Make use of your space

Web sites are being redrawn. For mobile applications, Blackberry and iPhone users can now enjoy content in a new type of web site that best utilizes the screen and design of their device. However, what does the desktop user get?

A web optimized for the smallest screen possible.

I realize the web isn't quite ready to go widescreen yet. It wasn't until this spring that I upgraded from my old CRT to a flat panel display, at 1440x900. While my desktop wallpaper looks amazing in widescreen, and I can watch HD shows that fill up my monitor nicely, the rest of the internet is not a particularly incredible experience. I can get used to viewing content on the left hand side of my monitor just fine. In fact, most times, I don't think twice about that.

That doesn't mean it should be fine.

If we can optimize the web experience for a tiny phone, web developers, how about the "regular" internet? I know technologies exist that'll add or subtract widgets based on the detected monitor resolution. Why isn't this become more commonplace? I have all this real estate available on my screen. Shoot, this text editor I'm using to write this blog post only covers about half the width of my screen.

This is my hope for the future of web: That web sites will become smart enough that they will have a fixed site size (for the smallest of small monitors, the ones that they cater to today), but then, based on browser and window size, widgets (added content) will be added (or subtracted). I have this nice widescreen monitor. I'd like the internet to be able to do something with it.

EDIT: Yes, I understand the irony, considering how small my blog's width is.

What a news organization should have

I understand that adopting a currently existing news organization into a full-fledged digital operation takes lots of effort from people, a change in ideology, and can be like turning a cruise ship around: it goes very slowly. I'm not going to talk about that.

Instead, if I were hired to start a brand new news organization, one that had been given enough money for a nice web site (already we know we are dealing in fantasy, don't we?), here is a list of what I would try to include:

• The ability to Like, Comment, and Share a story. The up and coming generations do not consume news, they share it. They live with it and pass it around. Make these buttons visible and prominent. Do not bury them. 
• Unafraid to link to an original press release. This is perhaps the most controversial claim, as re-wording a press release has often been the tradition between the writers and the PR world for decades. In a land where releases go online as soon as they are faxed around, there is no need for a news organization to pretend they have original information. Link to the release. This shows transparency, and a level of trust with readers. Chances are, you are still re-wording the release to fit your style. This will help your audience to see that they can view source information, but can still see the original information for themselves. 
• Geo-tag EVERYTHING. And then do something with that information. Make an interactive map. Sell your map to real estate web sites. Give people a chance to experience the news in new ways, and with a good archive system, you can show them stories from years past.
• Archive everything. Have fund-raisers for the servers if need be. Keep everything on record. News is news, and we'll want to see it years down the line.
• As far as the reporting goes... be serious when you need to be serious. Words mean things, and formality still works well when it comes to meatier issues. 
• Let me export your news. Give me RSS, Atom, XML and any other feed the evil internet geniuses can come up with. Shoot, let me create a custom RSS feed by selecting which sections and authors I want to keep up with. 
• Commit to having a clutter-free front page. (Reminder: this is fantasy.) No one likes seeing ads above and below every widget.
• For pete's sake, make the web site looks like it's been design in at least the last decade. 
• Don't just toss up a bunch of text on the screen. Design the site in a way that guides me along the text. And makes me feel like I'm guiding myself along. 
• News sites have failed miserably in creating social networks to connect with the audience. So, imbrace whatever is out there. Is it 2001? Then embrace MySpace. 2006? Facebook. 2009? Twitter. 
• If on Twitter: Do NOT just promote your product. Create a value out of yourself.  
• If this is a web site for a newspaper, television station or a radio station, post a story BEFORE your next product. I know this can be very difficult for a reporter to do, since she/he will need to be creating a broadcast script and a print script no matter what medium they are working with. Nevertheless, if I see a story being teased by someone somewhere, I should be able to go to the web site and see the story.
• If making a webcast, make it interesting. And don't call it a webcast. That's about as cringe-inducing as putting the letters "Tw" in front of anything to make it sounds Twinteresting (Twitter = Tw). The word webcast sounds foreign, and cold. And, often unprofessional. Find a different description.
• Everyone on the staff has a way to tell a story. Utilize them, in whatever big or small way that they aren't being used currently. (Yes, that's a pretty broad statement to make... describing anything specific would risk ruining finding the creativity in people.)
• Let your staff go on social networks, with either no leash or a really long one. Unless they are publicly bashing the company, most statements will be okay. People understand that individuals have opinions. And opinions do not often agree with "the company." Let people be human, and other humans will find that much more interesting.
• Don't stand in the way of getting me to the news. Don't give me a box that cycles through top stories. Don't make me click on a headline that just makes that story the highlight on the box. Don't hide headlines on another page. I go to a news site for news. Make that the king of value, and never forget that.
• Mobile sites, apps, SMS alerts... These are terrific things. Let creative people work on these, make them valuable, make them special. The crowd who will use these are looking for something new, something to fascinate them. Meet and surpass their expectations.
• Encourage "citizen reporting." Don't hide it, spotlight it. 
• On the other hand, also highlight your own reporters. People care less about a brand. A brand is just a portal to engaging with others. Make your reporters the stars, and let the reporters build a brand about themselves. And if this requires making the web site look more like a Facebook, Twitter or Myspace versus a 'traditional' news web site, so be it. 
• If you can talk about an issue for hours, do so. Set up a webcam on Skype for all I care. Get some live video going. 
• Make your tag cloud visible. Let me see how stories are being organized internally. Plus, anything to help people filter down how they are searching, anything, can help. 
• Stalk your reporters, and let the public stalk them. Online, of course! (I'm scaring a lot of you right now, aren't I?) Whether its a story or a SMS update, let people know where the reporter is. Wondering where a photo was taken? I believe technology will soon catch up (3, 5 years? 10 at the latest) where we can get GPS information automatically in our cameras, and with SD cards already able to transmit to a web site automatically, the audience will be able to know exactly where a reporter is getting their information. We all ask each other "where were you?" at an event. This will help answer that question before it is even asked. 
• No pre-roll ad to exceed :30 seconds, preferably :15 maximum. (I'll be slightly realistic here.)
• If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. Always keep this rule in mind when tinkering with the site.
• Also, remember: Users will always use Occam's Razor. That is, if faced with a complicated choice and the less-complex choice, less-complex always wins. Make sure its your web site, and not your competitors, that uses Occam's Razor -- the users will be thankful for it.
• Experiment. Have the resources to go a nature show? (Podcast, video podcast, weekly blog series...) Do it.
  

That's enough for now. Leave additional suggestions in the comments, or re-tweet me at @charlesjurries.

Creating subscription walls for all news sites

With all due respect to a potential future employer, I'm not completely in agreeing with business legend Rupert Murdoch. He recently said that he believes that news sites will eventually have pay walls, to the point where you don't even get some content for free, you get no content for free. Newspaper executives have, of course, been the only ones really concerned about squeezing out more money on the internet beyond ads. (They've long been getting money from ads and subscriptions, and making some large amounts of money off of it.) I'm sorry, but if all newspaper web sites go behind a pay wall, I'll just find a web site without a pay wall. And they will exist. And if they sell ads, and get a large audience, guess what? They'll get some good money.

If I have to pay to go to a newspaper web site, I'll go to a web-only news web site, or a TV station's news site. Most of those places have original reporting and some wire services feeds. Or, if push comes to shove, I'll get news from a radio news site. But man, those sites suck. Please, newspaper executives, don't hide behind pay walls: I'd rather get news from web sites that are at least halfway attractive to look at.

Micropayments: Trying to hold on to old models

During the weekly What's New in News podcasts, the issue of micropayments comes up fairly frequently. Long after we've dismissed it, after we've had a reputable guest dismiss it, the journalism community is still fascinated with the concept of charging you to get the information you need.

Here's the issue: We don't get news from a web site for free. Beyond the fact that ISP's are usually expensive as it is, news web sites come with ads. Lots of ads. Interactive ads, ads that can expand to take up the entire screen, display ads, box ads, text ads, and any other form of advertising. The cost to click on a web site has already, in some small part, been paid. And now you want to take some money from me, too?

Newspapers once made a questionably ethical practice of charging for subscriptions and display advertising, making a large profit margin that many other industries did not see. Now on the internet, most web sites do not charge for subscriptions. Ads still exist. Just like they have on radio and TV, which did not charge for subscriptions but still existed more or less okay.

Are micropayments a way to generate revenue? That's certainly the idea. Is it fair? I'd argue no. It's not like iTunes, where I'll listen to a track over and over again. A news article has little repeat value. There was a house fire? I'll read it once, maybe twice, and then its done, over. I'm not going to sit down at the beach with a news article I paid for three years ago to relax. Its not entertainment, its knowing what goes on in the world around me.

I hope news organizations try micropayments. And I hope they fail miserably. Then we can stop this silly argument once and for all.

In Defense Of Twitter

Have you been to a news web site, read a newspaper or a magazine within the past six months? If so, you have no doubt heard about Twitter, a popular microblogging service. And yet, some of those stories don't get the point of the service at all. 

Take for instance, this column from LATimes.com. The fiery columnist -- who, to be fair and throw a compliment her way, is an excellent writer and writes a compelling column -- says this about the program in her conclusion: ". . . along with "what am I doing right now?" maybe it's time to ask "what the hell are we doing"?" Her take on the system is that the tweets bring people down to an idiotic, superficial level, full of uninteresting details on the mundane events of every persons right.

Before we go any further, I must disclose this: I tweet. A lot. So much so that I know what a hash tag is, I @ reply someone, I know what a DM is, along with a RT. My screenname is @charlesjurries. 

What these columnists, who no doubt need to find a ax to grind to meet deadline, fail to miss is that the "mundane" aspects of a persons life are what makes a person a person. Does everybody care that I was walking around downtown Grand Rapids? No. But some do. Maybe they haven't been in a while. Maybe they're expecting some pictures from that afternoon (sorry, the answer is "no"). Maybe someone didn't take me to be the person to spend an afternoon down in GR. 

Its those kinds of simple details that make us a complete person. Imagine if your random thoughts on your niches, and your life details, were each a piece of straw. Over time, your Twitter feed would give your followers a more complete scarecrow, a sense not only what this person does, but how they think. 

Does Twitter have some superficial people on it, full of just mind-numbing boring tweets? Yes. You don't have to follow them. You follow who you want, at your pleasure. If you find them interesting, if they give you a unique insight into their world, into others, that's why you'll go to them. People don't want to be bored. So they won't allow themselves to be. 

Another advantage Twitter has over traditional blog posts: It cuts right to the chase. While you can say a lot in 140 characters (their limit), it also limits you to creatively say what you want in a concise sentence or two. No bloating. No filibustering. You have to say what you mean, the first time. This amazingly forced clarity helps to improve communication (surprising, right?) and the exchange of ideas. 

Another thing... Twitter can be a conversation starter. By tweeting those fleeting - but momentarily important - thoughts, instead of forgetting them, you could (and I have) wind up talking about more conversation points than before. 

Does Twitter and the world of microblogging have a ways to go? Yes. In future years, Twitter could turn out to be the Xanga of this genre, the early adaptor that is improved upon by a better service. For what we have right now, though, its pretty good. And its good to know what's on your mind right now. Because it makes you more of a whole person. It allows me to pick what's on your mind. And you on mine. 

Go ahead and let the doubters doubt. They've picked on the negatives and refuse to see any positives, and chances are, will not allow themselves to. They've created Twitter to be this sort of terrible ideal, many times without columnists giving it a fair chance. (At times, I wonder if some writers have even signed up for the service at all, and instead are reading Ashton Kutcher's feed and coming to their own conclusions.) 

* Sorry if this post seemed a little disjointed. I was just writing down what was on my mind. (Oh, writer's snap!) 

News print need to morph to stay relevant

Newspapers are morphing.

No, you read that correctly. It says “morphing,” not “dying.” And here’s why.

Newspapers are still an attractive medium for consumers. Its easily portable, easy to share, you can tuck in a coat pocket, you don’t need batteries or a stable internet connection to enjoy the content and it comes back in a day or two with new content.

Except… that content isn’t new. You’ve seen it before on the web.

As part of my duties preparing the podcast What’s New in News, I cruise through a lot of articles on the news industry. Every week there are articles demeaning the death of newspapers, how with newspapers we will see the death of journalism, and how American civilization will effectively cease without paying a buck for the print edition of a news group’s product? Please. Newspapers are unattractive to people because they don’t have anything in them that attracts people to them.

Think about it. The news section has what? Stories about what happened yesterday. Forget radio and TV news scooping those stories earlier, you can now read about those stories as the reporters are figuring it out, thanks to technologies such as blogs, Twitter and live webcasts.

What about sports? You can get that content online as well. How about Arts & Entertainment? Again, online. TV listings can now be interactive, with you selecting your favorite channels for listings online, and being able to set your DVR to record them, right over the internet. Can’t do that in print. You can read the funnies online, and get a wider range of them as well. (Mary Worth and Pearls Before Swine would make strange bedfellows in print, but read together seamlessly online.)

So how can I say newspapers are not dying? I didn’t. I said they are morphing. There is a slight difference.

When television became popular decades ago, radio went through a violent shift in content. No longer did people want to listen to Burns & Allen, they wanted to see them. News has since left the radio dial as well, with dedicated radio newsrooms being about as rare as a working telegraph. (When was the last time you met a dozen or more radio journalists?) Radio went from being a place for escapism and news to transforming into a triple threat of talk radio, sports, and music.

Radio went through a very tough transformation. It still exists. Being readily available in cars, homes, offices, MP3 players and clock radios, many people still listen to the radio. Megalith corporations and their fiscal mismanagement have endangered many of these stations. Currently, I think that is more of the business end’s problem than the consumer’s.

So how do we translate this into a survival tale for newspapers? To be honest, I’m not quite sure. Is it dropping all national content and becoming a community newspaper? Is it that, plus all state content from a shared co-op wire service? Could be. Could not be. The future of newspapers may be something we have yet to see enter the mainstream.

But as long as newspapers charge for money, people will demand content that is worth their dollar. It will take some true innovators and some really brave publishers to make that happen. Until then, newspapers may continue to see operations fold all across the nation, blaming the internet for their failure to innovate and stay relevant.

Video Mystery Shops

I was cruising through my local craigslist, seeing what was happening, when I came across an ad for a "Video Mystery Shopper." The job would have one entering a place of business with a tiny concealed camera and secretly videotaping an employee using customer service techniques. The employee's superiors would then use that videotape to show the employee how to improve their job performance.

While I'm sure this is hardly a new occurrence, it freaks me out a little. Who would go out of their way to conceal a camera on themselves to secretly record a conversation, knowing full well it will go towards a tedious review? No matter what employers have you sign when you get hired, that kind of practice just freaks me out a little. 

I'm sure later I'll look at this post and be like, "man, I just didn't get it then," but, for right now, that seems really tricky and devious. 

Summing up my profession

"When people are at war of their house is burned down, they may not be in the mood [to be interviewed] either, but its my job as a journalist to be insensitive for entertainment purposes." - Kim, character from U.S. television series Kath & Kim

Screenshot of the Day

'Welcome.

3 reasons to like 24 again

FOX's political thriller 24 returned to airwaves again. After many hit-and-miss seasons, the show revamped itself once again, moving from Los Angeles to the nation's capitol. CTU is, in effect, gone. The FBI is now the government agency in focus now. The fictional U.S. government -- already having had two African-American presidents -- has now had elected its first female president. A growing overseas genocide is eclipsing her term, one full of political intrigue, spies and moles. 

With the new landscape, new locations and new political term comes an almost entirely new cast of characters. Here are the top three most interesting characters to be seen in this new season:

President Allison Taylor (portrayed by Cherry Jones)

Presumably, Taylor will be given a larger role in the show in future hours, because she is essentially just there on the show to look pretty. And yet, Cherry Jones makes the most out of the scenes she gets, playing a POTUS who is not quite power-hungry, not yet beaten down by the demands of the office. She brings a serious presence to the office. Jones plays Taylor as a thinking woman, a smart intellectual, one who does not make uninformed decisions. (Which, to clarify, is rare in the 24verse.) Taylor is more a contemporary of David Palmer than any of the show's other dozen presidents.

Janis Gold (portrayed by Janeane Garofalo)

Much ado has been made out of the fact that Garofalo is playing a neurotic computer whiz, similar to the show's resident computer nerd, Chloe. However, if you needed an example of how these two are different: Janis Gold uses a PC, Chloe O'Brian uses a Mac. Garofalo gives an incredibly restrained performance of a neurotic, slightly paranoid and very emotional computer programmer. She doesn't give the biting insults to her co-workers like Chloe. Instead, she either reminds them to do their job, or, tries to help them out. The writing, and Garofalo's performance, makes me intrigued to see more of Janis, to figure out what makes her tick.

Agent Renee Walker (portrayed by Annie Wersching)

It would be very easy to portray a tough-as-nails FBI agent as an emotionless robot. So often the tough women are portrayed as empty inside, without a care in the world except their careers. Wersching took her character and made her human. She has a job to do, but, like Bauer, she cares more about doing what's right than going by the rules. While there is yet not much depth to her character (perhaps a romantic entanglement with a boss?), Agent Walker may prove to be one of the most valuable additions to the show in recent seasons.