Welcome to the Spring MURL Class
Welcome to the new semester, MURL and my first posting on the MURL BUILDING BLOCKS blog. This first posting is much longer than normal, so don’t be put-off by it. As we get deeper into the semester my hope is you’ll be heavily involved in covering neighborhood stories in the area surrounding the “golden block.” As the semester rolls out we can talk (and post) more about the specific neighborhoods, your experiences and insights. But, first, to get you into MURL multimedia mindset, I wanted to share with you three pieces I ran across on the Poynter Institute’s Web site. I’d you to read them….in one case, view the material. Feel free to add your thoughts here on the blog.
Here’s a chunk of the first piece, “Ten Toes in the Multimedia Waters” by Rick Edmonds with a link to the rest of his piece.
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=105128
Editor's note: This article is the second of a two-part series based on Poynter faculty members' visits to print and TV newsrooms this spring. Their goal was to learn more about what news organizations are doing to develop their online products. This article, and a previous post on breaking news, is an analysis of the insights they collected. For more information on the methodology of the faculty study and to see which news organizations participated, see the sidebar below.
It has been just two years since a damning University of Texas study found that a majority of newspaper Web sites were stocked with almost nothing but "shovelware," recycled versions of the morning's print stories. With the exception of a few high-profile converged operations, local television station Web sites were even more barren.
No more. Economic necessity has combined with fast improvements in audio and video, wild-card technologies like the podcast and the high penetration of broadband to make a cornucopia of online offerings the rule now rather than the exception.
We might simply count the varieties of multimedia content, but that list is long and familiar, full of permutations like combining photo galleries with an audio report, which has been a signature format at NYTimes.com since early 2005. You could call it a Great Leap Forward for the industry, though there is no reason to think it will end as disastrously as Mao's 1958-1960 economic modernization movement in China.
In multimedia -- as in, posting breaking news online -- our survey of more than a dozen news organizations this spring found a range of strategies and a set of emerging issues. At one end are the large, well-established sites. There, the order of the day, as one online executive put it, is "slow and certain growth." Caution, especially directed at the explosive incivility of wide-open user discussions, is very much a factor.
Regional newspapers and television stations, late to the party, may be more urgent and experimental in their online endeavors. "A land rush," one online manager told us. Get more people to visit and linger at the sites as soon as possible in as many ways as possible. Monetize the traffic later and be ready to scrap what doesn't work.
Here are some of the current trends that we found -- some of them particular to newspaper sites, nearly all of them have resonance across the board, and a number have a flavor of paradox:
Piece #2
Take a Blogger to Lunch (And Other Radical Ideas for Journos Struggling to Understand the Web)
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=115376
By Keith W. Jenkins (more by author)
Picture Editor, The Washington Post
Think: Hieroglyphics. Visual displays of information. MySpace. Boing Boing. Rocketboom. Second Life. Flickr. Podcasting. And even del.icio.us.
Journalists, here's some food for thought: What we do is going away because it has to. We can no longer claim the higher ground. There will be no "transition to the Web" -- the Web exists and is as different from 20th-century journalism as apples are from hand grenades.
If we are to survive as news organizations, survival will have to be charted by people who live in the new world, rather than by people who view the Web as either a threat or a tool to gain temporary power in a mortally wounded industry. New Media, Web 2.0, or whatever you want to call it, is powered by the people for the people. Join them or be ignored. (If you have any doubts about this, just take a look at the latest controversy stirred up by the cell phone videos of the Saddam Hussein execution.)
What our newsrooms need is a mindset that values the Web for what it is an extension of our human desire for community. The Web is a tool to talk to one anther.
We need to develop a culture in our newsrooms that lets us become part of the conversation that is already taking place; not as a dominant voice but as one of many. By giving up our position on high we may gain an even higher level of respect in the communities we live in.
You find the rest of the piece at: http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=115376
The 3rd and last piece I’d like you to check-out is also on the Poynter site, but you’ll find it in the “News University” area. This is actually part of a course they offer for free. You’ll need to register, and then you can screen the seminar:
http://www.newsu.org/courses/course_detail.aspx?id=snap_heyward06
Course Title: New Habits of News Consumers: A Seminar Snapshot
Instructor: Andrew Heyward
A NewsU Seminar Snapshot captures the key learning points of a seminar presentation at The Poynter Institute or at other training events. A snapshot features edited video highlights and other materials offered during a seminar presentation.
What will I learn? Andrew Heyward, former president of CBS News, analyzes how technology is changing news media and its readers and viewers. He offers his vision of the future, in which news content and credibility count more than the source of the information. This Seminar Snapshot was recorded March 12, 2006, at the “New Habits of News Consumers” seminar at The Poynter Institute.
How long will it take? The Seminar Snapshot is divided into eight sections. Total playing time is about 24 minutes.
About the instructor: Andrew Heyward was president of CBS News from 1996-2005.
Note: This course requires the Flash Player 7 plug-in. For the highest quality viewing experience, we recommend using Flash 8 or higher.
Cost: This snapshot is free for those watching it on NewsU. NewsU is exploring ways for you to download this material for a modest fee. These funds would be used to offset NewsU's cost in creating this form of e-learning.
http://www.newsu.org/courses/course_detail.aspx?id=snap_heyward06
Let me know what you think...add your comments
Professor TP
posted by Professor TP @ 6:30 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
I always enjoy how a demographic that doesn't vote and is dirt poor because of the cost of school and alcohol to get us through it all has and will continue to change an entire industry. And to think they always said that he would be the first generation now to out-due their parents.
I think that with the continued dependence on technology,traditional print forms of journalism will have to try an interactive approach. The younger audience is used to constantly being bombarded with audio and video, just reading information on a printed page isn't stimulating enough for them. This is making traditional print journalists' jobs harder, though, because now they have to be well-equipt with learning not only how to write, but also how to use certain types of software.
Carrollre...I'm curious about what you said. What about you, is the printed material you read stimulating? I think you're right about folks bombarded with audio and video, but I'm wondering how many watch these videos...do you, and if you do, is it on a computer or on a cell phone? It's mind-numbing when you hear the YouTube metrics and the millions of videos screened each day.
Professor TP
After watching and reading these 3 articles, I couldn't help but to remember something my younger brother said to me a few months ago. He's an aspiring law student at Penn State with a vested interest in psychology, and said that he felt a big contributor to the raise in cases of Attention Deficit Disorder is that there is simply so much information available to kids these days, they are becoming unable to process it all. It sounded far-fetched at first, but now it really doesn't. the fact is that the world of media is changing and opening new doors, but that may not necessarily be a good thing. We now have access to so many sources of news, information, etc. etc. (this list could go on for hours) that we are becoming, even as a society, unable to process it all. I think the original publishers of newspapers hoped that someday, there would be an easier and more accessible way to get news that the world could enjoy. Indeed, we have found those, and yes, some of them are very good. But, have we gone too far?
In my opinion, we are getting there. I'll give you one example: newsworthiness. In a class one day, a professor here at Temple told us that three items that grab people's attention in TV news are the infamous "TTP." I will let you fill the blanks in for these, but essentially, it meant that some of the most grabbing stories involve sex or marshmallow fluff. Is it true that these are attention-getting for many viewer? Probably. But, this is a tragic phenomenon, for we now have so much information to choose from that we can't even distinguish the important stuff from the garbage. Even sadder, we as journalists must now not only adapt to the information explosion, but also what society now views as important. Let's face it, Tom Cruise's marriage to Katie Holmes was fascinating, but it won't make a difference in any of our lives. The war in Iraq and against future terrorism certainly could. Yet somehow, reporters are suppoosed to treat these stories with equal importance an emphasis and approach each just as vigorously.
Call me pessimistic, but as a journalist, I personally find that insulting. We are taught to never lose touch with what's important, but at this rate, we're well on our way.
I believe that bloggers are very important and have a place in the media of today. Bloggers are web-savvy, know HTML and CSS, and can present news information to viewers in an appealing way, instead of going to a traditional print source's online website that is all tables, awful graphics, and watered down versions of the paper. I'm not saying that the content is second to the presentation, but among young people today we certainly do like nice design. Take Flickr, one of my most valued websites especially as a photojournalist. It's a clean, simple way to present photographs, and also gives one the option of blogging said photos. It's a neat concept, one that the author in "Take a Blogger to Lunch" touched on. Of course I am not saying that Flickr is a substitute for NPR or CNN, but it is a fine example of good web design and visual communication.
Nobody can dispute that the internet, and specifically the blogosphere, have democratized the information industry in ways that have tremendous ramifications for traditional media organizations, especially newspapers.
That being said, I have some serious concerns with Keith Jenkins' piece from the Poynter Institute's website. Early on in the piece, Jenkins writes that "what our newsrooms need is a mindset that values the web for what it is, an extension of our human desire for community." I could not agree more, and the interactive nature of online content, and even the agency implicit in selecting a personalized media menu for oneself online is at the same time individually empowering and collectively enriching. But Jenkins follows that passage with this:
"We need to develop a culture in our newsrooms that lets us become part of the conversation that is already taking place; not as a dominant voice but as one of many. By giving up our position on high we may gain an even higher level of respect in the communities we live in."
I disagree with his logic, but more importantly, I disagree with his apparent philosophy on news in general. Perhaps bloggers, as well as average news consumers, will respect credentialled reporters more if they disavow their professional label and "become part of the conversation". Call me old fashioned, but I feel that a reporter for Jenkins' paper, The Washington Post, has a better understanding of the story he or she has just written than I do. I don't want him or her to pretend that they are equal to me in that regard: I read an article about violence in Afghanistan because I want to hear from an embedded reporter about the conditions on the ground in Kabul.
That is why the Washington Post's new strategy, mentioned in the first piece, sound excellent to me. The paper will recreate some of its print stories online, as well as adding many others that either break throughout the day or didn't make it into print. AT THE END of these articles will be space for blog postings and discussion boards, on which people who have read the piece can further discuss it. But to preempt the article itself so that the reporter and anyone with a dial-up connection can simply have a talk is to downplay the contribution that news stories make to our national discourse.
Jenkins later implies that print reporters who have yet to master new media technologies are simply trying to ride out a wave until the next merger or their 65th birthday. Some may have resisted the shift because they honestly fear change and fear being left behind, but it seems more likely that these are precisely the people who are the most concerned about the dilution of actual news in a saturated media culture. These reporters predated the geyser of commentary and opinion that is the blogosphere, and probably stand by their craft not out of stubbornness, but the strength of their convictions.
Multimedia content opens infinite doors for us, but not all news should be interactive.
After reading and listening to the three selections, it came to my attention the great power of convergence and the importance for people to embrace this online revolution. As a twenty something, going online is part of my daily life. I read blogs religiously, and basically read all breaking news online. With that, I strongly agree that the interactivity of online news is changing for the good; for the people, by the people. We have a choice now- what sites to go to, what to read/listen to, what to comment on. Why not embrace this? If you are going to The New York Times online, you obviously take high regard in the reputation to where you are getting your information from. When I want to read trashy celebrity gossip I know where to go. It’s all about choice. I understand the level of comfort people have with picking up a paper and flipping to their favorite section, but with the unlimited options of online journalism… there is a world that many are missing. As Andrew Heyward said, we have the power as a consumer.
Bloggers have made quite an impact on journalism and politics in the last few years. But I wonder if another factor in the rise of alternative journalism would be the fake news. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, for merely satirizing the news, have gotten more credibility among some circles[probably the left wing circles]than some of the regular journalism networks in recent times. There are certainly many young people who get their news from them, and their various tactics to parody and point out the flaws of network media have helped make them look better by comparison. Colbert in particular has a lot of pull with the Internet audience. It was the net fans who, made his White House Correspondents Dinner speech last year such a big story- and they accused the press of not reporting on it partly because Colbert roasted their own performance during the Bush administration in the speech. It served as a watershed moment for many to discuss the current flaws of the press[or at least the White House Press Corps], and gave more credibility to someone who's becoming a more legitimate news voice in some eyes, even though he's a comedian.
When it comes to broadcast journalism, it appears the bloggers have been the main alternative source to counter them, but it seems Stewart and Colbert- who are very admired among many of those same young viewers and bloggers that are starting to be heard more- aren't too far behind. Is it a coincidence that these comedians are making such a mark in journalism[unintentional or not], at the same time the Internet and bloggers are making their own kind of impact as well? One almost has to wonder if it is.
Bloggers and News websites all have their place. I believe each cater to a different crowd. You may be more prone to check your favorite blogs and get certain information there. Or you may look for more 'credible' information from online/print news. It's true there is so much out there it's hard to tell what is true and what is not. If we'd believe every blog or even news website as absolute fact, we'd be misleading ourselves. We need to filter everything we read from all over the web and use our best judgement.
News website do have the immediacy that it doesn't have in print..they can get breaking news as it happens (same as in broadcast) but online is by far much faster and easily accessed by most. Think many of workers sitting at their desks, checking their blackberries...the news is at their fingertips when it happens.
With all of this said, I don't think one form of news or style of presentation is better or stronger than the other. They all have their place. As a photographer I hope print news will always have a place. To me, an image has much more impact once you see it in print... even more so than when it was seen up on the web.
I understand that journalism is constantly changing, but I believe that classic forms of journalism like newspapers will be around forever. I think some people do feel bombarded by all the options given to them through new media, and just want to sit down and read the paper. Personally, I reluctantly got my first cell phone over winter break. I actually felt more liberated without one. The new technology is great and should be explored, but it may be too much too fast.
I am a big fan of certain blogs, like Rebecca so beautifully said, "When I want to read trashy celebrity gossip I know where to go." I do not think to look to a blog when I am yearning for those hard news stories, however, but there are people who do...And that's fine for them. What is so great (sometimes) about the field of journalism today is that we can decide how, when, where, and from whom we get our news. With that being said, I can't say I really prefer one type news outlet to another. I enjoy reading newspapers, but I am almost always on the internet for something. In that case reading news on the internet trumps newspapers simply because it happens to be more convenient for me at the time. But as far as blogs are concerned it will probably be awhile before I use them for anything other than checking up on my favorite celebrities.
"Be objective." It's a phrase we've all heard over and over again in our quests to become journalists. All reporters are expected to be completely balanced in the way they tell stories. But as we all know, objectivity is not always what we get from news. Often, we refer to news outlets, such as newspapers or broadcasts, as leaning either right or left. For this reason, I maintain that the internet is an invaluable tool for news consumers. I believe that the only way to truely "know" the news is to hear it from a number of sources and angles. With the advent of the internet, our news source options are infinite. From blogs to more "serious" news websites to advocacy websites, we have incredible options as to what we read. Utilizing these sources gives the public a chance to read current events from all viewpoints rather than supposedly detached, fair accounts and then form personal opinions. In this way, I feel that the internet does us all a great service.
I am a bit defensive here, because I have never watched Rocketboom or heard of De.lic.io.us. or FLickr. I am unhip to be sure, but really, do we agree with Mr. Jenkins that technology has entered this futuristic landscape of video news bombardment?
I have never owned a computer on which I could enter these sites and watch video without long waits for the damn things to load. I have also interned at several sizable news organizations with barely the capacity to run these videos. Not to be glib, but our Murl class session that second day was a good example of how frustrating it can be to try access audio and video on the web.
Today, this morning at the Temple Tech Center, I would like to watch a Rocketboom video, but I don't have headphones. I see a myriad reasons to stick to my newspapers and my preferred easy-access news website print pieces.
I think this kind of democratic journalistic free-for-all is still a long way off.
I guess if you call yourself a print journalist, you're soon going to be either out of a job or pretty limited to what you can do. It always bothers me when people say that these new media are killing "traditional" (what does that mean anyway, were'nt print journalists cutting-edge at some point) print media. If anything, new media are different creative manifestations of the same sort of reporting. The principles of reporting are all the same.
I concern myself with print media because that's where I'd like to be and I realize that I can be there without knowing a bit about new media. For newspapers to survive, we don't need to do away with the internet as some of that archaic web-bashing speech suggests, but adapt to it. New media are wonderful tools that can help us be creative in so many different ways.
-DD
In the "Take a blogger to lunch" piece I think that Jenkins made some good points, but was also a bit harsh. I missed the first week of classes because I was interning for the National Association of Television Programming Executives conference, and this was probably the hottest topic - How to transition to the internet/mobile market and find new innovative ways to get a share of this booming market. So all of these "older" executive types were listening to panels made up of younger adults and asking them about their typical "blogging" tendencies and which sites they visited the most. There were also a number of news discussions that talked about whether or not journalism, by any other means than online, will be phased out before we know it. Since it's so important for everyone to hear about how our generation feels about online/traditional media, I consider myself an expert on the situation at hand. Myself, along with the rest of us eighties babies, should have a leg up on the competition heading into professional journalism. I think that it is extremely important for old news organizations to make themselves accessible on the web and tailor themselves to the creative ways their consumers are expressing and wanting to communicate with their favorite journalists via the internet. However, I don't feel like we can forget about traditional media altogether. When television was a big hit many people said radio was doomed. But regardless, every method of the media has its own nitch. Radio is best when driving, newspaper is best when riding the train or subway, internet is best at work, and television is best at the end of the day when people are looking to relax and have the news presented to them. So there's really no need for traditional media outlets to panic... they just need to keep hiring young minds to keep their business strategies fresh :)
Professortp for me, I honestly don't use much of the technology that is being offered. I don't like waiting for the websites to load, and half the time, it doesn't seem that the video works. When I'm at work, and have nothign to do, I'll sometimes look at photo galleries to get more in depth information about topics, but that's about it.
Whether or not we like it, journalism as we know it is taking on different faces. And what everybody is trying to do is to link to one another through the multiple mediums. Somebody else said it here, but each medium certainly has their own audience, that's why I don't really fear the blogging realm. Most people looking at blogs are those who are looking for the gossip or to follow the tales of someone's personal life. They're not reading them for their news value, at least not for most of our generation.
I will say that I faithfully read my hometown paper, The Reading Eagle, whether physically at home, or just online. They don't have everything that they printed online, but some days I do think about how many people quit their subscription because they can read the same top stories online for free. Anyhow, what I do read on their site are their blogs. And not the blogs of the columnists or the chief editor, but those of the citizens of the city. Whether it's the citizen who sees crime right outside his window, or the native of Berks County who now lives in Madrid, and even there are blogs from local organizations and companies to write about local events or tips to help the citizens. Like the blogger/lunch article said - the media has to maintain a role of being another voice within the community, not to be the overpowering one trying to take over the show. These blogs written by the citizens create conversations then between the citizens. It's a more open and inviting environment for people to talk. That's what blogging on newspaper sites should be about.
Just a couple of other notes- but if people are looking for more information on the websites of tv stations and newspapers, then journalists need to be equipped with more skills in technology. There's a shortage because where in school has journalism crossed paths with creating websites and learning HTML. It just hasn't happened. Until it does there will always be a shortage.
Lastly, look at shows like Good Morning America or CNN directing their viewers to YouTube through weekly segments of showing the most viewed video on air. The media is constantly trying to push people online to view these sites. It's a work in progress but we can have a successful convergence where all parties involved like the outcome. It's about finding a balance between the multiple mediums.
I wonder what type of innovative things local news websites can put up to keep web viewers interested and differentiate themselves on 2.0. Alos to avoid the "regurgitation" of what viewers see on TV. I like lots of video but unfortunately vidoe is often tempermental. I read something interesting on 602 communications.com about reporters peeling back the curtains on the newsgathering process and doing a blog on a continuing story. For example, posting source info and doing quick videos almost like a diary on what he/she is doing to put together a story.
I do not think there will be a "traditional journalist" or "traditional media" for much longer. The internet and technology is the wave of the future...no it's the NOW. I think it is up to media outlets to converge and transform their newspapers and newscasts into that podcast or live stream. While we yet transform into this hand-held, "everything accessible with one-touch of a button" society, I think it is the job of the media to keep up. I love technology and there is just so much more to learn. I do not think jobs, for "traditional journalist," have become or are becoming harder. It just means there is more to do. Tradition means that something is never changing. It is the same time and time again. And as we see, the world does not work like that. There is no such thing as a traditional world. The world is ever evolving and so should we, "the media," evolve and change for the good!
New Media , old media... Every outlet of journalistic ideas have faced this brick wall before. Looking back on history you see that Print journalists and newspapers were intimidated by the rising popularity of radio and broadcast. Televsision later followed and dominated the markets. Now we see the rise of the multimedia and internet age. Its an endless cycle that continues as society and technology progresses. Its almost human nature to find ways to "one up" or do things faster and more efficiently.
Journalism is like a staircase. You need to reach the first step in order to climb to the next. As journalism progressed, newspapers paved the way for radio which paved the way for tv. Now the next step is a multimedia news source then encompasses aspects fo print, audio and video. Blogs are slowly becomming that new wave of journalism. Objectivity in some can be questioned but as we evolve journalistically, i feel the objectivity will stabilize. Major news sources who have gone online, tv stations, podcasts or newspaper website, all embrace the multimedia culture and even some bloggers.
Once we look past the snobbiness of news sources and embrace blogs, imagine what the next step of the journalism ladder will be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Technology is growing faster each and every day and there is nothing we can do to stop it. This means that the internet is becoming an important way for people to voice their opinion about anything and everything. I believe that newspapers are becoming a thing of the past, but I also believe that they are not going to go away. As a journalist I worry about my future, but yet again I know that television news (the field I want to work in) is not going to disappear in my lifetime. At least that's what I hope, but with how fast technology grows I have no idea what new thing they are going to come up with and it's becoming difficult to keep up!
Post a Comment
<< Home