrix designed by the former head of MI-6...
For People Who Need Full information rapidly.
What makes an island of quality?
Elements? Emerging?
Who is their audience?
Business , Investment, Political, Advertising, Government and Academic Communities at a minimum. Willing to pay top dollar for info
Lippman’s predictions coming true as potential lifeboat the industry
Further divergence between masses and intelligensia
What’s worth paying for in New Journalism:
Not just regular info given, but expert analysis of superstar analysts like Tom Freidman, Broeder…Context
Will Pay for Reliability and Verification of these sources.
Mostly, groups listed will pay for the Choices made by those who edit and report in these forums. Their sifting through the excess of information to pare down that which is pertinent and vital is a huge time saver for the consumer.
The Elite Newspaper of the Future Philip Meyers
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4605
The End of 'Objectivity' in New Journalism Era: A Good Thing?
Editor & Publisher
Joe Strupp
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003889304
CJR
Robert Kuttner
http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/the_race.php?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank
Think Tanks As:
think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them.
Or
because of the private nature of the funding of some think tanks, their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue that members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results which ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors.
The Trusted Beacon Strategy:
. Super-investor Warren Buffett is right when he says taking the time to educate a key reporter can help raise the collective I.Q. of the country.
By the same token, we the audience, and our children have a media literacy imperative: constant learning about how to choose the trustworthy messengers in the digital torrent competing for our attention
How journalism will evolve: partisan, paid for, geared towards the professional.
So-called Citizen Journalism: Can we remove the "so-called" from in front?
"When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another, that’s citizen journalism." - Jay Rosen, PressThink
Since the 1980's and 1990's, with the emergence of public access television and, with the rise of the internet, Indymedia and other activist groups, there has been an on-going and often rancorous discussion about what exactly is a 'citizen journalist.' Since about 2003, things have really heated up. The definition provided on the Citizen Journalism Wiki site is taken from "We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information", by Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis: the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information." To really look at this issue, however, it is important to look at not only 'what' is a citizen journalist' but also the 'why' is there a citizen journalist?
Two of the most often cited reasons are the Internet and frustration and disillusionment with the way traditional, or legacy, media have covered the news for years, increasingly cutting out the voices and stories of the communities they are charged with covering in favor of covering stories more favorable to the organizations' bottom-line, i.e.the stockholders. There is a feeling that journalistic responsibilities have largely, although not universally, been ignored. The rise of the Internet and the increasing penetration it has achieved into more and more homes has allowed previously unheard of access for ordinary citizens to publish their stories for their families, friends, and the whole world to read.
Its interesting to note that in the beginning of this , the concern was that authors of books would be the most affected. This was quickly surpassed by the realization by the public that they could use the tools being developed for desktop publishing to be applied to the Internet thereby allowing anybody be an author. This movement eventually led to people posting novels and news stories of their own, first to list-servs and discussion boards, then to websites and weblogs. So the claim could be made by anyone with access to a keyboard and the Net that they were authors and journalists- even without official training and experience. Add to this picture the social networking tools of web 2.0 and the entire landscape has changed forever.
Is citizen journalism a “legitimate” replacement?
Is this movement a legitimate replacement for news from legacy sources with trained professionals who adhere to a strict conduct of journalistic standards? Not entirely. But the definitions of standards have to be examined in light of the new media movement and the resources available to anyone who wants to take the role of a journalist seriously. Standards can be observed and adhered to and skills can be learned without going to journalism school. The recent history of disregard of the public interest by many in the legacy media cannot be ignored. The status quo in the media industry cannot continue, especially since the same world wide web that provides a vehicle for exploding public discourse also is hammering their business models as more and more people go on-line to read and watch what previously was only available by picking up a newspaper or tuning in a TV station. Classified ads moved to Craig's List and other sites for free, advertising on websites can be had for a fraction of the cost of papers and TV news (which isn't good news for on-line news sites, either), and the classifieds, a major cash cow, are all but dead.
Predictions:
The future probably will involve a hybrid of legacy media that is open to material from many sources, professional and non-professional. Vetting will be standard, truth and fairness a priority, and editors will have extremely important roles to play when it comes to verifying stories but not acting as gatekeepers as they did in previous models of journalism. . There will be many less traditional jobs for trained journalists, and they will have to be literate in multi-media production as well as writing. Many jobs will probably be in specialized publications like in-house papers (like Mayo and other corporate organs) and will focus on communities and will necessitate a flexibility of all who want to practice journalism. Jeff Jarvis provides a good outline here. The competition will be even fiercer than it is now, but there will always be a place for a trained journalist who has a story to tell and the ability to do it well. Extremely well. And this person could be out of a J- school or a citizen journalism background as lines become blurred. As retired Post executive editor Ben Bradlee puts it: "They've got to love what they're doing; they've got to be serious about turning over rocks, opening doors. The story drives you. It's part of your soul." This sentiment was also expressed at a recent National Press Club meeting in Minneapolis by Nancy Barnes and Joel Kramer: (notes later)
A very interesting development on the horizon is Web 3.0, the semantic web. This will cause yet another adjustment for the industry and the craft of journalism, and will introduce a whole new definition of a journalist: computer programmers who understand how to observe and facilitate the flow of news in the next big web development. It holds the promise of a whole new set of possibilities for journalism and the role it plays in the education of the public in a democratic society.
Sources:
Dan Gillmor, "We, the Media" Accelerating Change. 51 minutes, 23.4mb, recorded 2004-11-06 (mp3)
Tery Heaton's PoMo Blog, "Journalism's New Values"
New Media Timeline (2008), By David Shedden, Library Director, Poynter Institute
Your Guide to Citizen Journalism, by Mark Glaser, Mediashift,
National Press Club presentation, Coffman Memorial Union, U of MN, November, 2008 (notes)
Center for Citizen Media
Monday, November 24, 2008
Internet and civic participation
For the second half of our class, I have been investigating how the digital revolution is (and could) impact the way government/democracy works. Through my scan of research on the subject, I found a few relevant articles that shed light on this topic in different ways:
- An article published by the Pew Internet and American Life Project focused on how the Internet impacted the 2008 election. This article looks at the most recent impact, but that hindsight can also provide clues into how the Internet could be used in the future.
-Another paper published by Harvard University's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation analyzes a Brazilian case study of the impact of citizen participation in local government through Internet usage. Insights could be translated here as well.
-The Christian Science Monitor also had an interesting article projecting how government communication with the public might change in a Barack Obama administration.
All of these articles will help in my project preparation.
- An article published by the Pew Internet and American Life Project focused on how the Internet impacted the 2008 election. This article looks at the most recent impact, but that hindsight can also provide clues into how the Internet could be used in the future.
-Another paper published by Harvard University's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation analyzes a Brazilian case study of the impact of citizen participation in local government through Internet usage. Insights could be translated here as well.
-The Christian Science Monitor also had an interesting article projecting how government communication with the public might change in a Barack Obama administration.
All of these articles will help in my project preparation.
"Every new technology is an amputation"
"Every new technology is an amputation."
- Marshall McLuhan
What is the downside of the digital revolution? That was Jeremy's question.
My argument is the loss of a viable career option for the vast majority of photojournalists will ultimately result in a loss of visual literacy in the culture as a whole.
Besides the obvious - untrained citizen journalist that don't know the ethical boundaries that traditional photojournalists live by. (By and large, there are of course examples of traditional pj's blurring the lines or out-right manipulating images. However, the price paid if caught is very steep.)
But beyond the ethical and technical concerns there are issues of quality. Sure you can get a freebie photo from the internet, and maybe it will be good. However, since when is good enough the same as good? Sure, perhaps you can't afford Ron Haviv or James Nachtwey, but don't you want to put the best image possible with your words?
Take the recent scandal at Atlantic. They hired noted commercial photographer Jill Greenberg to take photos of John McCain for their cover. Of course she's talented, she produces remarkable photos. But that doesn't mean she was the right photographer for the job. Is she a journalist - No. Does she work by a journalistic code of ethics? No. Has that cost the Atlantic? You bet. See Michelle Malkin's blog on the topic: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-her/
Has that hurt all photographers? Oh yeah! See PDN article: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html There are always multiple considerations, one too easy to forget is: will the photographer have the right business and people skills to handle the assignment?
What about the visual history? Sure there are MILLIONS of photographs of the towers collapsing on 9/11. Just like there are thousands of photos available of the RNC in St Paul, any given concert, sporting event, presidential campaign stops. But what about smaller stories? What about things the average person probably isn't going to either stumble into or willingly go into? What about war coverage? Leper colonies? TB camps? Tsunami zones?
Certainly there are amateurs with a natural eye, however the professional shooters images of the events listed above are almost always light-years ahead of the amateurs shots, and with much greater consistency.
For my additional sources I'm planning on talking to photographers. One is a local freelancer that shoots editorial and specializes in music - Tony Nelson. Another is an editorial/commercial photographer that started out as a music photographer - Jay Blakesburg. I'm going to try to talk with one or two Strib or PiPress shooters. And if my connections work out I'm going to try to talk with one of the guys at the very top - Ron Haviv, of VII.
Additionally, I'd like to interview the director of the Missouri Photo Workshop and see how they think the change is impacting them and if they are changing how the workshop is run.
- Marshall McLuhan
What is the downside of the digital revolution? That was Jeremy's question.
My argument is the loss of a viable career option for the vast majority of photojournalists will ultimately result in a loss of visual literacy in the culture as a whole.
Besides the obvious - untrained citizen journalist that don't know the ethical boundaries that traditional photojournalists live by. (By and large, there are of course examples of traditional pj's blurring the lines or out-right manipulating images. However, the price paid if caught is very steep.)
But beyond the ethical and technical concerns there are issues of quality. Sure you can get a freebie photo from the internet, and maybe it will be good. However, since when is good enough the same as good? Sure, perhaps you can't afford Ron Haviv or James Nachtwey, but don't you want to put the best image possible with your words?
Take the recent scandal at Atlantic. They hired noted commercial photographer Jill Greenberg to take photos of John McCain for their cover. Of course she's talented, she produces remarkable photos. But that doesn't mean she was the right photographer for the job. Is she a journalist - No. Does she work by a journalistic code of ethics? No. Has that cost the Atlantic? You bet. See Michelle Malkin's blog on the topic: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-her/
Has that hurt all photographers? Oh yeah! See PDN article: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html There are always multiple considerations, one too easy to forget is: will the photographer have the right business and people skills to handle the assignment?
What about the visual history? Sure there are MILLIONS of photographs of the towers collapsing on 9/11. Just like there are thousands of photos available of the RNC in St Paul, any given concert, sporting event, presidential campaign stops. But what about smaller stories? What about things the average person probably isn't going to either stumble into or willingly go into? What about war coverage? Leper colonies? TB camps? Tsunami zones?
Certainly there are amateurs with a natural eye, however the professional shooters images of the events listed above are almost always light-years ahead of the amateurs shots, and with much greater consistency.
For my additional sources I'm planning on talking to photographers. One is a local freelancer that shoots editorial and specializes in music - Tony Nelson. Another is an editorial/commercial photographer that started out as a music photographer - Jay Blakesburg. I'm going to try to talk with one or two Strib or PiPress shooters. And if my connections work out I'm going to try to talk with one of the guys at the very top - Ron Haviv, of VII.
Additionally, I'd like to interview the director of the Missouri Photo Workshop and see how they think the change is impacting them and if they are changing how the workshop is run.
A sign of the times... and it's journalists helping journalists...
For struggling journalists... maybe someone should step up to the plate for struggling freelance photographers...
 |
For Laid-Off Journalists, Free Blog Accounts
It’s a long way from $700 billion, but the media start-up Six Apart is introducing its own economic bailout plan.
The TypePad Journalist Bailout Program offers recently terminated bloggers and journalists a free pro account (worth $150 annually) on the company’s popular blogging platform. In addition to the free yearly membership, the 20 to 30 journalists who are accepted will receive professional tech support, placement on the company’s blog aggregation site, Blogs.com, and automatic enrollment in the company’s advertising revenue-sharing program.
Anil Dash, a former blogger and current vice president at Six Apart, announced the program Nov. 14, shortly after the company made its own staff cuts. Mr. Dash fired off a blog post: “Hello, recently-laid-off or fearful-of-layoffs journalist! We’re Six Apart (you know us as the nice folks who make Movable Type or TypePad, which maybe you used for blogging at your old newspaper or magazine) and we want to help you.”
On Monday morning, he had roughly 50 e-mail applications in his inbox, and they have continued to pour in, totaling nearly 300 so far. “It was a bit of a surprise how quickly word got out,” Mr. Dash said. “This has struck a nerve.”
Brooke-Sidney Gavins, a broadcast journalism student at the University of Southern California, is hoping to be chosen to help her nascent writing career. “I understand that there may not be a ‘guaranteed’ job with a major media organization after I graduate,” Ms. Gavins said. “A lot of new journalists are going to have to build their careers more guerrilla-style by selling their stories and promoting their work all the time.”
For Johanna Neuman, a veteran White House reporter and blogger who was recently laid off by The Los Angeles Times, the program would be a chance to continue writing about politics and float book ideas in the hopes of landing a publishing deal. “I might just start putting chapters up and see who salutes,” Ms. Neuman said.
Mr. Dash says he hopes to eventually accept every applicant. “How do we do right by all these people?” he said. “That’s exactly what’s keeping me up at night.” JENNA WORTHAM
Media Trust and Civic Participation
Very generally speaking, I am interested in the differences between people who vote and people who do not. I am curious about what sets these two groups apart - demographically, psychologically, economically, etc. Ultimately, I would like to understand what needs to change to encourage more people to participate in this most basic way. While I have no intention of answering that question in this assignment, I am hoping to shine a little light on the relationship between trust in the media and civic participation. To stay within the parameters of the assignment, I know I need to pursue this answer with an eye to the future, and I am curious about how newly emerging media sources contribute to trust in the media. I am still trying to pin point the scope that will keep this project in the 2,500 word range.
This is how I put it in last week's post: Given the myriad sources of news and information, how can we know whom to trust and what to believe? And, how does this confusion impact public participation?
If you have ideas or suggestions - I would be grateful for your advice. Decisiveness is not my strong suit.
Here are three of the dozens of articles that touch on this collection of subjects:
Why Americans Don’t Trust the Media -- A preliminary analysis
Analyzing data from a 2000 National Election Study, Jones finds a connection between government mistrust and lack of trust in the media in general. As he puts it, "... the media’s lowly stature may be more related to general political malaise than to the many shortcomings of contemporary news coverage." The analysis also indicates that talk radio listeners and people who turned to the Internet for election coverage have a far greater distrust of media; however no partisan divide in media trust was indicated.
Mediated Politics and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century
After collecting focus group and interview data, Graber concludes that the media (collectively) deliver the information necessary for informed civic participation and that citizens are efficient at sorting through the information to learn what they need to know.
Net Gains in Political Participation -- Secondary effects of Internet on community
Kavanaugh et al found that somewhat "politically passive citizens" engage in online political activities at about the same level as those who are "politically active." However, this does not translate in increased political participation offline for members of the "passive" group.
This is how I put it in last week's post: Given the myriad sources of news and information, how can we know whom to trust and what to believe? And, how does this confusion impact public participation?
If you have ideas or suggestions - I would be grateful for your advice. Decisiveness is not my strong suit.
Here are three of the dozens of articles that touch on this collection of subjects:
Why Americans Don’t Trust the Media -- A preliminary analysis
Analyzing data from a 2000 National Election Study, Jones finds a connection between government mistrust and lack of trust in the media in general. As he puts it, "... the media’s lowly stature may be more related to general political malaise than to the many shortcomings of contemporary news coverage." The analysis also indicates that talk radio listeners and people who turned to the Internet for election coverage have a far greater distrust of media; however no partisan divide in media trust was indicated.
Mediated Politics and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century
After collecting focus group and interview data, Graber concludes that the media (collectively) deliver the information necessary for informed civic participation and that citizens are efficient at sorting through the information to learn what they need to know.
Net Gains in Political Participation -- Secondary effects of Internet on community
Kavanaugh et al found that somewhat "politically passive citizens" engage in online political activities at about the same level as those who are "politically active." However, this does not translate in increased political participation offline for members of the "passive" group.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Social Networks new role in American Elections
Was they high level of participation in the 2008 presidential election orchestrated by the Obama campaign, or was it just good fortune that went their way? There are many claims on both sides, but one fact is undeniable: Younger voters turned out in record numbers. The most important questions that stem from that should not be about that came about, but how to continue their engagement. Are they a giant that has been awoken, that every future campaign must reach out to the way Obama reached out via the web? The Guardian believes that future elections will turn on use of the virtual world, a candidates must be technologically adroit. They stop short of saying that his online campaign won the election, but it certainly help
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/07/barackobama-uselections2008
Not everyone agrees. Various bloggers around the web are saying that Obama went out and won, social networks did not win for him. Here is an example of one dissenting voice:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=305&tag=rbxccnbzd1
I personally believe that Obama deftly used tools that we readily available to both camps, and engaged more people. Through his campaigns use of social media, he empowered people. People felt that they were making a difference beyond the voting booth. Through Facebook, the encouraged others to become involved, to vote, and effect change. It does not matter if it was perception or reality, they engaged, and stayed engaged throughout. My central question for my coming paper will deals with the staying power of networks. Will the online communities stay engaged, and shape future race? Will future campaigns generate enough interest online to harness the powers of those networks?
How much is too much? How the press will have to filter news in the future to satisfy consumption demands...
At a staff meeting in the summer of 1995 then Lt.Gen. Tony Zinni told his staff the issue of getting him information in the future wasn’t going to be a problem. He went on to say the problem was going to be having too much information and the question was who and how it would be filtered so that he would receive only the critical information he needed to know to make strategic and tactical decisions. That’s the problem the press faces today.
The old days of getting our news from a newspaper, a TV or on the radio are gone. Today, as the result of technology we get news from more sources than we can imagine and the list grows. For my final paper I want to answer the question, “What role should the press play in avoiding information overload while satisfying consumption demands?”
On Columbia Journalism Review’s web site for November/December 2008 they have an article that discusses just that. Bree Nordenson addresses “journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information.” (Overload!)
I want to explore the role of the press in how they do – and can or should – be looking at methods of distribution based on consumers’ avenues for consumption and how the current economic conditions will support or hinder those possibilities in the future.
I want to look at decisions by the Christian Science Monitor to reduce printed publication and focus on on-line content. I want to look at why we’re seeing so much video on news web sites. Is that a business or journalistic decision? Economic conditions are forcing TV newsrooms to back off conversion to HD video but yet to start shooting in 16:9 aspect ratio?
Tony Zinni’s concern in 1995 isn’t all that different than what heads of news organizations are facing today.
The old days of getting our news from a newspaper, a TV or on the radio are gone. Today, as the result of technology we get news from more sources than we can imagine and the list grows. For my final paper I want to answer the question, “What role should the press play in avoiding information overload while satisfying consumption demands?”
On Columbia Journalism Review’s web site for November/December 2008 they have an article that discusses just that. Bree Nordenson addresses “journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information.” (Overload!)
I want to explore the role of the press in how they do – and can or should – be looking at methods of distribution based on consumers’ avenues for consumption and how the current economic conditions will support or hinder those possibilities in the future.
I want to look at decisions by the Christian Science Monitor to reduce printed publication and focus on on-line content. I want to look at why we’re seeing so much video on news web sites. Is that a business or journalistic decision? Economic conditions are forcing TV newsrooms to back off conversion to HD video but yet to start shooting in 16:9 aspect ratio?
Tony Zinni’s concern in 1995 isn’t all that different than what heads of news organizations are facing today.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Amateur vs. Professional Photojournalists
There is a blog devoted to amateur photographers who want to be professionals. Within it is a good read about the differences between amateur and professional photographers. There is a poorly photographed studio illustration to accompany the article, but the article does a good job of articulating some, but definitely not all, of the differences well. The poorly made studio illustration describes well the reason there are many specializations that exist in photography and the reasons they exist. Just because a person is a photographer, doesn't mean they are great at shooting in every subject area or every type of photography--even at the professional level. To further my argument, the same blog has another article with a well concieved photograph as its illustration.
James Nachtwey's TED speech
The URL was cut off in my response to Aaron. If anyone wants to see James Nachtwey's talk at the TED conference it's available here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_nachtwey_s_searing_pictures_of_war.html
This includes a slideshow of his work.
To view photos from Nachtwey's project on extremely drug-resistant TB, please visit: http://www.xdrtb.org/
Thanks!
kathy
This includes a slideshow of his work.
To view photos from Nachtwey's project on extremely drug-resistant TB, please visit: http://www.xdrtb.org/
Thanks!
kathy
Future of Photography Questions Reconsidered
In regard to my previous questions about the stock photography and its roll in the future of photojournalism, I offer this revision. I will undoubtedly include stock in my final paper since I still am interested in the connection, but my new questions are: Do professional photographers have a place anymore in the face of citizen journalism, or are they destined to become disinter-mediated? The questions I have to ask more specifically are: Is there a way to become relevant and profitable as a photographer in a world covered by the untrained masses? Is the indifference to rights and usage a trend to be embraced? Is there a hierarchy of journalism that is emerging where the professionals take the bigger jobs and leave the rest to citizen photographers? Are the untrained masses providing the service of coverage that imaging professionals could benefit from not covering? Will there be a return to using photojournalists when the masses can’t provide successful imagery that tells the story in a photo? (A similar thing happened in commercial photography). What can a professional photographer offer that the non-professional cannot? Can future technology enhancements replace the “eye” of the photographer? Is composition and style programmable—and should it be? My answer to this question is of course a resounding no, but I hope to explain my position within my paper. While I won’t answer all of these questions, I plan to include them on my Photography Futures blog to see what response they may receive from others.
Here are some links to things I have found recently that are guiding my research.
The first is a link to a new wire service announced on a Flikr group for citizen photojournalists. The new wire service is called Demotix. They encourage citizen photographers to upload images to their site after which they broker them to the media--very innovative, but I am interested to understand if there is an editorial staff. An interesting side note--the Flikr Group has been pirated--some of their watermarked images were stolen by a band and used without permission on the band's website.
There was an article in Wired Called "Stock Waves: Citizen Photojournalists are Changing the Rules" in which another such brokerage company is listed. I believe this article is crowd-sourced. I am glad to see them using the technology to report on the effects of the technology. It is an edited piece from an experiment they were calling "Assignment Zero."
Following that same idea, there was an interesting point of view of a crowd-source contributor who writes as though in the act of crowd-sourcing, she was experiencing the same effects of professionalization that the pros have already surpassed. It seems to be inadvertently saying that she enjoys doing the job, but she wishes she was a professional. She is not a photojournalist, but this is a similar in response to an effect I saw in the commercial market when people felt empowered by digital camera technology. The article goes on the suggest that the need for citizen journalists was in response to the media's increasingly gaping hole of coverage. In other words, If you don't fulfill your primary roll, then replacements will come whether you want them or not.
Within the previous article there were various links to sites that are trying to instill this professionalization on the untrained masses. This is a good thing. I think they are trying to graft journalistic ethics onto the citizen journalist--the word combination "citizen journalist" still makes me shudder a bit. There is one source called News University and another called New Voices. Not really an article to read, but there is plenty to explore.
Finally, I searched for some additional information from one of Kathy's blog sources called the Digital Journalist. He had posted "The Coming Earthquake in Photography" in April of 2007 which I found informative in the formation of some ideas for my paper.
Here are some links to things I have found recently that are guiding my research.
The first is a link to a new wire service announced on a Flikr group for citizen photojournalists. The new wire service is called Demotix. They encourage citizen photographers to upload images to their site after which they broker them to the media--very innovative, but I am interested to understand if there is an editorial staff. An interesting side note--the Flikr Group has been pirated--some of their watermarked images were stolen by a band and used without permission on the band's website.
There was an article in Wired Called "Stock Waves: Citizen Photojournalists are Changing the Rules" in which another such brokerage company is listed. I believe this article is crowd-sourced. I am glad to see them using the technology to report on the effects of the technology. It is an edited piece from an experiment they were calling "Assignment Zero."
Following that same idea, there was an interesting point of view of a crowd-source contributor who writes as though in the act of crowd-sourcing, she was experiencing the same effects of professionalization that the pros have already surpassed. It seems to be inadvertently saying that she enjoys doing the job, but she wishes she was a professional. She is not a photojournalist, but this is a similar in response to an effect I saw in the commercial market when people felt empowered by digital camera technology. The article goes on the suggest that the need for citizen journalists was in response to the media's increasingly gaping hole of coverage. In other words, If you don't fulfill your primary roll, then replacements will come whether you want them or not.
Within the previous article there were various links to sites that are trying to instill this professionalization on the untrained masses. This is a good thing. I think they are trying to graft journalistic ethics onto the citizen journalist--the word combination "citizen journalist" still makes me shudder a bit. There is one source called News University and another called New Voices. Not really an article to read, but there is plenty to explore.
Finally, I searched for some additional information from one of Kathy's blog sources called the Digital Journalist. He had posted "The Coming Earthquake in Photography" in April of 2007 which I found informative in the formation of some ideas for my paper.
Editor Explains Big Changes at Christian Science Monitor
John Yemma, recently appointed editor of the Christian Science Monitor, tells of the plan and the costs for running the newspaper when it begins printing Fridays only and goes mostly online.
The cost for an approximately 80-person newsroom and eight foreign bureaus would be just $7 million a year, if it were all online, and $12 million with the Friday print edition. In this in-depth interview with Leonard Witt, Yemma tells how he believes the newsroom and journalism will be invigorated. Watch the video...
When you go to the video you'll be going to the Wired Journalists web site... after you watch the interview, click on MAIN in the menu and see what this web sites offers... for example, check out the link on Social Bookmarking for Journalists... a site by journalists for journalists...
The cost for an approximately 80-person newsroom and eight foreign bureaus would be just $7 million a year, if it were all online, and $12 million with the Friday print edition. In this in-depth interview with Leonard Witt, Yemma tells how he believes the newsroom and journalism will be invigorated. Watch the video...
When you go to the video you'll be going to the Wired Journalists web site... after you watch the interview, click on MAIN in the menu and see what this web sites offers... for example, check out the link on Social Bookmarking for Journalists... a site by journalists for journalists...
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Future?
From: PDN (Photo District News) online
Star-Ledger Photo Editor Now Working in Mailroom
Editor and Publisher has a story that illustrates just how bad things are at The Star-Ledger in Newark, which has lost 151 newsroom employees to buyouts this year. Assistant deputy editor Mitchell Seidel and reporter Jason Jett are now working in the mailroom. Seidel and Jett could not be reached for comment, but staffers still employed at the troubled newspaper confirmed that the two have been sorting, filing and delivering mail for more than a week.
This summer, The Star-Ledger's publisher, George Arwady, threatened to close the newspaper unless at least 200 of the newsroom's 330 employees took buyouts. So far 151 of the staffers have taken buyouts. Seidel and Jett were among those who chose to stay. Their reward, according to the E&P story, is that they are now using their talents at pushing the mail cart down the hall.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/11/starledger-photo-editor-now-working-in-mailroom.html
Star-Ledger Photo Editor Now Working in Mailroom
Editor and Publisher has a story that illustrates just how bad things are at The Star-Ledger in Newark, which has lost 151 newsroom employees to buyouts this year. Assistant deputy editor Mitchell Seidel and reporter Jason Jett are now working in the mailroom. Seidel and Jett could not be reached for comment, but staffers still employed at the troubled newspaper confirmed that the two have been sorting, filing and delivering mail for more than a week.
This summer, The Star-Ledger's publisher, George Arwady, threatened to close the newspaper unless at least 200 of the newsroom's 330 employees took buyouts. So far 151 of the staffers have taken buyouts. Seidel and Jett were among those who chose to stay. Their reward, according to the E&P story, is that they are now using their talents at pushing the mail cart down the hall.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/11/starledger-photo-editor-now-working-in-mailroom.html
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
2nd assignment
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 competent to use it?
The technology of the Information Age continues to transform many aspects of our daily lives. The "digital revolution" has given rise to opportunities to become connected to and/or active in political processes in ways that prior generations’ political theorists may not have ever even dreamt of.
Could the digital revolution create too much democracy? The answer may be different depending upon what type of democracy we are talking about ie. direct democracy vs representative democracy.
Newly coined terms such as e-democracy and e-inclusion, that might infer ideas of universal empowerment and digital cohesion, are dampened by the existence of a “digital divide” as we face issues of e-competencies, e-aging, e-accessibility, etc.
There are also those that would argue that for many having too many choices and having to make too many decisions could have the unintended result of their withdrawal from the political process.
http://ipdi.org/About/default.aspx
http://interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com/
http://www.access2democracy.org/
The technology of the Information Age continues to transform many aspects of our daily lives. The "digital revolution" has given rise to opportunities to become connected to and/or active in political processes in ways that prior generations’ political theorists may not have ever even dreamt of.
Could the digital revolution create too much democracy? The answer may be different depending upon what type of democracy we are talking about ie. direct democracy vs representative democracy.
Newly coined terms such as e-democracy and e-inclusion, that might infer ideas of universal empowerment and digital cohesion, are dampened by the existence of a “digital divide” as we face issues of e-competencies, e-aging, e-accessibility, etc.
There are also those that would argue that for many having too many choices and having to make too many decisions could have the unintended result of their withdrawal from the political process.
http://ipdi.org/About/default.aspx
http://interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com/
http://www.access2democracy.org/
AP Suspends Use Of DOD Photos After Another Faked Hand-Out
From the National Press Photographers Association:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/11/general.html
Another Digitally Altered Department Of Defense Photo; AP Suspends Using Their Hand-Outs
SAN ANTONIO, TX (November 14, 2008) – The deputy director of photography at the San Antonio Express-News apparently knows a faked photograph when he sees one.
[both photos available at link above]
For the second time in two months, Bob Owen was looking at the Associated Press photography feed when last night he spotted a U.S. Army photograph that was provided to the wires that had been digitally altered.
Thursday evening a picture moved on the network of America's first four-star female general, Ann Dunwoody, and something about the picture didn't look right to Owen's eyes. He told staff photographer William Luther that he did a simple Google search after he became curious and he found the original image of Dunwoody seated at a desk. That same office photograph had been digitally altered to remove the background and to put her in front of an American flag.
The original office photograph shows only three stars on her uniform, the rank of lieutenant general. Dunwoody was promoted from lieutenant general to a four-star general. The altered photo shows no stars on her uniform.
When the digital alteration was discovered, AP immediately put out a "mandatory kill" message on the picture network and they began investigating.
Then late Friday, the Associated Press announced they are suspending the use of any photographs provided by the Department of Defense.
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, the AP's director of photography.
Lyon said the AP is developing procedures to protect against further occurrences and, once those steps are in place, it will consider lifting the ban on military handouts. He said the AP also is discussing the problem with the military.
Meanwhile, the chief of the Army's media relations division told AP that the Dunwoody photo did not violate Army policy that prohibits the cropping or editing of a photo to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event. Col. Cathy Abbott says she does not know who altered the photograph.
"We're not misrepresenting her," Abbott told the AP. "The image is still clearly Gen. Dunwoody."
This was the second time Owen spotted digitally altered photos from the DOD and Army. Back in September, Owen spotted digitally altered Army on the AP wire after the Department of Defense handed out pictures of two soldiers who were reportedly killed at their patrol base south of Baghdad.
Dead were Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson, 24, and Sgt. Wesley R. Durban, 26. The face and shoulders of Dawson appears to have been pasted onto the picture of Durban, as the two images were identical except for the faces. Owen noticed that the pictures matched as he flipped back and forth, from one to the other, on a computer.
AP determined the photographs had been altered by someone either at DOD or the Army before it was handed out for public distribution. Today Abbott said the photo was altered because Dawson's unit did not have the official Army photograph of him and wanted one that was suitable for use in a memorial service.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/11/general.html
Another Digitally Altered Department Of Defense Photo; AP Suspends Using Their Hand-Outs
SAN ANTONIO, TX (November 14, 2008) – The deputy director of photography at the San Antonio Express-News apparently knows a faked photograph when he sees one.
[both photos available at link above]
For the second time in two months, Bob Owen was looking at the Associated Press photography feed when last night he spotted a U.S. Army photograph that was provided to the wires that had been digitally altered.
Thursday evening a picture moved on the network of America's first four-star female general, Ann Dunwoody, and something about the picture didn't look right to Owen's eyes. He told staff photographer William Luther that he did a simple Google search after he became curious and he found the original image of Dunwoody seated at a desk. That same office photograph had been digitally altered to remove the background and to put her in front of an American flag.
The original office photograph shows only three stars on her uniform, the rank of lieutenant general. Dunwoody was promoted from lieutenant general to a four-star general. The altered photo shows no stars on her uniform.
When the digital alteration was discovered, AP immediately put out a "mandatory kill" message on the picture network and they began investigating.
Then late Friday, the Associated Press announced they are suspending the use of any photographs provided by the Department of Defense.
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, the AP's director of photography.
Lyon said the AP is developing procedures to protect against further occurrences and, once those steps are in place, it will consider lifting the ban on military handouts. He said the AP also is discussing the problem with the military.
Meanwhile, the chief of the Army's media relations division told AP that the Dunwoody photo did not violate Army policy that prohibits the cropping or editing of a photo to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event. Col. Cathy Abbott says she does not know who altered the photograph.
"We're not misrepresenting her," Abbott told the AP. "The image is still clearly Gen. Dunwoody."
This was the second time Owen spotted digitally altered photos from the DOD and Army. Back in September, Owen spotted digitally altered Army on the AP wire after the Department of Defense handed out pictures of two soldiers who were reportedly killed at their patrol base south of Baghdad.
Dead were Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson, 24, and Sgt. Wesley R. Durban, 26. The face and shoulders of Dawson appears to have been pasted onto the picture of Durban, as the two images were identical except for the faces. Owen noticed that the pictures matched as he flipped back and forth, from one to the other, on a computer.
AP determined the photographs had been altered by someone either at DOD or the Army before it was handed out for public distribution. Today Abbott said the photo was altered because Dawson's unit did not have the official Army photograph of him and wanted one that was suitable for use in a memorial service.
Final Paper Questions
I am most interested in these questions – Given the myriad sources of news and information, how can we know whom to trust and what to believe? And, how does this confusion impact public participation?
I see these as related questions:
• What is the role of “citizen journalism” and smaller media outlets?
• Is the digital revolution really empowering ordinary citizens?
• Is the digital revolution creating a gap between information haves and have nots?
• How does media trust influence the decision to vote or not vote?
Here are three articles that will serve as a starting point:
Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs
Tuesday’s New York Times included an article about small, non-profit media organizations that are breaking big, local stories in several markets around the country.
The contribution of media consumption to civic participation investigates “the association between media consumption and… civic participation.”
http://search.ebscohost.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32122194&site=ehost-live”
Why Do People Watch News They Do Not Trust? The Need for Cognition as a Moderator in the Association Between News Media Skepticism and Exposure asks, and tries to answer: “Why do people watch news they do not trust?”
http://search.ebscohost.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17269290&site=ehost-live
At the moment, I think I need to narrow the scope a bit, but I am going to start exploring and then try to focus the investigation.
I see these as related questions:
• What is the role of “citizen journalism” and smaller media outlets?
• Is the digital revolution really empowering ordinary citizens?
• Is the digital revolution creating a gap between information haves and have nots?
• How does media trust influence the decision to vote or not vote?
Here are three articles that will serve as a starting point:
Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs
Tuesday’s New York Times included an article about small, non-profit media organizations that are breaking big, local stories in several markets around the country.
The contribution of media consumption to civic participation investigates “the association between media consumption and… civic participation.”
http://search.ebscohost.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32122194&site=ehost-live”
Why Do People Watch News They Do Not Trust? The Need for Cognition as a Moderator in the Association Between News Media Skepticism and Exposure asks, and tries to answer: “Why do people watch news they do not trust?”
http://search.ebscohost.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17269290&site=ehost-live
At the moment, I think I need to narrow the scope a bit, but I am going to start exploring and then try to focus the investigation.
Final Paper Idea
For my Final paper I will prognosticate on the impact social media such as Facebook or myBarackObama.com are likely to have on American politics in the future? To that end I will need to explore the history of social media and the intersection of those networks and American politics. Specifically, what is the history of online social network (Facebook, MySpace, etc) and American politics? The online Journal Firstmonday.org has some interesting work on that topic, as seen here: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1977/1852
Additionally, I will need to look at usage trends for online social media, (who is online, and why ). Also, I think a look back at the 2008 presidential campaign, and the inclusion of a powerful online component, as I believe that will be a powerful force in shaping future usage (because everyone will try to copy success). A brief look at Obama's use of the internet to win the presidency is here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/propelled-by-in.html
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Final Assignment: New Media in Journalism: Possibilities & Pitfalls
Marshall McLuhan once said that “every new technology is an amputation.” vs. “No medium disappears, it adapts.” By Jeffrey Cole USC Annenberg Center
What is the downside of the digital revolution, as it pertains to journalism?
1) Historically, was McLuhan correct or not? Answer: Partially.
2) What does this mean for journalism? Possibilities And Pitfalls
3) What are options going forward ?: New Technology, New Rules & New Options.
TED Talk by J. Surowiecki of The Wisdom of Crowds says under certain conditions, the collective knows more than any of its individuals can know.
The positive side of this can be seen in our classroom discussion and highly touted headlines of participatory citizen journalism.
The darker side of this trend is that through forming a network, independence of thought can be easily lost. Networks, by their nature, shape views and interaction of their participants. Paradoxically, without that independence of thought, networks cannot be moved forward but will persist in regurgitation of “accepted” information. These Meme pile-ons can be seductive but with a dangerous undercurrent of action without thought.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.htm
Jeffrey Cole, director of the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. He said: “Traditionally 70 percent of a big-city newspaper has been advertising. There will never come a day that 70 percent of thenewyorktimes.com will be advertising. But while their revenues from advertising may be smaller, they also — if you look at a newspaper’s budget, only 30 percent of it goes to editorial, goes to writers and editors. Seventy percent of it goes to printing and distribution, and those costs almost disappear in a digital world.”
When drastic cuts are required, it seems crazy to focus them on the minority portion of one’s business. Consider taking a chunk out of the printing and distribution side of their expenses by getting out of print, in whole or in part. There are many downsides and risks to that move, of course, but as one attendee at the API summit said, “We have nothing to lose.”
http:/http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/the-newspaper-summit-lots-of-lines-all-going-the-wrong-way
Side-point: include what did EPIC 2015 get right – and wrong in its predictions about the future of news?
What is the downside of the digital revolution, as it pertains to journalism?
1) Historically, was McLuhan correct or not? Answer: Partially.
2) What does this mean for journalism? Possibilities And Pitfalls
3) What are options going forward ?: New Technology, New Rules & New Options.
TED Talk by J. Surowiecki of The Wisdom of Crowds says under certain conditions, the collective knows more than any of its individuals can know.
The positive side of this can be seen in our classroom discussion and highly touted headlines of participatory citizen journalism.
The darker side of this trend is that through forming a network, independence of thought can be easily lost. Networks, by their nature, shape views and interaction of their participants. Paradoxically, without that independence of thought, networks cannot be moved forward but will persist in regurgitation of “accepted” information. These Meme pile-ons can be seductive but with a dangerous undercurrent of action without thought.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.htm
Jeffrey Cole, director of the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future. He said: “Traditionally 70 percent of a big-city newspaper has been advertising. There will never come a day that 70 percent of thenewyorktimes.com will be advertising. But while their revenues from advertising may be smaller, they also — if you look at a newspaper’s budget, only 30 percent of it goes to editorial, goes to writers and editors. Seventy percent of it goes to printing and distribution, and those costs almost disappear in a digital world.”
When drastic cuts are required, it seems crazy to focus them on the minority portion of one’s business. Consider taking a chunk out of the printing and distribution side of their expenses by getting out of print, in whole or in part. There are many downsides and risks to that move, of course, but as one attendee at the API summit said, “We have nothing to lose.”
http:/http://www.niemanlab.org/2008/11/the-newspaper-summit-lots-of-lines-all-going-the-wrong-way
Side-point: include what did EPIC 2015 get right – and wrong in its predictions about the future of news?
“What in the world is happening to the press?” asks Thomas Jefferson…
Has the press gotten too cozy with government?
How does the press get access when government has the power?
How will using tomorrow’s technology help to validate those privileges the press has and help to restore their creditability?
By controlling the airwaves does government control TV news?
One of the media experts I talked to for my mid-term project sees the future similar to what Dave Winer wrote about in his blog in April, 2007—viewers checking blocks to view only the stories they want to hear and putting in keywords to block stories they don’t? Is that what news is becoming? Cafeteria viewing? Just going through the line and taking what you want? Does that make for a well-informed citizen? Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave special privileges to the press?
Steve Boriss talks about what he thinks the Founding Fathers had in mind in his article, “TV News in the Post-Russert Era.” And in that article he raises a good point: “Prior to broadcasting, America got all its news from newspapers, which everyone understood from the First Amendment could not be controlled or manipulated by government. “ He goes on to point out that government has a certain control on TV news because the own the airwaves and the FCC grants licenses. Is that something that needs to change? Does tomorrow’s technology require such governmental control and how would changing that change the future of TV news?
Even I’ll admit I’m a bit all over the board on where I want to take my final paper but this is a start. I do believe that in many ways the government has taken over TV news in far more reaching ways than it ever could have with newspapers. And, that that coziness may be the result of the control government has over the press. Is that a real concern? I want to explore that and its future implications. I welcome feedback.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Final Assignment
12) Marshall McLuhan once said that “every new technology is an amputation.” What is the downside of the digital revolution, as it pertains to journalism or democracy?
If McLuhan was correct when he famously said, "the medium is the message" what does that mean to the future of photojournalism?
As consumer digital cameras get better and cheaper, images are available from any and every event that often rival that of trained photojournalists. Many are more than willing to give those images away for free just for the thrill of having their name in the paper. Where does this leave photojournalists who've spent tens thousands on equipment, education and training? Pro digital cameras are certainly not getting cheaper! With nearly every legacy media having an "Upload your photos/video" here link on their website, where does this leave the traditional freelancer?
And with the cutbacks in legacy media more photojournalists are forced to be freelancers or self-employed. This means they are responsible for the purchase, maintenance and insurance of their equipment and themselves. This is such a financial burden that many freelancers either go without health insurance or they leave journalism entirely. What is the loss to visual imagery? What incredible photos aren't we seeing because someone didn't take them?
Dirck Halstead is the author of several photojournalism books and the editor and publisher of the Digital Journalist. He published an interesting article on the Future of Photojournalism in 2007.
Also, the Columbia Journalism Review has an article on this topic published in the July/August issue focusing on the Flickr.com issue: http://www.cjr.org/essay/flickring_out_1.php
One of the biggest potential downsizes to the growth of consumer/flickr photographers breaking into the news business is the lack of training of what is and is not acceptable to do to a journalistic photo. PhotoShop is an incredible tool, but there are (and should be) strict limitations to what a photographer can do to alter a photo.
Additionally I plan to talk to staff photographers are various newspapers, freelancers , writers who are now expected to shoot, and some of the "Flickr-type" photographers so I can have as many viewpoints as possible.
If McLuhan was correct when he famously said, "the medium is the message" what does that mean to the future of photojournalism?
As consumer digital cameras get better and cheaper, images are available from any and every event that often rival that of trained photojournalists. Many are more than willing to give those images away for free just for the thrill of having their name in the paper. Where does this leave photojournalists who've spent tens thousands on equipment, education and training? Pro digital cameras are certainly not getting cheaper! With nearly every legacy media having an "Upload your photos/video" here link on their website, where does this leave the traditional freelancer?
And with the cutbacks in legacy media more photojournalists are forced to be freelancers or self-employed. This means they are responsible for the purchase, maintenance and insurance of their equipment and themselves. This is such a financial burden that many freelancers either go without health insurance or they leave journalism entirely. What is the loss to visual imagery? What incredible photos aren't we seeing because someone didn't take them?
Dirck Halstead is the author of several photojournalism books and the editor and publisher of the Digital Journalist. He published an interesting article on the Future of Photojournalism in 2007.
Also, the Columbia Journalism Review has an article on this topic published in the July/August issue focusing on the Flickr.com issue: http://www.cjr.org/essay/flickring_out_1.php
One of the biggest potential downsizes to the growth of consumer/flickr photographers breaking into the news business is the lack of training of what is and is not acceptable to do to a journalistic photo. PhotoShop is an incredible tool, but there are (and should be) strict limitations to what a photographer can do to alter a photo.
Additionally I plan to talk to staff photographers are various newspapers, freelancers , writers who are now expected to shoot, and some of the "Flickr-type" photographers so I can have as many viewpoints as possible.
Social Media and Politics
Topic Question: What impact are social media such as Facebook or myBarackObama.com
likely to have on American politics in the future?
Research Questions:
How did social media effect the 2008 election & future elections?
How are people using social media to get involved in politics, are they getting involved or just standing on the sidelines?
How are the politicians adapting social media?
Does Social media create a more informed citizen?
Sites/Links:
Connecting with the president. (CNN article on Obama's Blackberry usage)
No president has yet to use email service while in office because it can be tracked. What does that mean for future presidents who use technology and social media?
Fireside Chats. (change.gov/youtube.com)
Obama releases fireside chats via Youtube. The president is connecting to anyone at anytime they wish to listen in. This is being picked up by many sites, and not staying just on the change.gov site.
Marketing of a President. (Harvard Business Review)
Detailing how Obama used technology and communication to win the presidency. His campaign was able to get people interested and motivated in the election. How can social media keep the momentum going.
Social Media Biz. (Socialmedia.biz)
Providing background on social media and how it makes Obama the first "two way" president.
likely to have on American politics in the future?
Research Questions:
How did social media effect the 2008 election & future elections?
How are people using social media to get involved in politics, are they getting involved or just standing on the sidelines?
How are the politicians adapting social media?
Does Social media create a more informed citizen?
Sites/Links:
Connecting with the president. (CNN article on Obama's Blackberry usage)
No president has yet to use email service while in office because it can be tracked. What does that mean for future presidents who use technology and social media?
Fireside Chats. (change.gov/youtube.com)
Obama releases fireside chats via Youtube. The president is connecting to anyone at anytime they wish to listen in. This is being picked up by many sites, and not staying just on the change.gov site.
Marketing of a President. (Harvard Business Review)
Detailing how Obama used technology and communication to win the presidency. His campaign was able to get people interested and motivated in the election. How can social media keep the momentum going.
Social Media Biz. (Socialmedia.biz)
Providing background on social media and how it makes Obama the first "two way" president.
For the final assignment:
7) Can “citizen journalism” fill the gap created by the decline of legacy media?
1) What is citizen journalism? What is a citizen journalist? Provide definitions and background.
3) Predictions
Funding organizations like the Knight Foundation have taken an active interest in citizen journalism and how to move forward, and have been awarding grants for proposals like this from Tim Berners-Lee:
The question also relates to discussions I am having (mostly with myself so far) on my blog especially in the category, “Challenges to the Legacy Media." The research and paper for the final assignment should provide plenty of material for that as well.
7) Can “citizen journalism” fill the gap created by the decline of legacy media?
1) What is citizen journalism? What is a citizen journalist? Provide definitions and background.
“A blogal citizen: I like to call this new medium of ours citizens' media. "Citizen" connotes belonging and that is why I like the word as a substitute for the old-fashioned, one-way notions of readers, viewers, listeners, consumers. Citizens belong. Citizens join. Citizens own. Citizens act. So I ask myself: Citizen of where? Citizen of what?” (Jeff Jarvis, Buzzflash, 2004)
"The terms citizen journalism and citizen journalist are not popular among traditional journalists or even the people who are doing citizen journalism at the ground level because they are imprecise definitions. Aren't professional journalists citizens as well? What if you're an illegal alien and not really a citizen -- does that invalidate your work? (Mark Glazer, "Your Guide to Citizen Journalism," PBS)2) Is citizen journalism a “legitimate” replacement for news from the professionals who make up the legacy media? What does it offer that legacy journalism does not? Can citizen journalism be incorporated into legacy media sites?
“Therefore freedom of the press belongs equally to the amateur and the pro. As does journalism, including its essential practices. The pros may be in a better position to excel at those practices but they do not “own” them.” (Jay Rosen, Pressthink)
"... the digital economy has transformed that marketplace for news and information from one of scarcity to one of abundance. In today’s landscape many people don’t want to pay a few pennies every day for a product they may not use every day and they have to dispose of every day." (“Journalism 2.0: How to Survive and Thrive,” Mark Briggs, 2007)There are an increasing number of hybrid organizations using both citizen journalism and legacy media, OhMyNews in Korea, Public Insight Journalism (Minnesota Public Radio), MinnPost, and TPMmuckraker, to name a few.
3) Predictions
Funding organizations like the Knight Foundation have taken an active interest in citizen journalism and how to move forward, and have been awarding grants for proposals like this from Tim Berners-Lee:
“With the copious amounts of information – and misinformation – on the Internet, the public needs more help finding fair, accurate and contextual news.” (Proposal summary)Citizen journalism is not just a print phenomenon. It applies to video as well, and how the two go together.
“We think we’ve lived in an information freedom. We’ve actually lived in the Soviet Union of video for the last seventy years; three channels, here’s the truth, we’ll tell you, you sit and you shut up and you take it. Now for the first time, millions and millions of people are going to get video cameras and begin to make content that’s going to be an explosion of content. It’s going to be very, very messy and very uncertain, but geez, that’s what a free press is all about. It’s about being messy.” (Michael Rosenblum, C-SPAN Q and A, Nov. 16, 2008)
"Blame doesn’t matter. Journalists unwilling to think and work differently to save the profession should take the next buyout." "The Latest Death-of-Journalism Spat, Condensed for Easy Reading!" November 16, 2008 by Craig Stoltz, Web2.Oh...Really?
The question also relates to discussions I am having (mostly with myself so far) on my blog especially in the category, “Challenges to the Legacy Media." The research and paper for the final assignment should provide plenty of material for that as well.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Internet + democracy = ?
For my final project, I am interested in the question: How will the digital revolution impact the way that government/democracy works?
This project should answer the following questions:
-How will it change the status quo?
-Will it make things better, more efficient?
-What challenges will it present?
-Will it help more people get involved?
Here are a few examples of sites that relate to democracy and the Internet:
President-elect Obama's site
This site was launched after the election of President-elect Barack Obama as a tool to communicate to the public regarding his policies and the transition to the presidency. Technologically, it's unprecedented and will change how politicians communicate with the public.
E-Democracy Issues List
This site is the home repository for an e-mail listserve for people in Minneapolis to discuss city issues. It provides links to community papers and resources and allows people a forum to discuss civic issues. It was started (and is managed) by MinnPost writer David Brauer.
Minnesota Politics Issues Forum
This site is a forum with an e-mail listserve for the public to discuss Minnesota politics and policy issues. The issues it covers have some overlap with the Minneapolis E-Democracy Issues list, but it is state wide. Also, it claims to be the longest running e-mail group in the world.
This project should answer the following questions:
-How will it change the status quo?
-Will it make things better, more efficient?
-What challenges will it present?
-Will it help more people get involved?
Here are a few examples of sites that relate to democracy and the Internet:
President-elect Obama's site
This site was launched after the election of President-elect Barack Obama as a tool to communicate to the public regarding his policies and the transition to the presidency. Technologically, it's unprecedented and will change how politicians communicate with the public.
E-Democracy Issues List
This site is the home repository for an e-mail listserve for people in Minneapolis to discuss city issues. It provides links to community papers and resources and allows people a forum to discuss civic issues. It was started (and is managed) by MinnPost writer David Brauer.
Minnesota Politics Issues Forum
This site is a forum with an e-mail listserve for the public to discuss Minnesota politics and policy issues. The issues it covers have some overlap with the Minneapolis E-Democracy Issues list, but it is state wide. Also, it claims to be the longest running e-mail group in the world.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Future of Photography
My question for the final course project will be how stock photo agencies are a tool of journalists to publish photography stories and get coverage out to the highest bidder.
My questions at present are: How are stock images used by news sources at present? Is there a role that micro-stock can or does play in this environment? What is the future of the stock industry as a source of news footage in general? What could stock agencies do to the staff photographer?
At the moment, I have a few sources in mind. One is the recent edition of Photo District News in which they discuss stock photography, another will be some of stock agencies involved in the stories. I will also use a tool that I used in my mid-term blog project: a question and answer model in which I use the blog to post questions to which photographers and videographers from any discipline can post answers. The blog is called Photography Futures. This is a work in progress at present. While the breadth of the blog will be wider than the information I use for the class, it is a planned source within my bibliography assuming I get some relevant postings to my photojournalism questions.
My questions at present are: How are stock images used by news sources at present? Is there a role that micro-stock can or does play in this environment? What is the future of the stock industry as a source of news footage in general? What could stock agencies do to the staff photographer?
At the moment, I have a few sources in mind. One is the recent edition of Photo District News in which they discuss stock photography, another will be some of stock agencies involved in the stories. I will also use a tool that I used in my mid-term blog project: a question and answer model in which I use the blog to post questions to which photographers and videographers from any discipline can post answers. The blog is called Photography Futures. This is a work in progress at present. While the breadth of the blog will be wider than the information I use for the class, it is a planned source within my bibliography assuming I get some relevant postings to my photojournalism questions.
Final Assignment
“Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.”
Niels Bohr.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H.L. Mencken
Your assignment for the final paper is to ask and answer an interesting question about the future of our media and/or our democracy.
You are welcome to choose one of the questions I have listed below, or to come up with your own question. In either case, I would like you to write a post to the class blog before Wednesday - in which you:
1) State your topic question (you can always change it later), and then list at least 2-3 questions you need to research to answer your question.
2) Find at least a couple of relevant sources online, and include links in your post. Describe each source in a sentence or two.
You may choose the same topic question as somebody who has posted before you, but you should come up with different research questions, and different links.
Here are some examples of questions that I think are interesting:
1) What impact are social media such as Facebook or myBarackObama.com likely to have on American politics in the future?
2) What impact will the digital revolution have on how government functions (at either the local or national level)?
3) What impact will the digital revolution have on the American two-party system?
4) What did EPIC 2015 get right – and wrong in its predictions about the future of news?
5) Will newspapers survive until 2018 – and how will they evolve?
6) In the brave new digital world, how can we know whom to trust and what to believe?
7) Can “citizen journalism” fill the gap created by the decline of legacy media?
8) What is crowd-sourcing, and what role can it play in the future of journalism?
9) Is the digital revolution really empowering ordinary citizens, and is that a good thing?
10) Who has been disenfranchised by the digital revolution, and what can we do about it?
11) 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 competent to use it?
12) Marshall McLuhan once said that “every new technology is an amputation.” What is the downside of the digital revolution, as it pertains to journalism or democracy?
Good luck,
Jeremy
Niels Bohr.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H.L. Mencken
Your assignment for the final paper is to ask and answer an interesting question about the future of our media and/or our democracy.
You are welcome to choose one of the questions I have listed below, or to come up with your own question. In either case, I would like you to write a post to the class blog before Wednesday - in which you:
1) State your topic question (you can always change it later), and then list at least 2-3 questions you need to research to answer your question.
2) Find at least a couple of relevant sources online, and include links in your post. Describe each source in a sentence or two.
You may choose the same topic question as somebody who has posted before you, but you should come up with different research questions, and different links.
Here are some examples of questions that I think are interesting:
1) What impact are social media such as Facebook or myBarackObama.com likely to have on American politics in the future?
2) What impact will the digital revolution have on how government functions (at either the local or national level)?
3) What impact will the digital revolution have on the American two-party system?
4) What did EPIC 2015 get right – and wrong in its predictions about the future of news?
5) Will newspapers survive until 2018 – and how will they evolve?
6) In the brave new digital world, how can we know whom to trust and what to believe?
7) Can “citizen journalism” fill the gap created by the decline of legacy media?
8) What is crowd-sourcing, and what role can it play in the future of journalism?
9) Is the digital revolution really empowering ordinary citizens, and is that a good thing?
10) Who has been disenfranchised by the digital revolution, and what can we do about it?
11) 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 competent to use it?
12) Marshall McLuhan once said that “every new technology is an amputation.” What is the downside of the digital revolution, as it pertains to journalism or democracy?
Good luck,
Jeremy
A Modest Proposal
A Bailout Plan For U.S. Newspapers
Tongue & Cheek Lobbying Innovations LLC Greets the Obama Administration with a call for financial aid on behalf of endangered newspapers
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_47/b4109124802970.htm
Tongue & Cheek Lobbying Innovations LLC Greets the Obama Administration with a call for financial aid on behalf of endangered newspapers
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_47/b4109124802970.htm
Thursday, November 13, 2008
“Today every man has two countries — his own and America,”
The article "Rest of world to U.S.: We have a stake, too" is very good . Prof. Jeremy brought up this subject last week and I think you will all enjoy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27455097/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27455097/
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Blogging Journalists... do they sacrifice their objectivity as a blogger?
In the course of interviewing four media experts for my mid-term project we got into journalists as bloggers as they each discussed their definition of a journalist. One of "experts" sent me this article that appears in today's Editor and publisher... the article "The End of 'Objectivity in New Journalism: A Good Thing?"... raises issues germane to our discussion on the use of technology in the future of journalism... should standards change based on the medium a journalist uses?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Another "Future of Journalism Event"
Does Journalism Have a Future?
Date:Monday, November 17, 2008
Time:7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location:Coffman Memorial Union Theater
300 Washington Ave. S.E.City/Town:Minneapolis, MN
To celebrate its centennial, the National Press Club is organizing forums across the country on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and the future of journalism. A panel of leading local journalists will discuss where the news business is going and
how to preserve its core values.
Panelists include Thom Fladung, Editor, St. Paul Pioneer Press; Nancy Barnes, Editor, Star Tribune; Joel Kramer, CEO and Editor, MinnPost; Nora Paul, Director, Institute for New Media Studies, and Moderator, Alan Bjerga, Bloomberg News and National Press Club
treasurer. Co-sponsored by the Minnesota Journalism Center.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Practicing Journalists' Commentaries Welcome
I have not yet completed my blog, but I have added something that I hope will act as a forum for practicing journalists to answer questions I post. I have made it as anonymous as one might like to be when posting. I figured this way, even though there may be some abuse of the system by "Blammers" (my term for blog spammers), I have a good chance of getting some honest feedback from practicing journalists who may wish to remain anonymous. I encourage you all to post answers to these questions if you are so inclined, and to ask your journalist friends to post as well. Here is the link to my Coveragewatch blog
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Articles on Obama '08 Marketing ... Ad Age
How Obama Killed 'Election Day' and Became President
Axelrod & Co. Understood Time Shifting and Consumer Control
Posted by Pete Snyder on 11.05.08
Pete Snyder
There is no doubt that this year presented the toughest political climate for Republicans since Watergate; indeed, this campaign has been an uphill fight for John McCain or any GOP nominee. That said, Barack Obama, David Axelrod and their team deserve a huge amount of respect and credit for running a nearly flawless campaign.
They didn't fight today's war with yesterday's weapons and, most importantly, their campaign was based on a superior strategy. For the purposes of this column, let's forget about the issues, let's forget about the climate and let's ignore message for a moment. The simple fact is that Obama and his campaign chiefs understood two of the most significant (but little talked about) changes of this campaign cycle:
The election timetable fundamentally shifted from being just about Election Day or even the last 72 hours (as was the rule of thumb for decades) to being decided as early as six weeks in advance.
Due to the seismic changes in how voters get and process information that we marketers have seen for quite some time the voter, just like the consumer, is now in control and thus would be open to making his or her voting decisions earlier than ever.
Combined, these two critical assumptions turned D.C. conventional wisdom on its head and helped provide Obama with a major strategic advantage over McCain. Here's how:
Starting with Obama's huge upset in Iowa, the ensuing Hillary-Obama 50-state death match altered the rules of the game. Historically, a handful of early primary and caucus states would decide this thing in about 45 days (usually less than 1% of all voters in the country) and most Americans wouldn't feel compelled to engage until the fall. Instead, the clash of the Democrat titans drove millions of Americans to the polls because -- for the first time in a primary -- their vote actually could make a difference.
The Obama camp recognized that something very different was going on here. It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions, including the granddaddy of them all, Americans don't tune into elections until after Labor Day. Obama's campaign geared its online and off-line engagement and advertising to build on this unprecedented early interest and mobilized it into an effective ground game to get out their vote.
While McCain came back from the dead after his campaign nearly went bankrupt and all of the pundits wrote him off, his path to the nomination was actually easier and wrapped up nearly three months before Obama crossed the magic delegate threshold. McCain rested, reshuffled his campaign staff, worked on replenishing his coffers and set his sights on the convention and the traditional post-Labor Day blitz.
Obama acted quite differently. Having opted-out of his promise to abide by campaign finance laws (which proved to be one of his shrewdest and smartest moves), he went for broke. His campaign started pouring millions of dollars into opening scores of campaign offices in all 50 states, many in areas that Democrats hadn't contested in decades. In the traditionally GOP-favoring Colorado, Obama set up 59 campaign offices to McCain's 13.
Why did he take this expensive gamble? Because of the internet and rise of social media, this was the first time where it actually made sense to run a 50-state campaign. In the past, each party would focus its efforts in getting out the vote in its respective solid "D" or solid "R" states and pour hundred of millions of dollars fighting it out over a handful of "battleground states."
This time around, everyone counted. And given the power of social media, everyone who has the interest has the ability to influence and mobilize networks of friends. A blue dot in a sea of red could now make a real impact, both vote-wise and dollar-wise, to a presidential campaign. Obama got this and McCain really didn't.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pete Snyder is the founder and CEO of New Media Strategies. He also is a former GOP pollster and media consultant. Full-disclosure: He voted for McCain.
In an equally risky, yet ultimately effective move, Obama's campaign took to the airwaves during the summer months. Over the summer alone, Obama and the DNC outspent McCain and the GOP by nearly 10 to 1 in Virginia, a reliably red state in presidential elections since voting for Lyndon Johnson in '64. This strategy paid off by shaping early opinions (and thus, polls) about Obama, driving dollars and volunteers into his campaign and forcing McCain to spend precious resources in a state he expected to have in the GOP column.
More importantly, Obama realized that the defined "time" of the election timetable fundamentally changed. For decades, campaign models were built upon the premise that you raised all of your dollars and put all of your infrastructure -- including TV advertising and direct mail -- toward a call to action, driving turnout for 12 hours or so on Nov. 4. In 2000, Karl Rove swore that Republicans would never lose the ground game again after the Bush team took a lead into Election Day and were blindsided by the huge surge in voter turnout for Al Gore. Rove changed the election timetable from 12 hours to the last 72 hours, thus creating the effective and much heralded (or reviled, depending on where you sit) "72 hours program" that has dominated the efforts of both parties for the past three campaign cycles.
As we marketers understand, much has changed over the past six years in how consumers, let alone voters, gather and process information and then make decisions. Voters have more access to information and more touch-points and influencers in their lives than ever before. Oftentimes, this causes consumers and voters to make decisions on brands they like, products they want to buy or candidates they want to support much earlier than they did in years and decades past. The engagement and interest in Campaign 2008 never really subsided; it continued to grow. As a former pollster, across the board I saw the "undecideds" shrink much earlier than in past cycles. Voters were making up their minds earlier than in the past.
Virginia allowed early voting six weeks in advance. By the time Election Day actually rolled around, nearly 35% to 40% of the entire electorate of America had already voted. Because both consumers and voters are now in control, in many places there is no longer an Election Day. It's been replaced by "election month." Obama geared his campaign strategy around these two massive shifts and reaped the rewards. The coup de grace: When the global economic collapse hit over five weeks ago it stopped the clock for the media, making it virtually impossible for a competing story to garner any major attention, thus freezing McCain in time.
This is not to say that Obama and all of his advisers are geniuses and McCain and all of his campaign chieftains are incompetent. That is hardly the case. At times, McCain used brilliant tactics and knocked Obama off balance late in the summer and through the GOP convention. In a strategic sense, however, the McCain camp was out-thought and out-gunned. The campaign had no overarching narrative and was built on an outdated model. Indeed, it was much smaller than the man it attempted to represent.
The much-heralded 72-hour campaign is dead. Election Day is no longer. Voters, like consumers, are now in control.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Alison Coffey wrote:
Personally, I don't agree w/ all of it but worth a read for our purposes:
What Marketers Can Learn From Obama's Campaign
Change -- and Positioning -- You Can Believe in
By Al Ries
Published: November 05, 2008
Nov. 4, 2008, will go down in history as the biggest day ever in the history of marketing.
Take a relatively unknown man. Younger than all of his opponents. Black. With a bad-sounding name. Consider his first opponent: the best-known woman in America, connected to one of the most successful politicians in history. Then consider his second opponent: a well-known war hero with a long, distinguished record as a U.S. senator.
Obama owns the 'change' idea in voters' minds.
Photo Credit: AP
It didn't matter. Barack Obama had a better marketing strategy than either of them. "Change."
Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the "big lie." According to Goebbels, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
The opposite of that strategy is the "big truth." If you tell the truth often enough and keep repeating it, the truth gets bigger and bigger, creating an aura of legitimacy and authenticity.
Clinton's 'solutions' fizzle
What word did Hillary Clinton own? First she tried "experience." When she saw the progress Mr. Obama was making, she shifted to "Countdown to change." Then when the critics pointed out her me-too approach, she shifted to "Solutions for America."
What word is associated with Ms. Clinton today? I don't know, do you?
Then there's John McCain. An Oct. 26 cover story in The New York Times Magazine was titled "The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate." The visual listed some of the labels the candidate was associated with: "Conservative. Maverick. Hero. Straight talker. Commander. Bipartisan conciliator. Experienced leader. Patriot." Subhead: "When a Campaign Can't Settle on a Central Narrative, Does It Imperil Its Protagonist?"
Actually, Mr. McCain did settle on a slogan, "Country first," but it was way too late in the campaign and it was a slogan that had little relevance to the average voter.
Tactically, both Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain focused their messages on "I can do change better than my opponent can do change."
"Better" never works in marketing. The only thing that works in marketing is "different." When you're different, you can pre-empt the concept in consumers' minds so your competitors can never take it away from you.
The ultimate slogan
Look at what "driving" has done for BMW. Are there vehicles that are more fun to drive than BMWs? Probably, but it doesn't matter. BMW has pre-empted the "driving" position in the mind.
The sad fact is that there are only a few dozen brands that own a word in the mind and most of them don't even use their words as slogans. Mercedes-Benz owns "prestige," but doesn't use the word as a slogan. Toyota owns "reliability," but doesn't use the word as a slogan. Coca-Cola owns "the real thing," but doesn't use the words as a slogan. Pepsi-Cola owns "Pepsi generation," but doesn't use the words as a slogan.
As a matter of fact, most brands follow the Pepsi pattern. Every time they get a new CMO or a new advertising agency, they change the slogan. Since 1975, BMW has used one slogan: "The ultimate driving machine." Since 1975, Pepsi-Cola has used these advertising slogans:
1975: "For those who think young."
1978: "Have a Pepsi day."
1980: "Catch that Pepsi spirit."
1982: "Pepsi's got your taste for life."
1983: "Pepsi now."
1984: "The choice of a new generation."
1989: "A generation ahead."
1990: "Pepsi: The choice of a new generation."
1992: "Gotta have it."
1993: "Be young. Have fun. Drink Pepsi."
1995: "Nothing else is a Pepsi."
2002: "Generation next."
2003: "Think young. Drink young."
2004: "It's the cola."
Thirty-three years ago when the "Ultimate driving machine" campaign started, BMW was the 11th-largest-selling European imported vehicle in the U.S. market. Today it's No. 1.
Thirty-three years ago, Pepsi-Cola was the No. 2-selling cola in the U.S. market. Today, many advertising slogans later, it's still No. 2.
The average Pepsi-Cola advertising slogan lasts just two years and two months. The average chief marketing officer lasts just two years and two months. The average corporate advertising campaign in BusinessWeek lasts just two years and six months.
The Obama campaign has a lot to teach the advertising community.
1. Simplicity. About 70% of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, hence Obama's focus on the word "change." Why didn't talented politicians like Ms. Clinton and John Edwards consider using this concept?
Based on my experience, in the boardrooms of corporate America "change" is an idea that is too simple to sell. Corporate executives are looking for advertising concepts that are "clever." For all the money being spent, corporate executives want something they couldn't have thought of themselves. Hopefully, something exceedingly clever.
Here is a sampling of slogans from a recent issue of BusinessWeek:
Chicago Graduate School of Business: "Triumph in your moment of truth."
Darden School of Business: "High touch. High tone. High energy."
Salesforce.com: "Your future is looking up."
Zurich: "Because change happenz."
CDW: "The right technology. Right away."
Hitachi: "Inspire the next."
NEC: "Empowered by innovation."
Deutsche Bank: "A passion to perform."
SKF: "The power of knowledge engineering."
Some of these slogans might be clever, some might be inspiring and some might be descriptive of the company's product line, but none will ever drive the company's business in the way that "change" drove the Obama campaign. They're not simple enough.
2. Consistency. What's wrong with 90% of all advertising? Companies try to "communicate" when they should be trying to "position."
Mr. Obama's objective was not to communicate the fact that he was an agent of change. In today's environment, every politician running for the country's highest office was presenting him or herself as an agent of change. What Mr. Obama actually did was to repeat the "change" message over and over again, so that potential voters identified Mr. Obama with the concept. In other words, he owns the "change" idea in voters' minds.
In today's overcommunicated society, it takes endless repetition to achieve this effect. For a typical consumer brand, that might mean years and years of advertising and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Most companies don't have the money, don't have the patience and don't have the vision to achieve what Mr. Obama did. They jerk from one message to another, hoping for a magic bullet that will energize their brands. That doesn't work today. That is especially ineffective for a politician because it creates an aura of vacillation and indecisiveness, fatal qualities for someone looking to move up the political ladder.
The only thing that works today is the BMW approach. Consistency, consistency, consistency -- over decades, if not longer.
But not with a dull slogan. Hitachi has been "inspiring the next" for as long as I can remember, but with little success.
Effective slogans needs to be simple and grounded in reality. What next has Hitachi ever inspired? Red ink, maybe. In the past 10 years, Hitachi has had sales of $786.9 billion and managed to lose $5.1 billion. When you put your corporate name on everything, as Hitachi does, it's difficult to make money because it's difficult to make the brand stand for anything.
3. Relevance. "If you're losing the battle, shift the battlefield" is an old military axiom that applies equally as well to marketing. By his relentless focus on change, Mr. Obama shifted the political battlefield. He forced his opponents to devote much of their campaign time discussing changes they proposed for the country. And how their changes would differ from the changes that he proposed.
All the talk about "change" distracted both Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain from talking about their strengths: their track records, their experience and their relationships with world leaders.
As you probably know, Mr. Obama was selected as Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year by the executives attending the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference in Orlando last month. But one wonders if these CMOs are getting the message.
As one marketing executive said: "I look at it as something that we can all learn from as marketers. To see what he's done, to be able to create a social network and do it in a way where it's created the tools to let people get engaged very easily. It's very easy for people to participate."
Whatever happened to "change"?
~ ~ ~
In addition to his monthly AdAge.com column, Al and his daughter and partner Laura Ries host a weekly video report at www.RiesReport.com.
Axelrod & Co. Understood Time Shifting and Consumer Control
Posted by Pete Snyder on 11.05.08
Pete Snyder
There is no doubt that this year presented the toughest political climate for Republicans since Watergate; indeed, this campaign has been an uphill fight for John McCain or any GOP nominee. That said, Barack Obama, David Axelrod and their team deserve a huge amount of respect and credit for running a nearly flawless campaign.
They didn't fight today's war with yesterday's weapons and, most importantly, their campaign was based on a superior strategy. For the purposes of this column, let's forget about the issues, let's forget about the climate and let's ignore message for a moment. The simple fact is that Obama and his campaign chiefs understood two of the most significant (but little talked about) changes of this campaign cycle:
The election timetable fundamentally shifted from being just about Election Day or even the last 72 hours (as was the rule of thumb for decades) to being decided as early as six weeks in advance.
Due to the seismic changes in how voters get and process information that we marketers have seen for quite some time the voter, just like the consumer, is now in control and thus would be open to making his or her voting decisions earlier than ever.
Combined, these two critical assumptions turned D.C. conventional wisdom on its head and helped provide Obama with a major strategic advantage over McCain. Here's how:
Starting with Obama's huge upset in Iowa, the ensuing Hillary-Obama 50-state death match altered the rules of the game. Historically, a handful of early primary and caucus states would decide this thing in about 45 days (usually less than 1% of all voters in the country) and most Americans wouldn't feel compelled to engage until the fall. Instead, the clash of the Democrat titans drove millions of Americans to the polls because -- for the first time in a primary -- their vote actually could make a difference.
The Obama camp recognized that something very different was going on here. It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions, including the granddaddy of them all, Americans don't tune into elections until after Labor Day. Obama's campaign geared its online and off-line engagement and advertising to build on this unprecedented early interest and mobilized it into an effective ground game to get out their vote.
While McCain came back from the dead after his campaign nearly went bankrupt and all of the pundits wrote him off, his path to the nomination was actually easier and wrapped up nearly three months before Obama crossed the magic delegate threshold. McCain rested, reshuffled his campaign staff, worked on replenishing his coffers and set his sights on the convention and the traditional post-Labor Day blitz.
Obama acted quite differently. Having opted-out of his promise to abide by campaign finance laws (which proved to be one of his shrewdest and smartest moves), he went for broke. His campaign started pouring millions of dollars into opening scores of campaign offices in all 50 states, many in areas that Democrats hadn't contested in decades. In the traditionally GOP-favoring Colorado, Obama set up 59 campaign offices to McCain's 13.
Why did he take this expensive gamble? Because of the internet and rise of social media, this was the first time where it actually made sense to run a 50-state campaign. In the past, each party would focus its efforts in getting out the vote in its respective solid "D" or solid "R" states and pour hundred of millions of dollars fighting it out over a handful of "battleground states."
This time around, everyone counted. And given the power of social media, everyone who has the interest has the ability to influence and mobilize networks of friends. A blue dot in a sea of red could now make a real impact, both vote-wise and dollar-wise, to a presidential campaign. Obama got this and McCain really didn't.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pete Snyder is the founder and CEO of New Media Strategies. He also is a former GOP pollster and media consultant. Full-disclosure: He voted for McCain.
In an equally risky, yet ultimately effective move, Obama's campaign took to the airwaves during the summer months. Over the summer alone, Obama and the DNC outspent McCain and the GOP by nearly 10 to 1 in Virginia, a reliably red state in presidential elections since voting for Lyndon Johnson in '64. This strategy paid off by shaping early opinions (and thus, polls) about Obama, driving dollars and volunteers into his campaign and forcing McCain to spend precious resources in a state he expected to have in the GOP column.
More importantly, Obama realized that the defined "time" of the election timetable fundamentally changed. For decades, campaign models were built upon the premise that you raised all of your dollars and put all of your infrastructure -- including TV advertising and direct mail -- toward a call to action, driving turnout for 12 hours or so on Nov. 4. In 2000, Karl Rove swore that Republicans would never lose the ground game again after the Bush team took a lead into Election Day and were blindsided by the huge surge in voter turnout for Al Gore. Rove changed the election timetable from 12 hours to the last 72 hours, thus creating the effective and much heralded (or reviled, depending on where you sit) "72 hours program" that has dominated the efforts of both parties for the past three campaign cycles.
As we marketers understand, much has changed over the past six years in how consumers, let alone voters, gather and process information and then make decisions. Voters have more access to information and more touch-points and influencers in their lives than ever before. Oftentimes, this causes consumers and voters to make decisions on brands they like, products they want to buy or candidates they want to support much earlier than they did in years and decades past. The engagement and interest in Campaign 2008 never really subsided; it continued to grow. As a former pollster, across the board I saw the "undecideds" shrink much earlier than in past cycles. Voters were making up their minds earlier than in the past.
Virginia allowed early voting six weeks in advance. By the time Election Day actually rolled around, nearly 35% to 40% of the entire electorate of America had already voted. Because both consumers and voters are now in control, in many places there is no longer an Election Day. It's been replaced by "election month." Obama geared his campaign strategy around these two massive shifts and reaped the rewards. The coup de grace: When the global economic collapse hit over five weeks ago it stopped the clock for the media, making it virtually impossible for a competing story to garner any major attention, thus freezing McCain in time.
This is not to say that Obama and all of his advisers are geniuses and McCain and all of his campaign chieftains are incompetent. That is hardly the case. At times, McCain used brilliant tactics and knocked Obama off balance late in the summer and through the GOP convention. In a strategic sense, however, the McCain camp was out-thought and out-gunned. The campaign had no overarching narrative and was built on an outdated model. Indeed, it was much smaller than the man it attempted to represent.
The much-heralded 72-hour campaign is dead. Election Day is no longer. Voters, like consumers, are now in control.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Alison Coffey
Personally, I don't agree w/ all of it but worth a read for our purposes:
What Marketers Can Learn From Obama's Campaign
Change -- and Positioning -- You Can Believe in
By Al Ries
Published: November 05, 2008
Nov. 4, 2008, will go down in history as the biggest day ever in the history of marketing.
Take a relatively unknown man. Younger than all of his opponents. Black. With a bad-sounding name. Consider his first opponent: the best-known woman in America, connected to one of the most successful politicians in history. Then consider his second opponent: a well-known war hero with a long, distinguished record as a U.S. senator.
Obama owns the 'change' idea in voters' minds.
Photo Credit: AP
It didn't matter. Barack Obama had a better marketing strategy than either of them. "Change."
Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the "big lie." According to Goebbels, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
The opposite of that strategy is the "big truth." If you tell the truth often enough and keep repeating it, the truth gets bigger and bigger, creating an aura of legitimacy and authenticity.
Clinton's 'solutions' fizzle
What word did Hillary Clinton own? First she tried "experience." When she saw the progress Mr. Obama was making, she shifted to "Countdown to change." Then when the critics pointed out her me-too approach, she shifted to "Solutions for America."
What word is associated with Ms. Clinton today? I don't know, do you?
Then there's John McCain. An Oct. 26 cover story in The New York Times Magazine was titled "The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate." The visual listed some of the labels the candidate was associated with: "Conservative. Maverick. Hero. Straight talker. Commander. Bipartisan conciliator. Experienced leader. Patriot." Subhead: "When a Campaign Can't Settle on a Central Narrative, Does It Imperil Its Protagonist?"
Actually, Mr. McCain did settle on a slogan, "Country first," but it was way too late in the campaign and it was a slogan that had little relevance to the average voter.
Tactically, both Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain focused their messages on "I can do change better than my opponent can do change."
"Better" never works in marketing. The only thing that works in marketing is "different." When you're different, you can pre-empt the concept in consumers' minds so your competitors can never take it away from you.
The ultimate slogan
Look at what "driving" has done for BMW. Are there vehicles that are more fun to drive than BMWs? Probably, but it doesn't matter. BMW has pre-empted the "driving" position in the mind.
The sad fact is that there are only a few dozen brands that own a word in the mind and most of them don't even use their words as slogans. Mercedes-Benz owns "prestige," but doesn't use the word as a slogan. Toyota owns "reliability," but doesn't use the word as a slogan. Coca-Cola owns "the real thing," but doesn't use the words as a slogan. Pepsi-Cola owns "Pepsi generation," but doesn't use the words as a slogan.
As a matter of fact, most brands follow the Pepsi pattern. Every time they get a new CMO or a new advertising agency, they change the slogan. Since 1975, BMW has used one slogan: "The ultimate driving machine." Since 1975, Pepsi-Cola has used these advertising slogans:
1975: "For those who think young."
1978: "Have a Pepsi day."
1980: "Catch that Pepsi spirit."
1982: "Pepsi's got your taste for life."
1983: "Pepsi now."
1984: "The choice of a new generation."
1989: "A generation ahead."
1990: "Pepsi: The choice of a new generation."
1992: "Gotta have it."
1993: "Be young. Have fun. Drink Pepsi."
1995: "Nothing else is a Pepsi."
2002: "Generation next."
2003: "Think young. Drink young."
2004: "It's the cola."
Thirty-three years ago when the "Ultimate driving machine" campaign started, BMW was the 11th-largest-selling European imported vehicle in the U.S. market. Today it's No. 1.
Thirty-three years ago, Pepsi-Cola was the No. 2-selling cola in the U.S. market. Today, many advertising slogans later, it's still No. 2.
The average Pepsi-Cola advertising slogan lasts just two years and two months. The average chief marketing officer lasts just two years and two months. The average corporate advertising campaign in BusinessWeek lasts just two years and six months.
The Obama campaign has a lot to teach the advertising community.
1. Simplicity. About 70% of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, hence Obama's focus on the word "change." Why didn't talented politicians like Ms. Clinton and John Edwards consider using this concept?
Based on my experience, in the boardrooms of corporate America "change" is an idea that is too simple to sell. Corporate executives are looking for advertising concepts that are "clever." For all the money being spent, corporate executives want something they couldn't have thought of themselves. Hopefully, something exceedingly clever.
Here is a sampling of slogans from a recent issue of BusinessWeek:
Chicago Graduate School of Business: "Triumph in your moment of truth."
Darden School of Business: "High touch. High tone. High energy."
Salesforce.com: "Your future is looking up."
Zurich: "Because change happenz."
CDW: "The right technology. Right away."
Hitachi: "Inspire the next."
NEC: "Empowered by innovation."
Deutsche Bank: "A passion to perform."
SKF: "The power of knowledge engineering."
Some of these slogans might be clever, some might be inspiring and some might be descriptive of the company's product line, but none will ever drive the company's business in the way that "change" drove the Obama campaign. They're not simple enough.
2. Consistency. What's wrong with 90% of all advertising? Companies try to "communicate" when they should be trying to "position."
Mr. Obama's objective was not to communicate the fact that he was an agent of change. In today's environment, every politician running for the country's highest office was presenting him or herself as an agent of change. What Mr. Obama actually did was to repeat the "change" message over and over again, so that potential voters identified Mr. Obama with the concept. In other words, he owns the "change" idea in voters' minds.
In today's overcommunicated society, it takes endless repetition to achieve this effect. For a typical consumer brand, that might mean years and years of advertising and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Most companies don't have the money, don't have the patience and don't have the vision to achieve what Mr. Obama did. They jerk from one message to another, hoping for a magic bullet that will energize their brands. That doesn't work today. That is especially ineffective for a politician because it creates an aura of vacillation and indecisiveness, fatal qualities for someone looking to move up the political ladder.
The only thing that works today is the BMW approach. Consistency, consistency, consistency -- over decades, if not longer.
But not with a dull slogan. Hitachi has been "inspiring the next" for as long as I can remember, but with little success.
Effective slogans needs to be simple and grounded in reality. What next has Hitachi ever inspired? Red ink, maybe. In the past 10 years, Hitachi has had sales of $786.9 billion and managed to lose $5.1 billion. When you put your corporate name on everything, as Hitachi does, it's difficult to make money because it's difficult to make the brand stand for anything.
3. Relevance. "If you're losing the battle, shift the battlefield" is an old military axiom that applies equally as well to marketing. By his relentless focus on change, Mr. Obama shifted the political battlefield. He forced his opponents to devote much of their campaign time discussing changes they proposed for the country. And how their changes would differ from the changes that he proposed.
All the talk about "change" distracted both Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain from talking about their strengths: their track records, their experience and their relationships with world leaders.
As you probably know, Mr. Obama was selected as Advertising Age's Marketer of the Year by the executives attending the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference in Orlando last month. But one wonders if these CMOs are getting the message.
As one marketing executive said: "I look at it as something that we can all learn from as marketers. To see what he's done, to be able to create a social network and do it in a way where it's created the tools to let people get engaged very easily. It's very easy for people to participate."
Whatever happened to "change"?
~ ~ ~
In addition to his monthly AdAge.com column, Al and his daughter and partner Laura Ries host a weekly video report at www.RiesReport.com.
U.S. News & World Report Going Monthly (FishbowlDC)
The currently biweekly U.S. News & World Report is going monthly. The magazine, which has struggled to compete with its traditional competitors -- Time and Newsweek -- will concentrate on its Web site while using the print edition to embrace its image as the-magazine-that-makes-a-lot-of-lists. WaPo: The shift to the Web site, now attracting about 7 million unique monthly visitors, "allows us to stay ahead of a changing media landscape and do an even better job of motivating our readers to act on the information we provide them," wrote the magazine's President Bill Holiber and editor Brian Kelly. NYT: Sales of U.S. News averaged 1.8 million an issue in the first half of this year, compared with 2.7 million for Newsweek and 3.4 million for Time. The Economist sells almost 750,000 copies, and The Week 500,000.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/magazines/breaking_us_news_world_report_going_monthly_99571.asp
The first of many is my guess.- AC
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/magazines/breaking_us_news_world_report_going_monthly_99571.asp
The first of many is my guess.- AC
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Video Your Vote
Someone sent me this link today: http://www.youtube.com/videoyourvote
I gotta say this is pretty cool! This is a joint effort between PBS and YouTube/Google.
As of now there are 809 videos posted.
For Minneapolis there is the UpTake video about alleged voter intimidation phone calls. But I really love David Gillette's illustrated voting experience video. Isn't he the same guy that does a similar bit on "Almanac"?
I don't know if it's good or bad that there is only one little purple pin on that map. Is it under reported or not happening? I'm hoping for the former! Although it's really sad that the little purple pin is stuck in Minnesota.
To be safe, they suggest checking with the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University to verify the laws in your state. The Citizen Media Law Project uploaded a fun primer on videoing your vote, you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhTNNXJIJQ
Well, 816 videos now.
Have fun watching the results this evening!! While you all kick back and enjoy your favorite adult beverage and watch as pundits and broadcasters do the electoral math... please enjoy an adult beverage for me. I'll be in Bloomington photographing the Republicans party.
I gotta say this is pretty cool! This is a joint effort between PBS and YouTube/Google.
As of now there are 809 videos posted.
For Minneapolis there is the UpTake video about alleged voter intimidation phone calls. But I really love David Gillette's illustrated voting experience video. Isn't he the same guy that does a similar bit on "Almanac"?
I don't know if it's good or bad that there is only one little purple pin on that map. Is it under reported or not happening? I'm hoping for the former! Although it's really sad that the little purple pin is stuck in Minnesota.
To be safe, they suggest checking with the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University to verify the laws in your state. The Citizen Media Law Project uploaded a fun primer on videoing your vote, you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhTNNXJIJQ
Well, 816 videos now.
Have fun watching the results this evening!! While you all kick back and enjoy your favorite adult beverage and watch as pundits and broadcasters do the electoral math... please enjoy an adult beverage for me. I'll be in Bloomington photographing the Republicans party.
Monday, November 3, 2008
11/5/08 Assignment
The best example that of a technology that assists the general public in participating in this years election is: finding out where their local polling place is and who/what is on their ballot. The participation part is the act of voting.
The obvious places to look for your polling place are:
The Minnesota Secretary of States office: http://www.sos.mn.gov
(After 8pm tomorrow election results, once known, will be posted here, also.)
They also post any Voter Alerts here. (Scroll towards the bottom.)
The League of Women Voters: http://www.lwvmn.org/
The link for Voters Guide is helpful. The tab for "candidate info" provides a LARGE amount of information. (It takes forever to load, imo, but I like that they asked the candidates the same questions and the responses were short and fairly straight forward.)
A friend also sent me this link (along with a friendly reminder to vote tomorrow): http://maps.google.com/vote
For those that live in Hennepin County you can find a sample ballot, polling location, and election results at: http://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/voterinfo/options.jsp
So, on behalf of my friend that reminded me, I'll remind y'all - Please don't forget to vote!
Thank you.
The obvious places to look for your polling place are:
The Minnesota Secretary of States office: http://www.sos.mn.gov
(After 8pm tomorrow election results, once known, will be posted here, also.)
They also post any Voter Alerts here. (Scroll towards the bottom.)
The League of Women Voters: http://www.lwvmn.org/
The link for Voters Guide is helpful. The tab for "candidate info" provides a LARGE amount of information. (It takes forever to load, imo, but I like that they asked the candidates the same questions and the responses were short and fairly straight forward.)
A friend also sent me this link (along with a friendly reminder to vote tomorrow): http://maps.google.com/vote
For those that live in Hennepin County you can find a sample ballot, polling location, and election results at: http://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/voterinfo/options.jsp
So, on behalf of my friend that reminded me, I'll remind y'all - Please don't forget to vote!
Thank you.
11/5/08 class assignment
My Del.icio.us account is at http://delicious.com/jackhenry
In order to participate in election activities I need to know answers to questions I have about the campaigns and candidates and media coverage. I also have my own resources that others may find useful in their research. One way to do this is to look for information that can used to implement actions or see how others have acted, preferably in a manner that reduces searching time. Along with tools like Facebook and Twitter, I’m finding that Delicious is a valuable tool both in its specificity of information and in its wide net of resources. And, as with Twitter, I was not impressed with Delicious at first. Its been a matter spending some time with it and searching and posting and watching. Now I think its pretty cool.
If I am looking for information about virtually any aspect of the election I can look at Delicious for websites that have already been posted by others- in my case, journalists and election coverage particularly- and I can add sites I’ve found to be helpful. The real power of Delicious is apparent when I create a network of sites of my own, or I join networks already in place. One very helpful service from Delicious is the ability to put a link to Delicious on my blog or Facebook, and, vice versa, to have Delicious automatically feed my blog or Facebook with ‘headlines’ from postings at Delicious. Another tool is the RSS option. Often the links are to sites that include action items and to share information and not just for acquiring information. Searching is aided by tags given to each bookmark added to Delicious by posters. (Much like the tags available to each of the postings on this class blog.) Alongside each bookmark is a number that indicates how many other people have also bookmarked the site.
An example of a site that is using Delicious and that I found by searching the tags journalism , politics, election, election_coverage is blivet 2.0 at http://halrager.org/WordPress/category/delicious/ The site includes election and political information but its not restricted to those. I am especially intrigued by the “Share This” icon: “ShareThis is a free one-step sharing tool that makes sharing online hassle free. It is the easiest and most efficient way to share anything you want, where you want, to who you want!” This lets the reader post the bookmark to any of a number of social networks with a single click. And at the bottom of the page are links:
I am halrager on Delicious, and, Add me to your network, further efforts to keep the communications and information sharing as easy as possible.
Three examples of links posted to Delicious on the site from 10/29 include:
1) What Progressives Need to Do After November 4th | AlterNet
Assuming Obama wins, of course. If not, the ‘to do’ list is considerably larger.
(tags: progressive 2008+election politics)
2) Pew Election Preview 2008: What if We Held an Election and Everyone Came?
(tags: politics slate pew 2008+election pdf report vote)
3) Good Vote.org
"When you go to vote, do you know what to do if someone tells you you're not on the list or there's a problem with your voter registration?" [via mark @ wood s lot]
(tags: politics tools voting vote via:mark)
Delicious is also turning out to be a great way to look for information on Web 2.0 technologies.
In order to participate in election activities I need to know answers to questions I have about the campaigns and candidates and media coverage. I also have my own resources that others may find useful in their research. One way to do this is to look for information that can used to implement actions or see how others have acted, preferably in a manner that reduces searching time. Along with tools like Facebook and Twitter, I’m finding that Delicious is a valuable tool both in its specificity of information and in its wide net of resources. And, as with Twitter, I was not impressed with Delicious at first. Its been a matter spending some time with it and searching and posting and watching. Now I think its pretty cool.
If I am looking for information about virtually any aspect of the election I can look at Delicious for websites that have already been posted by others- in my case, journalists and election coverage particularly- and I can add sites I’ve found to be helpful. The real power of Delicious is apparent when I create a network of sites of my own, or I join networks already in place. One very helpful service from Delicious is the ability to put a link to Delicious on my blog or Facebook, and, vice versa, to have Delicious automatically feed my blog or Facebook with ‘headlines’ from postings at Delicious. Another tool is the RSS option. Often the links are to sites that include action items and to share information and not just for acquiring information. Searching is aided by tags given to each bookmark added to Delicious by posters. (Much like the tags available to each of the postings on this class blog.) Alongside each bookmark is a number that indicates how many other people have also bookmarked the site.
An example of a site that is using Delicious and that I found by searching the tags journalism , politics, election, election_coverage is blivet 2.0 at http://halrager.org/WordPress/category/delicious/ The site includes election and political information but its not restricted to those. I am especially intrigued by the “Share This” icon: “ShareThis is a free one-step sharing tool that makes sharing online hassle free. It is the easiest and most efficient way to share anything you want, where you want, to who you want!” This lets the reader post the bookmark to any of a number of social networks with a single click. And at the bottom of the page are links:
I am halrager on Delicious, and, Add me to your network, further efforts to keep the communications and information sharing as easy as possible.
Three examples of links posted to Delicious on the site from 10/29 include:
1) What Progressives Need to Do After November 4th | AlterNet
Assuming Obama wins, of course. If not, the ‘to do’ list is considerably larger.
(tags: progressive 2008+election politics)
2) Pew Election Preview 2008: What if We Held an Election and Everyone Came?
(tags: politics slate pew 2008+election pdf report vote)
3) Good Vote.org
"When you go to vote, do you know what to do if someone tells you you're not on the list or there's a problem with your voter registration?" [via mark @ wood s lot]
(tags: politics tools voting vote via:mark)
Delicious is also turning out to be a great way to look for information on Web 2.0 technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)