Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Introvert Seeking Job As Extrovert
I like to plan. Yet I'm going into a profession that has not much plans, and, you spend more time doing, than planning. It's like I'm a character in a work of fiction, you know, like how there's the classic psychiatrist whose own life is in shambles? Or the matchmaker who is single and lonely? Yes. That's me and journalism. A classic mismatch, made in love. Should be a fun life, or, at least, a fun book to write in 60 years.
The Rules Change Now
Rules are more like guidelines. Similar words were crudely spoken by some Pirates of the Caribbean, and yet, their fictional roots have more than enough staying power where we live, especially when it comes to journalism. Or, to clarify, new media journalism.
(To be perfectly clear: I'm not talking about issues of ethics, the "will I print this or will I can it?"-type issues.)
I'm talking about how the internet operates. It operates fast. Very fast. There is no way you can demonstrate how we operated on the internet in 2009 is the same as it existed in 1999. Whereas TV news looks similar in that ten-year span, newspapers as well (although admitingly, 1999's newspapers probably were a bit thicker.)
In journalism school, you learn from textbooks preaching the same principles and methods about how to work with that medium that have been passed down from generation to generation. That used to be comforting. Now, its scary. Why? The rules don't fit. Our society has shifted so much, that seeing an Associated Press story on a breaking news situation seems outdated, when we've been following the situation with many more details, on Twitter. We can send an SMS to anyone we want and share the news with anybody and publish it anywhere, and it doesn't have to be a news outlet anymore. Sources don't have to be heard through a news channel, they can start up their own web site.
A few years ago, news web sites realized that people enjoy commenting on anything on the internet, whether they deserved to or not. News sites were not the first to adapt the technologies, but, they eventually got on board. These comment systems may make you register through their own company, or perhaps make you just fill in your name, e-mail and web site every time you make a comment. Fine, right?
Except now its 2009, not 2006. In 2009, you are expected to be able to connect using your Facebook account, Twitter account, or whatever accounts you so choose. As of this posting, this is not the norm amongst news sites. Instead of being ahead of the curve, they are waiting to be on it, or behind.
The internet is proving to us that we may never know what the rules are. As frustrating as this may be to those who have been used to having a stable medium for decades straight, this allows us new opportunities we never appreciated before. The internet forces everyone to find out how the rest of us consume content, constantly.
As journalists go forward into the new world, the digital world, this will be their challenge: to continue to figure out what their audience wants, instead of deciding what their readers would like. To communicate with people, not too them. All done while conveying a sense of authority on the topic(s) of discussion. We no longer look for the voice of god from our news. We just look for a voice who knows what the heck is going on. Be that voice. Talk to people, talk with them, and listen. The modern audience may reward you for doing so, by giving you something that newspapers and radio long for: an audience.
(To be perfectly clear: I'm not talking about issues of ethics, the "will I print this or will I can it?"-type issues.)
I'm talking about how the internet operates. It operates fast. Very fast. There is no way you can demonstrate how we operated on the internet in 2009 is the same as it existed in 1999. Whereas TV news looks similar in that ten-year span, newspapers as well (although admitingly, 1999's newspapers probably were a bit thicker.)
In journalism school, you learn from textbooks preaching the same principles and methods about how to work with that medium that have been passed down from generation to generation. That used to be comforting. Now, its scary. Why? The rules don't fit. Our society has shifted so much, that seeing an Associated Press story on a breaking news situation seems outdated, when we've been following the situation with many more details, on Twitter. We can send an SMS to anyone we want and share the news with anybody and publish it anywhere, and it doesn't have to be a news outlet anymore. Sources don't have to be heard through a news channel, they can start up their own web site.
A few years ago, news web sites realized that people enjoy commenting on anything on the internet, whether they deserved to or not. News sites were not the first to adapt the technologies, but, they eventually got on board. These comment systems may make you register through their own company, or perhaps make you just fill in your name, e-mail and web site every time you make a comment. Fine, right?
Except now its 2009, not 2006. In 2009, you are expected to be able to connect using your Facebook account, Twitter account, or whatever accounts you so choose. As of this posting, this is not the norm amongst news sites. Instead of being ahead of the curve, they are waiting to be on it, or behind.
The internet is proving to us that we may never know what the rules are. As frustrating as this may be to those who have been used to having a stable medium for decades straight, this allows us new opportunities we never appreciated before. The internet forces everyone to find out how the rest of us consume content, constantly.
As journalists go forward into the new world, the digital world, this will be their challenge: to continue to figure out what their audience wants, instead of deciding what their readers would like. To communicate with people, not too them. All done while conveying a sense of authority on the topic(s) of discussion. We no longer look for the voice of god from our news. We just look for a voice who knows what the heck is going on. Be that voice. Talk to people, talk with them, and listen. The modern audience may reward you for doing so, by giving you something that newspapers and radio long for: an audience.
Entertain me, news monkey
As fickle as I am, I'm terribly laid back. However, lately I've been starting to sit up a little more. I've been content with the way news web sites have been laid out for years. After all, why expect anything different? That's how they've always been, that's how they will be, so what's the big deal? The "big deal" is that news sites seem content to be among the worst-designed sites in Internet existence to-date. The more I think about this, the more I'm not fine with this happening. I'm not okay with it, because the Internet, thought to be the newspaper killer, will be killed itself by the next new medium unless it forces a change upon itself.
The death of newspapers, exaggerated though it may be, has become a great example for contemporary forward-thinking journalists to see how a lack of innovation breeds contempt, and if you want a product people want, you need a product that people will want. (Shocking, isn't it? Despite reporting on the entire world, sometimes the journalism world doesn't quite grasp how people work.) Television has been fortunate enough to have the unfortunate problem of needing constant innovation to hold on to people's attention spans. Over the past few decades, the entire news lineup has changed, from Block A being US/Intl, Block B being local, to now leading with local for both blocks and using outside stories when absolutely warranted.
The popular Internet, though, is still a little bit new. For me, personally, "the Internet" really started in full force after Matt Drudge posted a canned Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff outlining an affair then-President Clinton had with a intern. That was 1998. This is 2009. So if the popular Internet is 11 years old, how much can we know about life cycles and how often we need to change things up to keep people interested?
So far, we don't know. Not quite. With the Internet ever evolving, thanks in part to blogs and social media networks, the life cycle of the Internet can be hypothesized, but has yet to be concretely proven. We know it moves fast. Real fast. A web site needs to be re-designed every 1-2 years to keep from getting stale, we know that. (A concept that The Drudge Report has never listened to, and insists on providing its tabloid links in the most 1992-way possible.)
We know the Internet evolves, and that news needs to change, you are thinking. But what does this have to do with news on the web dying? What it means is that over the past few years, news sites have not changed that much. Look at industry leader CNN.com, for example, in the year 2000. The layout, the boxes, the labels, everything looks like a template that could and probably is being used today. Is that, in itself, a bad thing? No... However, if you look at news web sites in multiple markets (like I do), there's not a whole lot of difference. In content, in layout, and not a whole lot of difference between the year 2000 and now. The corners are cleaner, there's the ability to comment on stories. Has the medium fundamentally changed? I'd argue that it hasn't.
And yet, we use the news on the Internet. Because it is the best medium we have... for now. Until it becomes obsolete and irrelevant, like radio, or at least, half as relevant as it once was, like newspapers. Is there hope? I'm not sure. All the creative types have fled the "regular" web to work on applications for mobile devices. There is some true innovation in how news is displayed on these challenging pocket devices. But on a larger canvas, like a 800x600 monitor? Innovation has long stalled.
I've long lamented that most newspaper front pages look the same. More editors are concerned with cookie-cutter designs that their copy editors can quickly throw together, rather than creating a display that is actually engaging and interesting. Newspaper design has become a science, rather than an art. Same thing, I fear, is happening to the web. If Newseum were to archive the front pages of all news web pages, I'm sure we would easily see how similar they are all to each other as well. It would be easier to see how the cookie cutter has started to destroy the innovation, the displays that the Internet can so easily provide.
This may make me a cranky, hypocritical curmudgeon, but I'll still continue to go to news web sites, if only because they are a fast and efficient method. The difference between them and the rest of the web is, I like visiting other web sites, I feel a need to visit news sites. I'm looking forward to a day when the innovators come back to the main Internet and put their heads together to create a new system of disseminating news. To paraphrase the Black Eyed Peas (see? There's some keyword search optimization going on there.), sites like Facebook and Twitter are so 3008, news web sites are so 2000 and late.
--- If you happen to see a visually compelling news web site, one that isn't a cookie-cutter of an existing web page (or decade), please let me know, either in the comments, or Twitter me a mention: @charlesjurries. Thanks.
The death of newspapers, exaggerated though it may be, has become a great example for contemporary forward-thinking journalists to see how a lack of innovation breeds contempt, and if you want a product people want, you need a product that people will want. (Shocking, isn't it? Despite reporting on the entire world, sometimes the journalism world doesn't quite grasp how people work.) Television has been fortunate enough to have the unfortunate problem of needing constant innovation to hold on to people's attention spans. Over the past few decades, the entire news lineup has changed, from Block A being US/Intl, Block B being local, to now leading with local for both blocks and using outside stories when absolutely warranted.
The popular Internet, though, is still a little bit new. For me, personally, "the Internet" really started in full force after Matt Drudge posted a canned Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff outlining an affair then-President Clinton had with a intern. That was 1998. This is 2009. So if the popular Internet is 11 years old, how much can we know about life cycles and how often we need to change things up to keep people interested?
So far, we don't know. Not quite. With the Internet ever evolving, thanks in part to blogs and social media networks, the life cycle of the Internet can be hypothesized, but has yet to be concretely proven. We know it moves fast. Real fast. A web site needs to be re-designed every 1-2 years to keep from getting stale, we know that. (A concept that The Drudge Report has never listened to, and insists on providing its tabloid links in the most 1992-way possible.)
We know the Internet evolves, and that news needs to change, you are thinking. But what does this have to do with news on the web dying? What it means is that over the past few years, news sites have not changed that much. Look at industry leader CNN.com, for example, in the year 2000. The layout, the boxes, the labels, everything looks like a template that could and probably is being used today. Is that, in itself, a bad thing? No... However, if you look at news web sites in multiple markets (like I do), there's not a whole lot of difference. In content, in layout, and not a whole lot of difference between the year 2000 and now. The corners are cleaner, there's the ability to comment on stories. Has the medium fundamentally changed? I'd argue that it hasn't.
And yet, we use the news on the Internet. Because it is the best medium we have... for now. Until it becomes obsolete and irrelevant, like radio, or at least, half as relevant as it once was, like newspapers. Is there hope? I'm not sure. All the creative types have fled the "regular" web to work on applications for mobile devices. There is some true innovation in how news is displayed on these challenging pocket devices. But on a larger canvas, like a 800x600 monitor? Innovation has long stalled.
I've long lamented that most newspaper front pages look the same. More editors are concerned with cookie-cutter designs that their copy editors can quickly throw together, rather than creating a display that is actually engaging and interesting. Newspaper design has become a science, rather than an art. Same thing, I fear, is happening to the web. If Newseum were to archive the front pages of all news web pages, I'm sure we would easily see how similar they are all to each other as well. It would be easier to see how the cookie cutter has started to destroy the innovation, the displays that the Internet can so easily provide.
This may make me a cranky, hypocritical curmudgeon, but I'll still continue to go to news web sites, if only because they are a fast and efficient method. The difference between them and the rest of the web is, I like visiting other web sites, I feel a need to visit news sites. I'm looking forward to a day when the innovators come back to the main Internet and put their heads together to create a new system of disseminating news. To paraphrase the Black Eyed Peas (see? There's some keyword search optimization going on there.), sites like Facebook and Twitter are so 3008, news web sites are so 2000 and late.
--- If you happen to see a visually compelling news web site, one that isn't a cookie-cutter of an existing web page (or decade), please let me know, either in the comments, or Twitter me a mention: @charlesjurries. Thanks.
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.
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:
That's enough for now. Leave additional suggestions in the comments, or re-tweet me at @charlesjurries.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Media Prediction: Magazines buying ads for content
On the most recent episode of What's New in News, I was thrown a curve ball when asked for my prediction for what will happen in 2009. Thankfully, the human brain moves at a much faster pace than we speak, so by the time it was my turn to answer, I had something to say. Here it is:
News magazines (as in, Time, Newsweek, those kinds of magazines that have news in them) will see a very difficult year. To help offset costs and to strengthen the cross-branding among media companies, news magazines will buy ad pages from other magazines in which to insert content. You may pick up a copy of People magazine and inside will be two pages of news from Time magazine, bought and paid for.
With high recognition but a decreasing print product, magazines will try to promote themselves with their content, not just a terrific display ad, but terrifically displayed ads showing news and information from the magazines themselves.
You can take this model further. What if your news organization could buy ads for your town's magazine? You could put in the most talked-about news since the past circulation, relevant news, more than just "this is where you can catch us" and "fun weather facts." Do deeper. Do more. Put (more of) your content out there.
Can it boost sales and/or page views? Maybe. Its untested, as far as I know. There is the danger that media companies would just turn their magazines into "samplers" for their online brands, where there is little content but lots of previews for what they own online (or maybe even still in the store). And yet, I think that if you can buy the ad space and its approved, it could be a very creative way of promoting yourself in a engaging and creative medium.
News magazines (as in, Time, Newsweek, those kinds of magazines that have news in them) will see a very difficult year. To help offset costs and to strengthen the cross-branding among media companies, news magazines will buy ad pages from other magazines in which to insert content. You may pick up a copy of People magazine and inside will be two pages of news from Time magazine, bought and paid for.
With high recognition but a decreasing print product, magazines will try to promote themselves with their content, not just a terrific display ad, but terrifically displayed ads showing news and information from the magazines themselves.
You can take this model further. What if your news organization could buy ads for your town's magazine? You could put in the most talked-about news since the past circulation, relevant news, more than just "this is where you can catch us" and "fun weather facts." Do deeper. Do more. Put (more of) your content out there.
Can it boost sales and/or page views? Maybe. Its untested, as far as I know. There is the danger that media companies would just turn their magazines into "samplers" for their online brands, where there is little content but lots of previews for what they own online (or maybe even still in the store). And yet, I think that if you can buy the ad space and its approved, it could be a very creative way of promoting yourself in a engaging and creative medium.
What is that widget at the top of my blog?
If you are reading this post in a newsreader/aggregater, this post still applies to you.
There is now an audio player for a podcast called What's New in News located just above my recent blog posts. It does not long for you to understand that I am part of this podcast. The podcast, about journalism issues, is a weekly series, with new episodes every weekend.
More will be said about the show in the coming months; we're rolling out with a "soft launch" right now, with 'full court press' coming later.
In the meantime, enjoy our podcast! For anyone interested in what's going on with news and industry issues, it is a perfect discussion for you. (Better yet, it is a call-in show, too. More on that, later on.)
Where'd the jobs go?
The American media is not so quick to make itself the focus of attention. While most people know that getting a job in, say, the auto industry is a tough decision currently, many do not know that it is even tougher to get a media job.
And that forecast is not necessarily looking to get any better.
One of my classes this semester was held seminar-style, where students researched issues in journalism and reported them to the class in 2-5 minute bits. (There is, of course, dry irony with students complaining about how the media does not go in-depth, when in fact, their information bringing last about as long as a TV news piece.)
One topic that was brought up over and over again was jobs. No matter what medium was discussed, job cuts and mass layoffs were brought up. With the economy in a recession for about a year now, media companies have been feeling increasing pressure to do more with less money. Losing the automakers -- who have been a stable source of income for decades -- does not necessarily help.
We heard from someone in the local media game who is in a position to hire people, and she told us that people have to be willing to take on multiple tasks. You cannot be "just" one thing anymore to be successful.
We have also heard that the "old timers" who refuse to adapt -- and who come with a pricier salary -- are being replaced by younger folks like myself who know more technologies and skill sets and can do two or three people's jobs. How many available jobs out there are a direct result of downsizing? That is a humbling thought.
Jobs for most fields go through rough phases. Media for years used to be considered more stable. After all, everyone "needs" news and they need people to produce the news, right? Well, the industry is finding out just how many people it really needs.
By the time I graduate, will the job market have changed? Sure. Probably. Will it be better? That's unclear. I hope that I can continue to gain skills and sharpen existing sets to land that elusive job, whatever it may be, wherever I can find it.
Planning my career AND school?
I am in a unique life position.
Whereas most people take serious worry over their careers once they have graduated and have an established reputation, I am starting to wonder what I should do now, before I've graduated, before my name is well-known.
For the 2007-2008 academic year, I was a reporter and Web Design Editor for the Collegiate, the college newspaper serving Grand Rapids Community College. I won an award for my reporting from the Michigan Press Association. My work on CollegiateLive.com won first place awards from the MPA and the Michigan Community College Press Association.
During the summer, I sent out my resumes to a few media professionals. One group bit, interviewed me, and now I am completing an internship at the still-unnamed Media Group. (Blog manners say it is polite not to mention your present company. You can still figure it out.)
With one chapter in my life about to close, I'm trying to figure out what the next one will be about. I may talk to the people at the Lanthorn, the college newspaper serving Grand Valley State University, and seeing if they need any help in any capacity. (Having some background in photography, writing, web and limited graphic design, I am sure there's something I could do.)
Another option to explore, I feel, may come up during one of my winter classes. Among the classes I am slated to take is Broadcast News I, which the college describes as:
News writing for radio and television. Projects include writing and producing newscasts and interviews.
Production, in the TV sense of the term, is not something I have had really any experience with. That would be another nice tool to add to my skill set. Might I even work with the Grand Valley TV station?
Why not just kick back and enjoy a couple semesters of just school? Well, journalism jobs are not terribly abundant. Some jobs that exist are there because media companies fire the old fogies who don't want to adapt to new media, so they hire one new spunky kid to do 2-3 people's job. The appearance of jobs does not mean that everyone gets jobs. There are more graduates than available jobs. And I've been "scoping out" some competition, and the issue is not that I'm qualified - I definitely am, to toot my own horn - it is that other people are as qualified, if not more so.
To prove that I can be a worthy performer is more than just saying "I can" in a job interview. Everyone will say that to get a job. The interviewer doesn't know your true capacity. They are trying to. But people give lip service in interviews. To prove that you can do what you say you do, you need examples. Portfolio pieces. And current ones at that. I won't be able to use a piece that I wrote in May, 2008 for a job interview in Nov., 2019. That's five years old. It's dated. Old. Stale. (Not to mention media companies have no money, and will be having even less in the years ahead, so whoever they hire has to be worth it.)
By having an "easy semester," with only fifteen credits and my part-time job, I could be open to a gap in my resume and not many skills gained. Is it unfair? Maybe. College offers a lot of theoretics and analyzing, which is terrific, but there is often more talking than doing. And journalism is an industry about doing.
Hopefully, at the very least, the broadcasting class will allow an opportunity to do. And maybe I should start thinking about another internship in the summer.
It's 2008 when... a newspaper makes online documentary
The Star-Ledger has made a 13-minute online documentary.
Whether or not this is the first time a newspaper has done such a long-form video project for the web, I don't know. I can't imagine it can be the first, yet, I don't know who would be.
13 minutes is pretty long for a web video. However, that rule usually applies for entertainment programs. The rules have not yet been written for Internet news videos.
It's a very interesting project. With more training - and maybe an extra night in Avid - the documentary could have been a little slicker, sharper and faster. But it's a terrific first effort. And I love how the reporter doesn't tell you the story: the people are so talkative, they talk you through the story. Then it becomes more than just a normal news magazine report. It becomes something a little more real.
I still have a life, am living it
As warned, blogging has been cut down quite a bit since school has started. I am still alive, however. So that is good news.
I am taking 12 credits worth of classes, working about 12 hours a week, and spending time with my internship at Unnamed Media Company (UMC). And I do not feel that stressed out... yet. Any deviation from my schedule might do just that, however.
Tuesday nights this summer were spent bowling with some friends. I have decided to keep that up over this semester, to ensure that I make at least some effort to socialize. Some semesters I bury myself in homework and barely see any friends - apart from the ones I work with - so that has been great for me as well. Except since the semester started, the stress has obviously kicked in and affected by bowling game, bringing me down from scoring 100+ a game to being fortunate to get 70 points. I think I need to use the bumpers.
I have two discussion classes this semester. These 400-level classes are spent with students doing reading and talking about what was read, while the teacher facilitates what goes on. This works great for one class where it is just four people talking.
I have more or less adjusted to the Grand Valley State University Allendale campus. I know where my buildings are, and I think I know where all the other classes are. I can get from building to building in just a few minutes. Most buildings are not too big, either. Except for Mackinaw Hall, where one can expecting to find a shopping mall hidden inside that labyrinth.
Grandpa J. had a small stroke. He's fine. He lost half his vision. That's about all I can say in a nutshell about that.
I assume the rest of the family is doing okay. I barely see them.
The new television season is starting to come back. I have never missed 24 less.
Heroes decided that "villains" means having some generic no-good-doers look menacing while everyone else becomes morally ambiguous. The Office decided that after receiving harsh criticism for their hour-long episodes last season to open this season with another hour-long installment. Smart!
Bones has not yet found a replacement for Zach in the lab. This past week's episode seems to hint that we're just a season away from the serial-killer-apprentice being reinstated to the land of the squints. House remains as comfortable has it always has. If only they would update the theme song with the other half of their cast. Ugly Betty remains the brightest thing I ever did see. Now that the show is filmed in New York City, I can try to identify places they are filming at that I recognize. So far: Times Square, and maybe that sprawling graveyard, which were all over the ride from LaGuardia to Manhattan.
I'm looking forward to the return of 30 Rock, Pushing Daisies and Private Practice. And Chuck, but, they debuted it one week prior to television broadcast, so it's already kind of come back for me.
Work is going fine at the Family Dining Establishment. People start, people leave, it's the perpetual revolving door. I get sad when people cut back on their hours. Then I remember I did the same this semester. It feels more wrong when others do that, though.
The internship at UMC is going good. A little... (complicated?) at times. But I am very fortunate to be working with some very nice people. I was afraid it would be a "stereotypical" newsroom with angry, egotistical people, but, I also have not met everyone. Those I have, do not fit the mold. Unless I am one of those people and I just don't recognize others like me.
I will probably be getting some more free time in a few weeks. The ratings for Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have been hemorrhaging lately. If that gets cancelled, I'll gain an hour on Monday nights. Until Samantha Who? comes back, that is.
Aggregators: The way to save newspapers?
This post is for all the J-types out there. If you have been keeping up with the industry for a while, or visited LostRemote once, you will know that newspapers are dying, and dying fast. People are now getting their content from online providers. And it may not just be from one source. It may be from multiple.
(Bear with me, this will take more set-up to get to the main point.) Over at CNN.com, they are now linking to and posting interesting local stories that may grab attention for a national audience. They use different outlets as content providers.
So why not - and this is my main point here - do the same thing for newspapers? I'm not just talking about using the Associated Press and Reuters and AFP. I'm talking about striking alliances and profit sharing from different news outlets. Get TV stations to provide you stories. Get local magazines to strike content partnerships.
Many egos get put aside for Hulu.com, an online video web site where FOX, NBC Universal and a few other companies put their content into one site, free for the user. We're talking about News Corporation and NBC Universal working together and sharing revenue from a single content provider. If it can work on a national scale, can't it work - on some level - in a local context?
The paper can also use freelancers, bloggers and the "citizen journalist" to provide content, assuming they opt-in. Independent editors, not associated with any content provider, would pick and choose which stories get selected, and where.
I have no idea how profits would work, that I really cannot say. I know that this magical newspaper's web site would be more likely to make the venture profitable, ironically. But the way newspapers are going now, they are just going to continue to lose circulation numbers. And it's going to take bold new ideas to shake them up and make the daily newspaper interesting - and worthwhile - to readers again. Does this idea do it? Maybe. Maybe not. You know, maybe making a localized "Hulu-type" newspaper would accelerate the death. But maybe the Localized Associated Press is the way to go! My point is, no matter how nicely you re-design your newspaper (shout out to the Sun Sentinel), it's the content that really matters. And if the same type of content brings your numbers down, you have to change the content to bring them back up.
(Bear with me, this will take more set-up to get to the main point.) Over at CNN.com, they are now linking to and posting interesting local stories that may grab attention for a national audience. They use different outlets as content providers.
So why not - and this is my main point here - do the same thing for newspapers? I'm not just talking about using the Associated Press and Reuters and AFP. I'm talking about striking alliances and profit sharing from different news outlets. Get TV stations to provide you stories. Get local magazines to strike content partnerships.
Many egos get put aside for Hulu.com, an online video web site where FOX, NBC Universal and a few other companies put their content into one site, free for the user. We're talking about News Corporation and NBC Universal working together and sharing revenue from a single content provider. If it can work on a national scale, can't it work - on some level - in a local context?
The paper can also use freelancers, bloggers and the "citizen journalist" to provide content, assuming they opt-in. Independent editors, not associated with any content provider, would pick and choose which stories get selected, and where.
I have no idea how profits would work, that I really cannot say. I know that this magical newspaper's web site would be more likely to make the venture profitable, ironically. But the way newspapers are going now, they are just going to continue to lose circulation numbers. And it's going to take bold new ideas to shake them up and make the daily newspaper interesting - and worthwhile - to readers again. Does this idea do it? Maybe. Maybe not. You know, maybe making a localized "Hulu-type" newspaper would accelerate the death. But maybe the Localized Associated Press is the way to go! My point is, no matter how nicely you re-design your newspaper (shout out to the Sun Sentinel), it's the content that really matters. And if the same type of content brings your numbers down, you have to change the content to bring them back up.
Television newscast "ads" product placement
KVVU in Las Vegas has been doing something different with their morning newscast: product placement. On the set are what look like two McDonald's Iced Coffees, ready for the anchor to enjoy. They are not real iced coffees, of course, but look-alike props. But it's not the fact the anchors still have to drink in-studio coffee that's making journalist cringe. It's the fact that there is product placement on the television in the first place.
Product placement is having a product from an advertiser visible inside your product, whether it is a video game, movie or television program. The advertiser pays money to get their product seen, preferably in a "realistic" environment where people can relate to the product better. Product placement is often met with criticism, accusing media companies of "selling out" to advertisers, for giving up editorial control of content in exchange for a few bucks. Even the Miami Herald's TV critic half-jokingly accused KVVU of prostitution for this promotional stunt.
Holly Steuart, vice president and general manager at KVVU, told Broadcasting & Cable that there have been no complaints since the introduction of McDonald's to the set two weeks ago. “Sponsorships have been part of news for a long, long time,” Steurart told B&C. “People need to give viewers a little more credit.”
Indeed. Newspapers for years now have run ads on the front page. You can rarely find a single page that does not have an ad, in any metro market newspaper. News radio stations have more commercials per hour than actual news. (Or so it feels like sometimes.) And news web sites will contain ads from sponsors inside the news article itself. So why should the appearance of a few low-key ads, which air during a mixed news/entertainment program, raise any eyebrows? For the same reason that television and movie people fear product placement: infringement on editorial control.
Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), told B&C that KVVU has not violated any guidelines because the advertiser has no influence over the news content. But she said that the RTNDA is "rethinking the guidelines in light of the growth of product placement generally." No one wants to lose control, especially news directors. And when you get advertisers involved in your show, not just in your commercial breaks, you run the risk of advertisers making demands, expecting more placement, and perhaps assuming that they can get some editorial control.
Is that an alarmist point of view? Perhaps. That rarely happens in newspapers, the Internet or radio. But seeing ads with the news on television is a mysteriously new and untested land. And until we know how people can react to it, and how advertisers and directors can deal with it, product placement in newscasts will remain a touchy subject for some time to come.
Product placement is having a product from an advertiser visible inside your product, whether it is a video game, movie or television program. The advertiser pays money to get their product seen, preferably in a "realistic" environment where people can relate to the product better. Product placement is often met with criticism, accusing media companies of "selling out" to advertisers, for giving up editorial control of content in exchange for a few bucks. Even the Miami Herald's TV critic half-jokingly accused KVVU of prostitution for this promotional stunt.Holly Steuart, vice president and general manager at KVVU, told Broadcasting & Cable that there have been no complaints since the introduction of McDonald's to the set two weeks ago. “Sponsorships have been part of news for a long, long time,” Steurart told B&C. “People need to give viewers a little more credit.”
Indeed. Newspapers for years now have run ads on the front page. You can rarely find a single page that does not have an ad, in any metro market newspaper. News radio stations have more commercials per hour than actual news. (Or so it feels like sometimes.) And news web sites will contain ads from sponsors inside the news article itself. So why should the appearance of a few low-key ads, which air during a mixed news/entertainment program, raise any eyebrows? For the same reason that television and movie people fear product placement: infringement on editorial control.
Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), told B&C that KVVU has not violated any guidelines because the advertiser has no influence over the news content. But she said that the RTNDA is "rethinking the guidelines in light of the growth of product placement generally." No one wants to lose control, especially news directors. And when you get advertisers involved in your show, not just in your commercial breaks, you run the risk of advertisers making demands, expecting more placement, and perhaps assuming that they can get some editorial control.
Is that an alarmist point of view? Perhaps. That rarely happens in newspapers, the Internet or radio. But seeing ads with the news on television is a mysteriously new and untested land. And until we know how people can react to it, and how advertisers and directors can deal with it, product placement in newscasts will remain a touchy subject for some time to come.
What I learned about journalism from "NewsRadio"
Following up on this post, I thought I would spend some time to write about what could be gleamed about the journalism profession from the television show NewsRadio:
- Anchors are mostly idiots (still): Television is not kind to our nation's broadcasters. Phil Hartman's portrayal of the vain Bill McNeal showed us a man who knew he was good, really good, but had no clue how uncool he looked to others. McNeal's replacement, Max Lewis, was always unprofessional and spent his time flirting with the secretary. However, the show had one sane anchor: Catherine Duke, whose energy was spent on biting one-liners rather than elaborate plots.
- News directors are nice: If there was ever the anti-thesis of Lou Grant, it would be Dave Nelson. His Midwestern mannerisms stayed with him and he tried to be nice to the staff throughout the shows run. He may not have had complete control of his staff, in any way shape or form, but he would be the nicest boss you could ask for.
- You will work with odd people: The self-confident and duct-tape wielding electrician, the lazy redhead secretary, the childish news writer and the academically-minded news producer. It sounds like the set-up to a joke, and for this sitcom, it kind of was. But in real life, you never know what assortment of people you will work with. And in a profession that attracts may big egos, that saying has more weight than before.
- There's always time to do something: Whether it's covering the big story, sneaking in a make-out session or playing a prank on a co-worker, if you can manage your time efficiently, there's no end to what you can do during your office day.
- You may wind up working in the background: Every now and then, NewsRadio would make some reference to the background actors and people who supposedly also ran the fictional radio station, but were never part of the cast. The journalism career involves thousands upon thousands of people who will extraordinary jobs who never ever get public credit or glory. People who go into any form of journalism or media need to go in expecting to do it for the love of the job, not to get famous. There are a handful of popular journalist, thousands more of terrific workers.
What I learned about journalism from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"
I have been watching The Mary Tyler Moore Show on Hulu and have figured out the following about working in a television newsroom:
- Anchors are idiots: Ted Baxter thinks he is all that and a bag of chips, but he's just a few fries short of a full order. His truly unoriginal ideas, terrible dictation and inability to read complicated names are no match for his inflated ego. There's always been the stereotype that television news anchors are egotistical. Ted Baxter does not prove that wrong.
- Assistant producers have time to shop: I'm not exactly sure what Mary Richards does. From the episodes I've seen, the most work she's done is carry a clipboard and try to run election night coverage. In the meantime, she can take terribly long lunch breaks for all her dates, leave whenever Rhoda needs her and talk about the latest happenings in her life to Lou Grant. All while getting paid enough to keep her apartment.
- News directors are reclusive, angry bosses: Lou Grant is temperamental, tired of working with incompetent people and rarely gives an encouraging word to the staff. He has a soft spot for Mary, but that is hidden behind a alcohol-stained heart.
- Writers are under appreciated: Remember Murray, WJM's long suffering news writer and Mary's best co-worker? Took a minute, didn't it? While he may have had some of the best lines each episode, and his sparring with Ted Baxter was endlessly entertaining, news writing just is not that photogenic of a career. And that makes it forgettable and easily under appreciated.
- News networks keep their numbers down: There's a news director, associate producer, news writer, cameraman, set manager, weatherman, sports guy and anchorman. And then about two extras. There are rarely any reporters seen or heard from; the newsrooms guts consist of a few key people. And lest this half-joking post betray you, this point is very true. It takes a lot to make it in "the business," especially in today's new media age. There are only a few, good people who make a newsroom happen.
Financial deadlines
Paying for college is stressful. Especially when it may involve taking out loans in order to pay for the education.
It is looking like, financially, I'll have to take out loans to pay for my continued education on my quest to get a Bachelor's degree in something relevant to media. Journalism is my primary degree, but I may switch to Communications, since most job applications I look at will take both, and I think I might prefer Grand Valley State University's Communications program better. (Both degrees are under the same house, so there is plenty of overlap between the two degrees.)
Would that loan be worth it? I think it probably would. Getting another degree, in theory, can only help. But in a career where portfolios, not degrees, are king, it almost is not worth it. Most companies are looking for experience and knowledge, not whether or not you have a Bachelor's. (Thankfully, at this point in time, Masters degrees are not required, except to teach!) So taking the loan would be worth it, in so much that I would be continuing my education and getting a degree. But without a great, current portfolio, the degree is completely worthless.
Plus, student loans are a pain to pay back. And I only have about two weeks to decide before I lose the option of getting that aid money. Is not life terrific?
It is looking like, financially, I'll have to take out loans to pay for my continued education on my quest to get a Bachelor's degree in something relevant to media. Journalism is my primary degree, but I may switch to Communications, since most job applications I look at will take both, and I think I might prefer Grand Valley State University's Communications program better. (Both degrees are under the same house, so there is plenty of overlap between the two degrees.)
Would that loan be worth it? I think it probably would. Getting another degree, in theory, can only help. But in a career where portfolios, not degrees, are king, it almost is not worth it. Most companies are looking for experience and knowledge, not whether or not you have a Bachelor's. (Thankfully, at this point in time, Masters degrees are not required, except to teach!) So taking the loan would be worth it, in so much that I would be continuing my education and getting a degree. But without a great, current portfolio, the degree is completely worthless.
Plus, student loans are a pain to pay back. And I only have about two weeks to decide before I lose the option of getting that aid money. Is not life terrific?
AP releases new stylebook, acknowledges Wikipedia's existance
The Associated Press announced this past week that it has put together a new stylebook, with over 200 changes made in this edition, including the edition of words like "iPhone" and "Wikipedia." The book, which has 66 more pages than the 2004 edition, is the default standard for many print journalist around the country. In journalism class, we learned how to use the stylebook to look up different terms, figure out how we're supposed to write certain terms (like "web site" instead of "website").The book can be incredibly frustrating, when they give very vague answers as to how to write something. There have been a couple times where all the editors look over a term and are in complete befuddlement of how to interpret the stylebook's definition to our context.
However, there is one great part about the 2008 edition which will make it worth buying: the press release says that it is a spiral-bound book. Which will make it much easier to leave laying open while editing a story. Copy editors, rejoice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
