@johnrobinson: I admit I'm suspicious of media folk who join Twitter, attract 100s of followers & follow only a handful. They're talking but not listening?
@smalljones: @johnrobinson don't fear the followed, they are simply stuck in broadcast mode.
@ryanbruce: @johnrobinson Very few people can pull off not following people. Then they are simply a 140 character newsletter.
@jiconoclast: @johnrobinson I think your instincts are sound. Many media folks see Twitter as just another one-way publication medium.
@robyntomlin: @johnrobinson Agreed. There needs to be give and take or it's just broadcast. Best when it's a conversation.
@johnrobinson: I mean, I love addressing an audience, too, but reading you guys is much, much more entertaining and informative.
@BIF: @johnrobinson To me, the value of Twitter is listening in on what folks are talking about. Plus we've gotten some great stories via tweets.
@kiyoshimartinez: @johnrobinson Dunbar Number reality & having a good signal/noise ratio could be a good reason. Not everyone has equal value to you.
@johnrobinson: @kiyoshimartinez I got that. But 1,000 followers and 32 followed?
@chrislowrance: @johnrobinson Personally speaking, I keep my list short because otherwise I can't keep up with everyone.
This is an old discussion in Twitter years, hashed out by many in the pre-Ashton and pre-Oprah days, but still a stumbling block for some users on Twitter.
It seems particularly difficult for some people in the media, those most likely to consume massive amounts of information and to suffer the guilt of not being able to consume it all.
Some points:
1. No, there are no rules on Twitter. But there is etiquette. Following back is generally accepted good Twitter etiquette.
2. Unread tweets piling up in your Twitter stream are not like unread magazines piling up in your living room. You don't have to feel guilty about failing to consume all the information.
3. Following back on Twitter is not like accepting a connection on Facebook or LinkedIn; it's a looser connection. It's not like following back gives away all your social and personal data, as can happen when you accept a friendship on Facebook. Your words are already out there on Twitter, if you have an unlocked Twitter account and you're trying to broadcast your messages. (Of course, you can always have another, real, friends-and-family private Twitter account.)
4. Half the value of Twitter is for listening and reporting. People cannot send you private, personal messages if you don't follow them back. So if you ever plan to use Twitter for gathering information, asking questions of others that they might not want to answer publicly, you should follow people back. Or if you want to be accessible to people offering you unsolicited information privately, you should follow people back. If you ask a question and seek information, without following people back, you will place a barrier of frustration in front of your sources. Many of them won't try to to get over that barrier.
5. There is a thing as the Dunbar number, a theoretical limit to how many relationships people can sustain. And there is such a thing as a time limit on how much online social networking can fit into a balanced life. And there is such a thing as a tension between broad, shallow networks of contacts and deep, narrow networks of contacts, and even gender differences about what people prefer. Those anthropological and psychological implications are part of the fascination of social networks. You get to choose. But take time to understand the implications of your choices.
Self-promotion: Read more about listening to Twitter and figuring out the Twitter news cycle at twitter cycles.
Showing posts with label What's next. Show all posts
Showing posts with label What's next. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The big hump in the long tail
Everyone's linking and talking about Clay Shirky's latest thoughts on journalism this weekend. He makes valid points about how news and information have changed in our digital world. He predicts an explosion of experiments and new models to replace news on paper.
He's a big hump in his own long tail in our attention economy, and his words draw attention to a subject near and dear to my heart.
At the same time, I can't help but feel his post is essentially a Cliff's Notes version of Phil Meyer's "The Vanishing Newspaper," written in 2004. Perhaps that's good: His name brings awareness to a new audience.
Still, I worry about the costs in our attention economy. I hope we can move on to examining the next steps instead of merely walking ground that's already been covered.
As a companion piece, many people are pointing to Steven Berlin Johnson's talk at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin. Johnson, one of the people behind aggregator Outside.In, notes that news, analysis and information exploded during the last presidential election, and he notes that local news is quite available in his Brooklyn neighborhood through local bloggers.
His point: The digital revolution has given us more information than ever before.
I don't doubt it, for some places and people. But we need to acknowledge that his examples illustrate, again, the big hump in the long tail.Objective Independent information in this last election season for local judges' races, or small county commissioners' races, was quite difficult to find, outside of media-rich places like Brooklyn.
Local,objective independent information in other places is drying up faster than you can say the word "layoff."
Indeed, the future is coming, and it isn't evenly distributed yet. Society needs to find a way to distribute reporting, analysis and information-gathering resources away from the big hump to the longer tail, so that we don't gorge in some places and starve in others.
Brilliant photographers always remind us that the best shots are those taken when everybody is looking the other way. They say, "Turn around. Look elsewhere."
That advice goes for those seeking answers about journalism as well.
So try looking in different directions:
What Philip Meyer was thinking four years after "The Vanishing Newspaper."
What Matt Thompson says about "us" versus "them."
What reporter Meranda Whatling worries about before she goes on a cost-saving furlough.
What Shannan Bowen and others are launching in Wilmington, N.C.
What Jim McBee and friends are doing to provide a new marketplace for journalists and publishers.
What Steve Buttry is learning about top newspaper editors on Twitter.
What some good people have been hatching in Charlotte.
He's a big hump in his own long tail in our attention economy, and his words draw attention to a subject near and dear to my heart.
At the same time, I can't help but feel his post is essentially a Cliff's Notes version of Phil Meyer's "The Vanishing Newspaper," written in 2004. Perhaps that's good: His name brings awareness to a new audience.
Still, I worry about the costs in our attention economy. I hope we can move on to examining the next steps instead of merely walking ground that's already been covered.
As a companion piece, many people are pointing to Steven Berlin Johnson's talk at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin. Johnson, one of the people behind aggregator Outside.In, notes that news, analysis and information exploded during the last presidential election, and he notes that local news is quite available in his Brooklyn neighborhood through local bloggers.
His point: The digital revolution has given us more information than ever before.
I don't doubt it, for some places and people. But we need to acknowledge that his examples illustrate, again, the big hump in the long tail.
Local,
Indeed, the future is coming, and it isn't evenly distributed yet. Society needs to find a way to distribute reporting, analysis and information-gathering resources away from the big hump to the longer tail, so that we don't gorge in some places and starve in others.
Brilliant photographers always remind us that the best shots are those taken when everybody is looking the other way. They say, "Turn around. Look elsewhere."
That advice goes for those seeking answers about journalism as well.
So try looking in different directions:
What Philip Meyer was thinking four years after "The Vanishing Newspaper."
What Matt Thompson says about "us" versus "them."
What reporter Meranda Whatling worries about before she goes on a cost-saving furlough.
What Shannan Bowen and others are launching in Wilmington, N.C.
What Jim McBee and friends are doing to provide a new marketplace for journalists and publishers.
What Steve Buttry is learning about top newspaper editors on Twitter.
What some good people have been hatching in Charlotte.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Computer-aid journalism: GIGO or the next wave?
John Mecklin of Miller-McCune research writes an intriguing post about Duke University's search to fill an endowed chair of computational journalism.
He makes many points worth considering.
Let's take one, for now.
"If you live in one of the 11 American cities EveryBlock covers, you now can enter your address, and the site gives you civic information (think building permits, police reports and so on), news reports, blog items and other Web-based information, such as consumer reviews and photos, all connected to your immediate geographic neighborhood. In the not-too-distant future, (Duke's James) Hamilton suggests, an algorithm could take information from EveryBlock and other database inputs and actually write articles personalized to your neighborhood and your interests, giving you, for example, a story about crime in your neighborhood this week and whether it has increased or decreased in relation to a month or a year ago."
Intriguing idea. Charlotte is covered by EveryBlock, and my neighborhood blog has a widget with an Everyblock feed. Could EveryBlock's data be combined with tools like Tansa or similar to "write" stories or create readable, understandable lists of local information that wouldn't be shared any other way? Like zoning cases? Or city council actions that affect a small, specific neighborhood?
The idea intrigued me so much that I considered offering it to Howard Rheingold for his master's degree students to explore. He recently tweeted a question asking for ideas for those students.
Then I did a little homework. The latest zoning minutes available today from EveryBlock for Charlotte are from May 19, 2008. The latest city council meetings are from July 21, 2008. EveryBlock lists frequency updates for both kinds of information as "sporadically," and the source as the Charlotte city clerk.
What that lag shows is the need for a real person to contact public officials to remind them of the need for sharing information in a certain way, with a certain audience. EveryBlock isn't funded to be a government watchdog and to make that call.
Charlotte's feeds for crime, building permits and food inspections are relatively up to date, and light years beyond what less-wired, lighter-funded nearby governments are doing.
But the quick reality check shows that even in a year, or two, or five, as the tools advance, technology will not replace human contact that reminds government employees to provide public information to the public.
If nobody's watching, it won't happen.
He makes many points worth considering.
Let's take one, for now.
"If you live in one of the 11 American cities EveryBlock covers, you now can enter your address, and the site gives you civic information (think building permits, police reports and so on), news reports, blog items and other Web-based information, such as consumer reviews and photos, all connected to your immediate geographic neighborhood. In the not-too-distant future, (Duke's James) Hamilton suggests, an algorithm could take information from EveryBlock and other database inputs and actually write articles personalized to your neighborhood and your interests, giving you, for example, a story about crime in your neighborhood this week and whether it has increased or decreased in relation to a month or a year ago."
Intriguing idea. Charlotte is covered by EveryBlock, and my neighborhood blog has a widget with an Everyblock feed. Could EveryBlock's data be combined with tools like Tansa or similar to "write" stories or create readable, understandable lists of local information that wouldn't be shared any other way? Like zoning cases? Or city council actions that affect a small, specific neighborhood?
The idea intrigued me so much that I considered offering it to Howard Rheingold for his master's degree students to explore. He recently tweeted a question asking for ideas for those students.
Then I did a little homework. The latest zoning minutes available today from EveryBlock for Charlotte are from May 19, 2008. The latest city council meetings are from July 21, 2008. EveryBlock lists frequency updates for both kinds of information as "sporadically," and the source as the Charlotte city clerk.
What that lag shows is the need for a real person to contact public officials to remind them of the need for sharing information in a certain way, with a certain audience. EveryBlock isn't funded to be a government watchdog and to make that call.
Charlotte's feeds for crime, building permits and food inspections are relatively up to date, and light years beyond what less-wired, lighter-funded nearby governments are doing.
But the quick reality check shows that even in a year, or two, or five, as the tools advance, technology will not replace human contact that reminds government employees to provide public information to the public.
If nobody's watching, it won't happen.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The need for speed
By now everyone in the world has written about Twitter and the Denver plane crash Saturday night.
But from earthquakes and Mumbai, we already knew Twitter can break news.
Let's move on to the next headline: Twitter and links to live information can make newspaper websites look horribly slow, in these days of tight newspaper staffing.
This isn't a little inside dirty newspaper secret: Readers everywhere are seeing the problems. Local newspapers and websites must retain an old-fashioned commitment to speed to retain any credibility with audiences.
If there's a plane wreck or other big breaking news in our town, on a lightly staffed Saturday night or any night, we have to own it and remember the world is watching our coverage, in real time.
I was working in the Charlotte newsroom Saturday night and watching Twitter. The first our newsroom heard about the crash was a Tweet from Ryan Sholin. It alerted us to be prepared for remakes of pages and to watch for clear, reliable information coming out of Denver. But that information was painfully slow.
A couple of intriguing side notes: Readers appear to expect a high level of quality, speed and accuracy from newspaper websites, as if those sites are public utilities, even when they're getting the information for free. And as Ryan Sholin noted in a Tweet Saturday night, now the whole world gets to watch and try to figure out what's true during the early confusing scanner and live reports of breaking news. Newspapers have the experience to know initial reports are often wrong, and we can use that experience to help guide others through the firehose of live information.
What follows are some comments from the Denver Post's initial online story.
8:06
I hope everyone is alright, but why would the Denver Post allow spelling and grammatical errors in articles posted on the web? It is painful to read news articles like this.
9:08
It's hours after this occurred, and this is all you have posted?
The Rocky, Channel 4, 7 and 9 ALL have much more complete stories. Is this what we have to look forward to when you're the only paper in town? Sad.
9:18
Three hours after this plane crash occurred, and you've got a total of five sentences posted, and some of it is gramatically suspect. This is why journalism, especially print journalism, is dying. Meanwhile aviation-oriented websites from airliners.net to flyertalk.com to pprune.net are reporting this story with speed and enthusiasm -- if you want to know what's going on, go there. I guess the "professional journalists" aren't as vital as they think. Tonight they seem to not even be working.
9:19
John, that's why newspapers are dying. It takes longer to put out news in a paper than you can get on TV or the Internet.
10:27
Man, some of the people here sure do expect a lot from a newspaper that is providing it's services at no cost to any of you.
If you notice a grammatical or spelling error, why don't you email someone at the paper and let them know? Or were you all those annoying kids in elementary school that when the teacher asked a question you would shoot your hand up yelling "OOOOOH! OOOOH! I KNOW, I KNOW! OOH! OOOOH!"
Get over yourselves.
But from earthquakes and Mumbai, we already knew Twitter can break news.
Let's move on to the next headline: Twitter and links to live information can make newspaper websites look horribly slow, in these days of tight newspaper staffing.
This isn't a little inside dirty newspaper secret: Readers everywhere are seeing the problems. Local newspapers and websites must retain an old-fashioned commitment to speed to retain any credibility with audiences.
If there's a plane wreck or other big breaking news in our town, on a lightly staffed Saturday night or any night, we have to own it and remember the world is watching our coverage, in real time.
I was working in the Charlotte newsroom Saturday night and watching Twitter. The first our newsroom heard about the crash was a Tweet from Ryan Sholin. It alerted us to be prepared for remakes of pages and to watch for clear, reliable information coming out of Denver. But that information was painfully slow.
A couple of intriguing side notes: Readers appear to expect a high level of quality, speed and accuracy from newspaper websites, as if those sites are public utilities, even when they're getting the information for free. And as Ryan Sholin noted in a Tweet Saturday night, now the whole world gets to watch and try to figure out what's true during the early confusing scanner and live reports of breaking news. Newspapers have the experience to know initial reports are often wrong, and we can use that experience to help guide others through the firehose of live information.
What follows are some comments from the Denver Post's initial online story.
8:06
I hope everyone is alright, but why would the Denver Post allow spelling and grammatical errors in articles posted on the web? It is painful to read news articles like this.
9:08
It's hours after this occurred, and this is all you have posted?
The Rocky, Channel 4, 7 and 9 ALL have much more complete stories. Is this what we have to look forward to when you're the only paper in town? Sad.
9:18
Three hours after this plane crash occurred, and you've got a total of five sentences posted, and some of it is gramatically suspect. This is why journalism, especially print journalism, is dying. Meanwhile aviation-oriented websites from airliners.net to flyertalk.com to pprune.net are reporting this story with speed and enthusiasm -- if you want to know what's going on, go there. I guess the "professional journalists" aren't as vital as they think. Tonight they seem to not even be working.
9:19
John, that's why newspapers are dying. It takes longer to put out news in a paper than you can get on TV or the Internet.
10:27
Man, some of the people here sure do expect a lot from a newspaper that is providing it's services at no cost to any of you.
If you notice a grammatical or spelling error, why don't you email someone at the paper and let them know? Or were you all those annoying kids in elementary school that when the teacher asked a question you would shoot your hand up yelling "OOOOOH! OOOOH! I KNOW, I KNOW! OOH! OOOOH!"
Get over yourselves.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Journalism education: Begin anywhere
"Before it was InDesign, it was paste-up and darkroom courses."
"J-school == glorified trade school."
"A few can teach themselves."
"lynda should replace formal education."
"for some students class definitely gets in the way."
"the important point is that you have a whole community of 'tweeple' now to to help advance your learning."
Some journalism students held a discussion on Twitter late Saturday night about journalism education. The ideas go beyond the young students.
These days, all smart journalists are looking at how they should retrain themselves or update their skills, and many have moved beyond waiting for their company (or their school) to hand the tools to them.
The question even for experienced journalists: What kind of class should I take? Should I just focus on the software? Is a community college course in HTML as valuable as a certificate program like the one offered by UNC's journalism school? Should I just focus on the technical tools I can learn on my own? Who needs a high-priced program anyway?
Funny thing:
I remember having these same conversations 25 years ago. It wasn't on Twitter, and didn't span a group from Alaska to Florida, but the questions remain quite similar:
"How will counting headlines by hand help my career in a world of new technical innovation?"
"How will writing programs on sequential punch cards help me in a world of new computers?"(Yes, I punched cards.)
"These professors are old and out of touch. I can learn everything I need at the school newspaper. I'm switching my major to something else." (Some did, successfully).
Those memories have a point: No matter what software you learn now, you will have to learn something new later. No matter how good (or bad) your journalism school or company is, your education and career are in your own hands. To continue to be marketable, you need to demonstrate a continued ability to learn, to cross discipline boundaries, to make connections and to think.
I can't tell who will get more bang for their buck at the moment: Those who pick up skills online or in a tech class, or those who go for broader programs at established schools like UNC. But as one young tweeter said: Having community support and role models, tweeple or otherwise, helps immensely.
Begin anywhere.
"J-school == glorified trade school."
"A few can teach themselves."
"lynda should replace formal education."
"for some students class definitely gets in the way."
"the important point is that you have a whole community of 'tweeple' now to to help advance your learning."
Some journalism students held a discussion on Twitter late Saturday night about journalism education. The ideas go beyond the young students.
These days, all smart journalists are looking at how they should retrain themselves or update their skills, and many have moved beyond waiting for their company (or their school) to hand the tools to them.
The question even for experienced journalists: What kind of class should I take? Should I just focus on the software? Is a community college course in HTML as valuable as a certificate program like the one offered by UNC's journalism school? Should I just focus on the technical tools I can learn on my own? Who needs a high-priced program anyway?
Funny thing:
I remember having these same conversations 25 years ago. It wasn't on Twitter, and didn't span a group from Alaska to Florida, but the questions remain quite similar:
"How will counting headlines by hand help my career in a world of new technical innovation?"
"How will writing programs on sequential punch cards help me in a world of new computers?"(Yes, I punched cards.)
"These professors are old and out of touch. I can learn everything I need at the school newspaper. I'm switching my major to something else." (Some did, successfully).
Those memories have a point: No matter what software you learn now, you will have to learn something new later. No matter how good (or bad) your journalism school or company is, your education and career are in your own hands. To continue to be marketable, you need to demonstrate a continued ability to learn, to cross discipline boundaries, to make connections and to think.
I can't tell who will get more bang for their buck at the moment: Those who pick up skills online or in a tech class, or those who go for broader programs at established schools like UNC. But as one young tweeter said: Having community support and role models, tweeple or otherwise, helps immensely.
Begin anywhere.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
CLT Wordcamp roundup
The Wordcamp conference at The Charlotte Observer was a great success. Jason Keath of The Stratius Group organized the event, presented on Wordpress blog basics and got a Wordpress keynote speaker, Mark Jaquith. The Observer contributed space, some volunteers and some organizational help. Steve Gunn led The Observer effort and made the partnership happen.
More:
Slides from keynote speaker Mark Jaquith, plus links to deeper stuff.
The official CLTWordcamp blog.
Ben Ullman on The Ultimate Tweetup.
Corey Creed of Hippo Internet Marketing on what he liked.
The Guy Trapped in the Elevator speaks.
Short story in The Charlotte Observer. (Ben Ullman noted the story did not mention Wordpress. Good point.)
And yes, My Other Blog is on Wordpress.
More:
Slides from keynote speaker Mark Jaquith, plus links to deeper stuff.
The official CLTWordcamp blog.
Ben Ullman on The Ultimate Tweetup.
Corey Creed of Hippo Internet Marketing on what he liked.
The Guy Trapped in the Elevator speaks.
Short story in The Charlotte Observer. (Ben Ullman noted the story did not mention Wordpress. Good point.)
And yes, My Other Blog is on Wordpress.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Where to get online election results
North carolina results.
General N.C. Board of Elections site.
South Carolina results.
General S.C. Board of Elections site.
Chrys Wu on where to watch.
New York Times dashboard.
More here.
General N.C. Board of Elections site.
South Carolina results.
General S.C. Board of Elections site.
Chrys Wu on where to watch.
New York Times dashboard.
More here.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Searching dirty
Librarian Genie Tyburski teaches an online class through the University of North Carolina on web research.
Sounds dull and dry, right? Uh, no.
Try, for example, using some of her suggested search terms on Google to find stuff that people don't want you to find:
For Genie's class, I tried some of these search terms combined with *NC*. I found a local political candidate's profile, with his home phone number, marked "not for public release."
That's one general theme that emerges from Genie's class: Information that is supposed to be private can sometimes inadvertently leak onto the web, through careless coding, or scanning, or editing, or incorrect placement on a server.
We've debated in class the legality and ethics of finding such information, and concluded that using the tools to find such information fall into legal, ethical realms like much of the reporting labeled "investigative." The ethical questions get sticky when you weigh what to do with the found private information.
Regardless, Genie's tools should be familiar tools for reporters and other journalists. Read her article and play around with the search terms sometime.
And check the updated "Reference" sidebar here for links to other resources, including Power Googling.
Sounds dull and dry, right? Uh, no.
Try, for example, using some of her suggested search terms on Google to find stuff that people don't want you to find:
- "not for public dissemination"
- "not for public release"
- "official use only" (variations include FOUO and U//FOUO)
- "company confidential"
- "internal use only"
For Genie's class, I tried some of these search terms combined with *NC*. I found a local political candidate's profile, with his home phone number, marked "not for public release."
That's one general theme that emerges from Genie's class: Information that is supposed to be private can sometimes inadvertently leak onto the web, through careless coding, or scanning, or editing, or incorrect placement on a server.
We've debated in class the legality and ethics of finding such information, and concluded that using the tools to find such information fall into legal, ethical realms like much of the reporting labeled "investigative." The ethical questions get sticky when you weigh what to do with the found private information.
Regardless, Genie's tools should be familiar tools for reporters and other journalists. Read her article and play around with the search terms sometime.
And check the updated "Reference" sidebar here for links to other resources, including Power Googling.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Help from the academy
Ryan Thornburg of UNC poses some questions for discussion at his blog, "The Future of News," about how universities can help newsrooms. His questions stemmed from a panel discussion at the Online News Association's recent meeting.
Unfortunately, the panel discussion had morphed into a session of preaching to the choir, with most people in the room being from academia, instead of being working journalists who could learn from academia.
Too often, working journalists tend to see academic people as falling into two camps:
1. Isolated, slow, behind-the-curve ivory-tower inhabitants, or
2. Incubators for products that have to be pitched like all the other vendors competing for our dwindling dollars.
As Ryan Thornburg quoted Paul Volpe, the deputy politics editor at washingtonpost.com:
“Pitch me.”
Unfortunately, with that approach, the transaction becomes all about the sizzle and not about the steak. Many of us have had experience with stories that landed on 1A not because they were good, but because they had a good sales pitch in a meeting. And many of us have had experience with software that landed on websites not because it was good, but because it had a good salesperson.
And then let's go back to No. 1 for a moment: Many of us have had experience with journalism classes that taught out-of-date skills or that were staffed with professors unaware of new technical developments.
But a middle ground exists. As we all deal with sad, sad news of losing good colleagues or jobs, academic works can help us remain focused on the long view. And academic research can give us independent views on business models, trends, staffing and management. That's quality information that can fuel important decisions.
So if you need to be reminded of what we're all trying to do, go back and read Phil Meyer.
If you need research information into attitudes, skills and diversity among staffers over time, check out the Newspaper Research Journal.
If you're looking for information on new technical developments, keep an eye on business incubators and information-related academic fields like online learning and information science.
Go give Ryan a comment on his blog. Give the academics a chance to help us.
And chin up, head down, ears open.
Send good thoughts for all.
Unfortunately, the panel discussion had morphed into a session of preaching to the choir, with most people in the room being from academia, instead of being working journalists who could learn from academia.
Too often, working journalists tend to see academic people as falling into two camps:
1. Isolated, slow, behind-the-curve ivory-tower inhabitants, or
2. Incubators for products that have to be pitched like all the other vendors competing for our dwindling dollars.
As Ryan Thornburg quoted Paul Volpe, the deputy politics editor at washingtonpost.com:
“Pitch me.”
Unfortunately, with that approach, the transaction becomes all about the sizzle and not about the steak. Many of us have had experience with stories that landed on 1A not because they were good, but because they had a good sales pitch in a meeting. And many of us have had experience with software that landed on websites not because it was good, but because it had a good salesperson.
And then let's go back to No. 1 for a moment: Many of us have had experience with journalism classes that taught out-of-date skills or that were staffed with professors unaware of new technical developments.
But a middle ground exists. As we all deal with sad, sad news of losing good colleagues or jobs, academic works can help us remain focused on the long view. And academic research can give us independent views on business models, trends, staffing and management. That's quality information that can fuel important decisions.
So if you need to be reminded of what we're all trying to do, go back and read Phil Meyer.
If you need research information into attitudes, skills and diversity among staffers over time, check out the Newspaper Research Journal.
If you're looking for information on new technical developments, keep an eye on business incubators and information-related academic fields like online learning and information science.
Go give Ryan a comment on his blog. Give the academics a chance to help us.
And chin up, head down, ears open.
Send good thoughts for all.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Hurricane Twitter
The Biloxi Sun Herald twittered Hurricane Gustav. The Wilmington Star-News twittered Hanna.
Leslie Wilkinson twittered the July 30 earthquake in California. She was among the first in the nation to do so.
So obviously, news organizations and individuals are seeing the power in Twitter.
Plenty of examples exist on how to use it, and plenty of people have written about the mechanics.
So try it out. Create an account and follow some of these people to see what's going on: @ckrewson @robyntomlin, @andrew_dunn, @saragregory, @shanbow, @smalljones, @romustgo, @johnrobinson, @cnewvine (AP!), @rmathieson, @acarvin, @CNN_Newsroom, @SNOhurricane, and even @frankdeloache in Salisbury.
Read @andrew_dunn's case study of Twitter during Hurricane Gustav. Check how @ckrewson separates his "personal brand" from a professional brand at @PhillyInquirer. @KaylaC does the same separation in Charlotte with @WCNC.
Beyond those mechanics and examples exist some intriguing points about networks, community, professional and personal brands and separating the two, boundaries among parents and children and managers and employees, self-awareness, self-obsession, transparency, privacy, the Dunbar number (Google it), signal-to-noise ratio....
Start thinking about all that while reading Clive Thompson in the New York Times magazine on digital intimacy.
I could go on. But I won't right now, because I crave some real face-to-face community. But let's talk about it more. And try it.
Leslie Wilkinson twittered the July 30 earthquake in California. She was among the first in the nation to do so.
So obviously, news organizations and individuals are seeing the power in Twitter.
Plenty of examples exist on how to use it, and plenty of people have written about the mechanics.
So try it out. Create an account and follow some of these people to see what's going on: @ckrewson @robyntomlin, @andrew_dunn, @saragregory, @shanbow, @smalljones, @romustgo, @johnrobinson, @cnewvine (AP!), @rmathieson, @acarvin, @CNN_Newsroom, @SNOhurricane, and even @frankdeloache in Salisbury.
Read @andrew_dunn's case study of Twitter during Hurricane Gustav. Check how @ckrewson separates his "personal brand" from a professional brand at @PhillyInquirer. @KaylaC does the same separation in Charlotte with @WCNC.
Beyond those mechanics and examples exist some intriguing points about networks, community, professional and personal brands and separating the two, boundaries among parents and children and managers and employees, self-awareness, self-obsession, transparency, privacy, the Dunbar number (Google it), signal-to-noise ratio....
Start thinking about all that while reading Clive Thompson in the New York Times magazine on digital intimacy.
I could go on. But I won't right now, because I crave some real face-to-face community. But let's talk about it more. And try it.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
A yellowed clip predicting the future
This old clip from The Pierce Report on Charlotte in 1995 gives a great history lesson on building community online. Steve Snow was talking about building links among people 13 years ago and struggling with funding questions. We're still discussing those questions.
Related links with lessons:
Dallas Morning News, 1999:
Freelance article on politics and funding, 1997.
Letter from Steve Snow offering sage advice.
Case study from the Charlotte library. "It's not about technology, but about people."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Gentle curmudgeon nudge
Goals with this post:
To be gentle, positive and collaborative, and yet to add a little perspective. Besides, sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut.
Gary Nielson posted a link on his Facebook page to a story in The New York Times headlined, "TV networks rewrite the definition of a news bureau."
I beg to differ.
The story does have one phrase that seems to show that someone in the writing and editing process was aware that this kind of shoestring journalism has been going on for a long time (Hemingway in Paris, anyone?). Here it is:
"Though the style of reporting has existed for years, it is being adopted more widely as these reporters act as their own producer, cameraman and editor, and sometimes even transmit live video."
I respectfully, and gently, suggest that perhaps someone should have asked for a reworking of the top of the story, and an elimination of some words like "newfangled" and "new breed."
Instead, the story would have been more valid if it had taken the approach that new tools allow this kind of reporting to be much faster, cheaper and visual. Imagine some quotes, too, from a reporter like The Observer's Steve Lyttle, who was a one-man band with a typewriter and film camera many moons ago in the Monroe bureau. He's adapted and now reports online.
That example would invalidate phrases like this one: "Old-school journalists may bemoan the changes. ..."
On the contrary. If a return to the lean-and-mean reporting structure pre-1980s helps save journalism, I'm willing to bet one would find many old-school journalists who would embrace change and add their experience and skills. Let's stop this old-school vs. new-school dichotomy, which seems more damaging to journalism than the blogger vs. traditional media company dichotomy.
The reporter is about 23, according to Wikipedia (yes, he has a Wikipedia entry.) Being 23 is a great thing. But being 53 is also a great thing, and a little editing or seasoning of the story with some perspective would have presented a more valid picture. And perhaps it would have inspired others to embrace this "newfangled" reporting, instead of creating a "hogwash" reaction among the curmudgeon tribe.
In addition, the story perhaps implies that all this technology could eliminate the need for rewrite and producer positions back in the main office. Certainly it seems that many folks on the business side would like to think so. But take a look at the quality and success of Peter St. Onge's "Primary Source" blog during the May N.C. primary. Peter, essentially, was a rewrite man and a linker. And a darned good one, with 50,000 hits that month.
So let's try to be a little less breathless, and a little more seasoned. Experienced editors have perspective to add. We should add it.
To be gentle, positive and collaborative, and yet to add a little perspective. Besides, sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut.
Gary Nielson posted a link on his Facebook page to a story in The New York Times headlined, "TV networks rewrite the definition of a news bureau."
I beg to differ.
The story does have one phrase that seems to show that someone in the writing and editing process was aware that this kind of shoestring journalism has been going on for a long time (Hemingway in Paris, anyone?). Here it is:
"Though the style of reporting has existed for years, it is being adopted more widely as these reporters act as their own producer, cameraman and editor, and sometimes even transmit live video."
I respectfully, and gently, suggest that perhaps someone should have asked for a reworking of the top of the story, and an elimination of some words like "newfangled" and "new breed."
Instead, the story would have been more valid if it had taken the approach that new tools allow this kind of reporting to be much faster, cheaper and visual. Imagine some quotes, too, from a reporter like The Observer's Steve Lyttle, who was a one-man band with a typewriter and film camera many moons ago in the Monroe bureau. He's adapted and now reports online.
That example would invalidate phrases like this one: "Old-school journalists may bemoan the changes. ..."
On the contrary. If a return to the lean-and-mean reporting structure pre-1980s helps save journalism, I'm willing to bet one would find many old-school journalists who would embrace change and add their experience and skills. Let's stop this old-school vs. new-school dichotomy, which seems more damaging to journalism than the blogger vs. traditional media company dichotomy.
The reporter is about 23, according to Wikipedia (yes, he has a Wikipedia entry.) Being 23 is a great thing. But being 53 is also a great thing, and a little editing or seasoning of the story with some perspective would have presented a more valid picture. And perhaps it would have inspired others to embrace this "newfangled" reporting, instead of creating a "hogwash" reaction among the curmudgeon tribe.
In addition, the story perhaps implies that all this technology could eliminate the need for rewrite and producer positions back in the main office. Certainly it seems that many folks on the business side would like to think so. But take a look at the quality and success of Peter St. Onge's "Primary Source" blog during the May N.C. primary. Peter, essentially, was a rewrite man and a linker. And a darned good one, with 50,000 hits that month.
So let's try to be a little less breathless, and a little more seasoned. Experienced editors have perspective to add. We should add it.
Monday, August 4, 2008
It's something unpredictable
Three blogs, three young Carolina journalists.
You've probably heard of a couple of famous-in-the-blogosphere young journalists. These three aren't so famous, yet.
Check them out the next time you need a shot of inspiration. Some young people are intent on journalism's reinvention -- and its continuity.
Andrew Dunn, at "Breaks the News."
Sara Gregory, at "The Water's Fine."
Shannan Bowen, at "A (Young) Reporter's Notebook."
You've probably heard of a couple of famous-in-the-blogosphere young journalists. These three aren't so famous, yet.
Check them out the next time you need a shot of inspiration. Some young people are intent on journalism's reinvention -- and its continuity.
Andrew Dunn, at "Breaks the News."
Sara Gregory, at "The Water's Fine."
Shannan Bowen, at "A (Young) Reporter's Notebook."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Making readers' opinions work
Readers and commenters at the McClatchy Next wiki are abuzz about anonymous comments at newspaper web sites and blogs.
Don't click away -- I know this subject has been done to death. I promise a different approach.
Many of the comments have been fueled by the vitriolic name-calling recently in comments at Etaoin Shrdlu, the blog of McClatchy's vice president for news, Howard Weaver.
Let's face it: Weaver's public blog and position make him an easy target these days, much like Tony and Peter and Par were in previous days. I'm sure he doesn't feel quite as rich, but I'm sure he feels just as targeted with anger.
So let's take a different path, as job cuts hit editorial departments and as McClatchy sites look at new technical toys for enabling and highlighting comments.
Let's take a look at what works: The Observer's letters to the editor, and a couple of Observer blogs. I'm sure there are other examples of print features and sites that work, but I offer these up as ones I know best. I'd love to hear about others.
One of the major reasons I was attracted to The Charlotte Observer 20-some odd years ago was the vibrancy of the editorial pages. Much of that vibrancy came from the letters to the editor.
These days, Lew Powell is still editing those letters (as far as I know. I've been away from work email for a few days), and The Observer still kicks butt with the feature.
I'll be more specific: The Charlotte Observer still kicks The News and Observer's butt and many other papers with its letters to the editor. The Observer's printed letters cover a wide variety of subjects, are concise, quick and to-the-point. The News and Observer has plenty of letters online, but they're less concise. A recent printed News and Observer also had fewer, longer letters than The Charlotte Observer's daily printed product.
In addition, some Charlotte Observer blogs have fostered vibrant, often thoughtful commenting communities, with questions and thoughts that resemble the salons, not saloons, of days of yore.
So let's find out why, while we still have Lew Powell with us and while those bloggers still have time to engage those communities.
Then, perhaps, we can figure out how to make money from those communities without destroying them, or share their content on a wider basis, or emulate their success to give other readers a place for thoughtful comments that they seem to crave.
Here's the letters policy, in part:
"Please sign and include your address and daytime telephone number. We edit for brevity, grammar, clarity and accuracy, and we reject letters published elsewhere. Letters typically address a single idea and do not exceed 150 words."
Yes, 150 words.
That policy is backed up by Lew, (and others on the editorial board. Added 7/30). Here's what was published for the Sunday, July 27, edition:
12 letters
11 subjects
At least 7 with reference to specific previous stories, editorials or letters.
8 from male writers
4 from female writers
1 from a writer under age 13.
The longest letter included 147 words: the letter from the young person.
3 letters included less than 50 words.
All letters are signed with a name and home town. Phone numbers and addresses are not published.
(This example actually was produced by esteemed Editorial Page Editor Ed Williams, who retires this year. Lew was on vacation. But they back up each other's standards, and Lew says he won't let Ed get letters published more than once a month after his retirement. Added 7/30.)
Stuff I don't know:
How many letters are received each week? How many are rejected? How many have to be edited to that 150 word limit or shortened further? How many are from repeat writers? How could new tech tools ease the workload, integrate the letters more with online comments, or enrich information, links and visuals to the letter writers, so readers can know more about specific letter writers while protecting privacy for those writers who want it? Is it worth the time it would take? Does Lew call every letter writer each time they write?
Compared to comments on blogs, Lew's published version of the letters gives me a chance to hear what people are thinking on a wide variety of topics, quickly and concisely. It's what's left out that's important here.
No wasted words.
Blogs, on the other hand, give commenters unlimited space and quicker interactivity with other posters as well as the original blogger. I can't afford the time to visit them frequently, but here are some details about two of my favorites.
The Naked City, from Mary Newsom: The latest post, "Any hope for '60s suburbia?" poses a detailed question in 121 words and asks for comments. It was posted Thursday, July 24. As of Sunday, July 27, at noonish, it had 31 comments. 10 comments used pseudonyms or names. 20 used anonymous. One was pure spam, but the others were generally thoughtful and positive.
32 visitors came to the blog as of about 1 p.m. Sunday, July 27 (the slowest day of the week). 1,146 came on Thursday, the day of the last posting. 1,746 hits came on Tuesday, with a posting done at 6:05 p.m. The timing of comments and hits appears to indicate that many readers are using RSS feeds to watch for new postings. (Hit stats are from a Sitemeter bug at the blog. I wonder whether that immediate feedback tool will disappear with our site redesign. Will be a shame if that happens).
And another:
Sacred Space, from Jane Pope: The latest post, "Are we born cruel or kind?" poses a detailed question in 126 words and asks for comments. It was posted Friday, July 25. As of Sunday, July 27, at noonish, it had 42 comments, one of which had been removed by the author. Comments frequently referred to specific other commenters by their pseudonyms or names. Only two people posted completely as anonymous.
Gamecock made 15 comments.
Iztok made 8 comments.
Pete made 7 comments.
Others made one or two comments.
Things I don't know about Sacred Space: Hit counts. But I'd suggest that Gamecock and Iztok get a little credit for those hits -- not from just themselves, but from all the other readers coming back to watch their dialog.
Something else I don't know: How much total time these bloggers estimate they spend on writing and moderating comments, and how they are moderating comments. Are they autopublishing any comment, and then catching up later to edit? Or are they approving each comment separately? (Surely not).
I do know both Mary and Jane have had to remind -- and perhaps scold -- commenters to remain civil. Mary has had to delete the worst of the inflammatory, nasty comments. I assume Jane has had to do so as well. If one wants a well-kept saloon, or salon, setting some standards is necessary. Real people seem to work better than automated technology, in this case.
So what's next?
It's clear that creating online (or print) communities with a high level of discourse and value requires some human intervention. It's clear that creating enclaves of reasoned thought is possible even in a broader online (or print) free-for-all of anonymous comments.
Not so clear, and worth discussion:
Could some advertisers aiming at specific audiences be missing out by not advertising on some of our blogs? Will our online redesign give an opportunity for such ads in a not-in-your-face way? Is there a sales rep. in the house who can gather some more numbers and target tasteful advertisers who aren't already spending money with us? How will we preserve the time for folks like Lew, Jane and Mary to moderate, edit and encourage those communities? How much time are those communities worth? How can we avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater as we streamline our staffing? And how can we connect some of these subject-specific communities for cross-pollination? (Some of the most frequent commenters do jump around or migrate from blog to blog already.) How can we reward the most thoughtful commenters? How can print benefit from the online comments?
Interesting questions, as we go forward.
Let's hope we make the right decisions.
Don't click away -- I know this subject has been done to death. I promise a different approach.
Many of the comments have been fueled by the vitriolic name-calling recently in comments at Etaoin Shrdlu, the blog of McClatchy's vice president for news, Howard Weaver.
Let's face it: Weaver's public blog and position make him an easy target these days, much like Tony and Peter and Par were in previous days. I'm sure he doesn't feel quite as rich, but I'm sure he feels just as targeted with anger.
So let's take a different path, as job cuts hit editorial departments and as McClatchy sites look at new technical toys for enabling and highlighting comments.
Let's take a look at what works: The Observer's letters to the editor, and a couple of Observer blogs. I'm sure there are other examples of print features and sites that work, but I offer these up as ones I know best. I'd love to hear about others.
One of the major reasons I was attracted to The Charlotte Observer 20-some odd years ago was the vibrancy of the editorial pages. Much of that vibrancy came from the letters to the editor.
These days, Lew Powell is still editing those letters (as far as I know. I've been away from work email for a few days), and The Observer still kicks butt with the feature.
I'll be more specific: The Charlotte Observer still kicks The News and Observer's butt and many other papers with its letters to the editor. The Observer's printed letters cover a wide variety of subjects, are concise, quick and to-the-point. The News and Observer has plenty of letters online, but they're less concise. A recent printed News and Observer also had fewer, longer letters than The Charlotte Observer's daily printed product.
In addition, some Charlotte Observer blogs have fostered vibrant, often thoughtful commenting communities, with questions and thoughts that resemble the salons, not saloons, of days of yore.
So let's find out why, while we still have Lew Powell with us and while those bloggers still have time to engage those communities.
Then, perhaps, we can figure out how to make money from those communities without destroying them, or share their content on a wider basis, or emulate their success to give other readers a place for thoughtful comments that they seem to crave.
Here's the letters policy, in part:
"Please sign and include your address and daytime telephone number. We edit for brevity, grammar, clarity and accuracy, and we reject letters published elsewhere. Letters typically address a single idea and do not exceed 150 words."
Yes, 150 words.
That policy is backed up by Lew, (and others on the editorial board. Added 7/30). Here's what was published for the Sunday, July 27, edition:
12 letters
11 subjects
At least 7 with reference to specific previous stories, editorials or letters.
8 from male writers
4 from female writers
1 from a writer under age 13.
The longest letter included 147 words: the letter from the young person.
3 letters included less than 50 words.
All letters are signed with a name and home town. Phone numbers and addresses are not published.
(This example actually was produced by esteemed Editorial Page Editor Ed Williams, who retires this year. Lew was on vacation. But they back up each other's standards, and Lew says he won't let Ed get letters published more than once a month after his retirement. Added 7/30.)
Stuff I don't know:
How many letters are received each week? How many are rejected? How many have to be edited to that 150 word limit or shortened further? How many are from repeat writers? How could new tech tools ease the workload, integrate the letters more with online comments, or enrich information, links and visuals to the letter writers, so readers can know more about specific letter writers while protecting privacy for those writers who want it? Is it worth the time it would take? Does Lew call every letter writer each time they write?
Compared to comments on blogs, Lew's published version of the letters gives me a chance to hear what people are thinking on a wide variety of topics, quickly and concisely. It's what's left out that's important here.
No wasted words.
Blogs, on the other hand, give commenters unlimited space and quicker interactivity with other posters as well as the original blogger. I can't afford the time to visit them frequently, but here are some details about two of my favorites.
The Naked City, from Mary Newsom: The latest post, "Any hope for '60s suburbia?" poses a detailed question in 121 words and asks for comments. It was posted Thursday, July 24. As of Sunday, July 27, at noonish, it had 31 comments. 10 comments used pseudonyms or names. 20 used anonymous. One was pure spam, but the others were generally thoughtful and positive.
32 visitors came to the blog as of about 1 p.m. Sunday, July 27 (the slowest day of the week). 1,146 came on Thursday, the day of the last posting. 1,746 hits came on Tuesday, with a posting done at 6:05 p.m. The timing of comments and hits appears to indicate that many readers are using RSS feeds to watch for new postings. (Hit stats are from a Sitemeter bug at the blog. I wonder whether that immediate feedback tool will disappear with our site redesign. Will be a shame if that happens).
And another:
Sacred Space, from Jane Pope: The latest post, "Are we born cruel or kind?" poses a detailed question in 126 words and asks for comments. It was posted Friday, July 25. As of Sunday, July 27, at noonish, it had 42 comments, one of which had been removed by the author. Comments frequently referred to specific other commenters by their pseudonyms or names. Only two people posted completely as anonymous.
Gamecock made 15 comments.
Iztok made 8 comments.
Pete made 7 comments.
Others made one or two comments.
Things I don't know about Sacred Space: Hit counts. But I'd suggest that Gamecock and Iztok get a little credit for those hits -- not from just themselves, but from all the other readers coming back to watch their dialog.
Something else I don't know: How much total time these bloggers estimate they spend on writing and moderating comments, and how they are moderating comments. Are they autopublishing any comment, and then catching up later to edit? Or are they approving each comment separately? (Surely not).
I do know both Mary and Jane have had to remind -- and perhaps scold -- commenters to remain civil. Mary has had to delete the worst of the inflammatory, nasty comments. I assume Jane has had to do so as well. If one wants a well-kept saloon, or salon, setting some standards is necessary. Real people seem to work better than automated technology, in this case.
So what's next?
It's clear that creating online (or print) communities with a high level of discourse and value requires some human intervention. It's clear that creating enclaves of reasoned thought is possible even in a broader online (or print) free-for-all of anonymous comments.
Not so clear, and worth discussion:
Could some advertisers aiming at specific audiences be missing out by not advertising on some of our blogs? Will our online redesign give an opportunity for such ads in a not-in-your-face way? Is there a sales rep. in the house who can gather some more numbers and target tasteful advertisers who aren't already spending money with us? How will we preserve the time for folks like Lew, Jane and Mary to moderate, edit and encourage those communities? How much time are those communities worth? How can we avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater as we streamline our staffing? And how can we connect some of these subject-specific communities for cross-pollination? (Some of the most frequent commenters do jump around or migrate from blog to blog already.) How can we reward the most thoughtful commenters? How can print benefit from the online comments?
Interesting questions, as we go forward.
Let's hope we make the right decisions.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Turning the pages, online
The Sporting News is launching an e-edition, emailed to subscribers and delivered in an electronic page-turning format. The publication, now based in Charlotte just about a block away from The Observer, has hired some talent from The Observer and elsewhere, with big names in visuals, including Charles Apple.
Mygazines is offering myriad magazines, with the same kind of page-turning feel. Its version of In Style is in the picture.
Scribd offers a similar service, community-based, where readers can upload and download publications in a page-turning format, comment on each other's documents and see most-viewed, most likes and top users.
Smaller publications like The Raleigh Downtowner are offering similar technology to view their work, or they're offering PDFs.
It makes sense in a publishing world of diminishing resources to leverage and reuse the design work already done for a publication. But do the designs of print and web really work together? Is there a way to please both the lovers of print and the lovers of online interactivity at the same time, without having to redesign or re-template for different mediums?
And now, with the IPhone and similar toys, online publishers are forced to reinvent design to fit the small screen, with varying levels of success.
I tested Mygazines on the big consumer of magazines at my house: an 18-year-old who loves visuals, fashion and the computer. Results: too slow to load, and not clickable enough. If it's on a screen, there better be plenty of links.
We didn't even get into the other benefits of printed, glossy magazines -- the passalong ability and portability of visual, beautiful information.
Update Aug. 16: The Magazine Publishers Association has sued the owner of Mygazines, which is incorporated on Anguilla, a British territory in the Caribbean. Details here.
So as all kinds of publishers try to cut costs and leverage work, it's a bit heartening to see that design still matters, and fitting design to the medium is still relevant.
And as I was thinking about this post, something called S3 or "Simple Storage Service" from Amazon went down. Visuals in all kinds of places, from Twitter to Scribd, disappeared. The Internet still worked, mostly, but many sites lost the visual elements of their services.
Change is sometimes frighteningly fast these days, and glitches will happen. As journalists a block away in Charlotte try to make a go of new technology with an interesting format, I wish them luck. We all need it.
Again, we live in interesting times.
More:
(Added July 26) Steve Cavendish, graphics director at the Chicago Tribune, critiques the Sporting News PDF version.
(Older:)
Jakob Nielsen on differences between print and web design, 1999.
Coding Horror, aka Jeff Atwood, on the New York Times' Reader and its format vs. the web format.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Letter of recommendation
Dear (recruiter/hiring manager/grant reviewer):
I'd like to recommend ________ for your opening.
She's young, diverse, tough, talented and laid off from the newspaper industry, a business both she and I love.
She seems to have moved through with lightning speed the grief and anger of losing her job to thinking about her next steps. I'd like to help her. I'm sure she can help you.
She wants another job in the newspaper industry. I'm not so sure that's her best move.
At the moment, for her, I'm sure she feels like the timing stinks and that she's unlucky after making all the right moves early in her career.
From my perspective on the other side of 28 years in this business, I'm thinking she's lucky.
Others have lost their jobs after 10, or 20, or 30 years in this business, and some of those have managed to bargain for what they care about more than anything: a continued voice in an industry designed to make a difference for society. Many of them will continue to write or edit, and have their work appear in newspapers and their websites on a contract basis.
This oh-so-young journalist can be in a different place.
By taking a step back and thinking deeply about why she loves newspapers, she can broaden her options. While both of us would love for her to land at another newspaper, we know that move could just delay the inevitable: another round of cuts, later, and being in "the last-in, first-out position" once again. I know another journalist in that position, one who landed a spot at our paper after a layoff at another, only to be in yet another city, with yet another new mortgage, facing yet another career move, while raising a young family.
My hopes for this young journalist are different.
In many ways, she's so like me, 28 years ago. She's from a background that encourages hard work and education for success. She's entered the work world at a time of massive change when only the strong succeed. I know she will.
In 1981, I put on my gray Reagan dress-for-success suit, degree and internships in hand. I was ready to go anywhere and do (almost) anything for a job at a daily paper. I'd rejected the higher-paying public relations after falling in love at my school newspaper with the people, the power and the willingness to try to right wrongs. I found that daily job. Now, I know that newspapers aren't the only places that offer that environment.
Sometimes these days, newspapers feel more like morgues.
For this young journalist at this time, she can share a resume that demonstrates an ability to learn all kinds of information software, and to use it to tell stories. No matter the medium. No matter the tool. No matter the information. I know she burns with the same motivations I have: to work with smart, fun people, to work in a business that's trying to make life better for others, and to learn new stuff.
As this young journalist moves forward, she'll learn more about what it takes. I hope it won't take her 28 years.
She'll learn that being tough, fast, strong, smart and confident are not always enough. She'll learn that strong communication, good teams, friends and family help one make better stuff, and she'll learn that the balance of personal and professional realms is the toughest job, especially for women.
She'll learn that being among those affected by massive social change gives one a chance to reinvent oneself, before too much of life's commitments anchor her down.
And she'll learn it's OK to cry.
She might learn that newspapers aren't the only place she can make a difference.
I hope she lands at a newspaper, and I hope she has the long, rewarding career that I've enjoyed.
But if she finds another place with smart, funny, driven, passionate colleagues, all with a goal of changing the world, I know she'll be OK and she'll make a difference.
I'd like to recommend ________ for your opening.
She's young, diverse, tough, talented and laid off from the newspaper industry, a business both she and I love.
She seems to have moved through with lightning speed the grief and anger of losing her job to thinking about her next steps. I'd like to help her. I'm sure she can help you.
She wants another job in the newspaper industry. I'm not so sure that's her best move.
At the moment, for her, I'm sure she feels like the timing stinks and that she's unlucky after making all the right moves early in her career.
From my perspective on the other side of 28 years in this business, I'm thinking she's lucky.
Others have lost their jobs after 10, or 20, or 30 years in this business, and some of those have managed to bargain for what they care about more than anything: a continued voice in an industry designed to make a difference for society. Many of them will continue to write or edit, and have their work appear in newspapers and their websites on a contract basis.
This oh-so-young journalist can be in a different place.
By taking a step back and thinking deeply about why she loves newspapers, she can broaden her options. While both of us would love for her to land at another newspaper, we know that move could just delay the inevitable: another round of cuts, later, and being in "the last-in, first-out position" once again. I know another journalist in that position, one who landed a spot at our paper after a layoff at another, only to be in yet another city, with yet another new mortgage, facing yet another career move, while raising a young family.
My hopes for this young journalist are different.
In many ways, she's so like me, 28 years ago. She's from a background that encourages hard work and education for success. She's entered the work world at a time of massive change when only the strong succeed. I know she will.
In 1981, I put on my gray Reagan dress-for-success suit, degree and internships in hand. I was ready to go anywhere and do (almost) anything for a job at a daily paper. I'd rejected the higher-paying public relations after falling in love at my school newspaper with the people, the power and the willingness to try to right wrongs. I found that daily job. Now, I know that newspapers aren't the only places that offer that environment.
Sometimes these days, newspapers feel more like morgues.
For this young journalist at this time, she can share a resume that demonstrates an ability to learn all kinds of information software, and to use it to tell stories. No matter the medium. No matter the tool. No matter the information. I know she burns with the same motivations I have: to work with smart, fun people, to work in a business that's trying to make life better for others, and to learn new stuff.
As this young journalist moves forward, she'll learn more about what it takes. I hope it won't take her 28 years.
She'll learn that being tough, fast, strong, smart and confident are not always enough. She'll learn that strong communication, good teams, friends and family help one make better stuff, and she'll learn that the balance of personal and professional realms is the toughest job, especially for women.
She'll learn that being among those affected by massive social change gives one a chance to reinvent oneself, before too much of life's commitments anchor her down.
And she'll learn it's OK to cry.
She might learn that newspapers aren't the only place she can make a difference.
I hope she lands at a newspaper, and I hope she has the long, rewarding career that I've enjoyed.
But if she finds another place with smart, funny, driven, passionate colleagues, all with a goal of changing the world, I know she'll be OK and she'll make a difference.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Connecting the dots
The lead story in The Observer today was a good old-fashioned pork-barrel project with a new twist. The Associated Press Managing Editors Association created a project to train reporters in how to use new online research tools through the Sunlight Foundation. The Observer's McClatchy's Lisa Zagaroli participated and reported on government pork projects in North Carolina.
It's a step forward for the group of newspaper leaders, especially since the Sunlight Foundation is led and funded by new media people: Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay.
We live in interesting times.
And a second connect-the-dot: The Observer's Forrest Brown spoke Saturday in Greensboro for the Society of Professional Journalists' Citizen Journalism Academy, about reporting and writing basics. I haven't talked with him about it yet, but have it on strong (Twitterfriend) authority that he was good and funny. I can't wait to hear more.
So connect the dots, and think about the nonprofit, nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation's mission. They seek to use:
“new information technology to enable citizens to learn more about what Congress and their elected representatives are doing, and thus help reduce corruption, ensure greater transparency and accountability by government, and foster public trust in the vital institutions of democracy. We are unique in that technology and the power of the Internet are at the core of every one of our efforts."
And another thing: A relationship button?
It's a step forward for the group of newspaper leaders, especially since the Sunlight Foundation is led and funded by new media people: Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay.
We live in interesting times.
And a second connect-the-dot: The Observer's Forrest Brown spoke Saturday in Greensboro for the Society of Professional Journalists' Citizen Journalism Academy, about reporting and writing basics. I haven't talked with him about it yet, but have it on strong (Twitterfriend) authority that he was good and funny. I can't wait to hear more.
So connect the dots, and think about the nonprofit, nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation's mission. They seek to use:
“new information technology to enable citizens to learn more about what Congress and their elected representatives are doing, and thus help reduce corruption, ensure greater transparency and accountability by government, and foster public trust in the vital institutions of democracy. We are unique in that technology and the power of the Internet are at the core of every one of our efforts."
And another thing: A relationship button?
Saturday, May 31, 2008
How online journalists see themselves
Ryan Thornburg of UNC surveys online journalists in North Carolina, with a little help from Phil Meyer, Teresa Edwards and McClatchy's own Julianne Mulhollan.
A snippet, about the "Gannett" effect:
"Several panelists from Asheville ... contacted me to say they really didn’t work online. In their email signatures and in phone conversations, the job titles that they chose for themselves never included the online elements we found next to their names on the paper’s masthead. Among this group who declined to participate in the survey were people who I found had created online-only content for the Citizen-Times during the month the survey was conducted. I’m fascinated that despite what I perceive as obvious participation in the creation of online news, they still declined to self-identify as someone who worked primarily online."
Watch for more results at Thornburg's blog.
A snippet, about the "Gannett" effect:
"Several panelists from Asheville ... contacted me to say they really didn’t work online. In their email signatures and in phone conversations, the job titles that they chose for themselves never included the online elements we found next to their names on the paper’s masthead. Among this group who declined to participate in the survey were people who I found had created online-only content for the Citizen-Times during the month the survey was conducted. I’m fascinated that despite what I perceive as obvious participation in the creation of online news, they still declined to self-identify as someone who worked primarily online."
Watch for more results at Thornburg's blog.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
How to keep eating and doing journalism
As gloom and gossip bloom, take a few moments to wander over to Global Vue, a blog for a class at UNC fall semester, and read and think about some other ways that journalism can pay for itself.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Walls, tweets, politics and language
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out.
--Robert Frost
A few examples of journalists breaking down walls:
1. Kayla Castille of WCNC in Charlotte urged the station to use Twitter to report on the N.C. primary. Read the story behind the results here.
2. Chris Krewson of The Philadelphia Inquirer used Twitter for Pennsylvania's primary and continues to engage his local community through the Twitter network. Read about it here.
3. April Bethea of The Charlotte Observer responded to a request by Rogelio Aranda for a few grafs from a county commission meeting. Rogelio had heard about someone speaking up at the meeting against inflammatory remarks about the Hispanic community made earlier by a county commission member. Rogelio figured that information wouldn't fit in the main paper, but knew readers of The Observer's Enterese Charlotte would care. April wrote nine grafs, Rogelio translated, and the blog linked to other reaction elsewhere. Hits went up.
Being on the (b)leading edge is not easy. But it's not impossible.
What I was walling in or walling out.
--Robert Frost
A few examples of journalists breaking down walls:
1. Kayla Castille of WCNC in Charlotte urged the station to use Twitter to report on the N.C. primary. Read the story behind the results here.
2. Chris Krewson of The Philadelphia Inquirer used Twitter for Pennsylvania's primary and continues to engage his local community through the Twitter network. Read about it here.
3. April Bethea of The Charlotte Observer responded to a request by Rogelio Aranda for a few grafs from a county commission meeting. Rogelio had heard about someone speaking up at the meeting against inflammatory remarks about the Hispanic community made earlier by a county commission member. Rogelio figured that information wouldn't fit in the main paper, but knew readers of The Observer's Enterese Charlotte would care. April wrote nine grafs, Rogelio translated, and the blog linked to other reaction elsewhere. Hits went up.
Being on the (b)leading edge is not easy. But it's not impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
