Study, study, study

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to add another posting, but I've been working my way through the Associated Press' "A New Model for News." This in-depth ethnographic case study offers up observations about how young people in some American cities and two cities abroad consume, gather and disseminate their news.

The study questions what kinds of news young people are attracted to, it asks them why and tries to analyze how they obtain it. The analysis of the findings is the most intriguing. The AP finds that young people are often dissatisfied with the news they obtain because it lacks context, but are experiencing "news fatigue" because they are constantly overwhelmed with snippets that lack back stories or indications of what may happen in the future as a result.



The study concludes there must be multiple entry points to a story that includes follow-up stories, back stories and generally all the information that young readers are looking for, but missing. Information from the study suggests there are a multitude of ways consumers enter into news: through friends, headline links in e-mail, television reporting, radio and many, many others. News providers, the AP says, need to find more appealing ways to lead people into content and then offer up as many ways as possible for those readers to continue to access information about that story.

The AP is increasingly moving toward a "what is happening" approach to news rather than a "what has happened" approach. It is focusing more on in-depth entertainment and sports stories because they appeal to young people. It is aggregating news for access using mobile phones/PDAs, because that's often where young people are getting their information.



The AP is communicating with its audience, exploring new forms of storytelling and trying to capture America through its own perspective.

I bet they think the rest of us should do the same.

Where online consumers once surfed and bookmarked news sites, users now wonder why a logical trail through the news can’t simply unfold, link by link, across a multitude of sources. Significant human cooperation, on a very large scale, would have to occur to ensure that outcome across the worldwide Internet.

Being the information resource

The Oregonian has launched new features to its Web site. One thing I stumbled across was its police scanner. Yep, the Oregonian now offers its Web users access to streaming police scanner as well as codes to decipher what the emergency responders are saying.

This is just another innovation from the Oregonian site that provides public information in many ways. You can go there for Oregon and Washington's Department of Transportation traffic cams (and see just how bad it is out there before deciding to use the freeway.)

They've hooked up with Portland's favorite weatherman, Todd Sweeny to do a daily video forecast. They've teamed with Twitter so you can get updates on the go on your PDA or cell phone.

They are offering 24/7 coverage of Portland and its surrounding communities. Pretty much all their content and a whole lot more is available through the Web site.

Come visit me on my home page

In this video, the discussion of news media and how it must adapt and change gives some good ideas about how to get more users to a Web site. A few weeks ago I was sent on an assignment to learn about invasive weeds. We took this quiz about invasive species, both plant and animal, and one question was about a Midwestern invader, the Asian Carp. The real threat of the carp is that boat motors bother them and they jump out of the water and hit people (besides gobbling up every bit of food on the food chain and starving out native species). I thought it was a joke question.

So I go on YouTube to see a video of these creatures, and sure enough there are plenty. The first one to pop up? From the Des Moines Register. It was crude, didn't have much to it really, it essentially just showed a bunch of fish jumping and I moved on to another video to hear people discuss them and their habits. But the point is, that video wasn't on the newspaper's home site. It was out there, advertising the newspaper, on a very popular and well visited site, mingling with the people.



What a great idea. When I want to see video of something I never think to check the local paper's site first, I look on YouTube. The chances that the video I am looking for is there are much greater than those of the newspaper's Web site alone.

Oh, and I don't think there's anything about this particular video that I couldn't do. It's just a couple of cuts and splices along with a few labels for the people's names.

Steve Smith laments the passing of an era

In his blog "News is a Conversation" on the Spokesman-Review Web site, Steve Smith, editor of the SR, writes of the lost days of the "newspaperman."

Even as he has fought to keep ahead of the curve and maintain relevance in a fast advancing world, Smith recalls the dirty, smoke-filled past of the newspaper with relish and longing. He must have been in such a melancholy mood.

Before starting my internship, Smith, an alum from my college paper took several leaders of the Oregon Daily Emerald to dinner to discuss the industry, the future and the past. Many of the stories he told during that dinner surface in this blog post. Perhaps it's best that newspapermen and women are no longer drunks and that newsrooms are no longer the chaotic messes of ashtrays and finger-staining ink they used to be.

I guess I didn't grow up in that era, and I don't long for those crusty old editors who hardly seem human. Hell, I've met plenty a crusty editor I was glad I didn't work for, they refuse to move into the neat and tidy future.

Not to say that newspapering is either neat or tidy. It's messy, especially when you find out about something other people would prefer you don't know about. It's not easy; if it were, then everyone would do it, and do it well. Gone are the brash jokes, sure, but also gone are the sexist comments. A woman can be just as tough as man when it comes to digging out a story.

Perhaps Smith is right that the daily newspaper as we have know it will become something for the elites rather than the regular Joes. That's the fight we must keep trying to win, if you ask me. How does the daily newspaper remain important to it's citizens? Ah, the oft asked and discussed question, the answer to which is elusive and unpredictable.

Smith offers us no bright spot, no sage wisdom to grasp. He instead says democracy will find another stage. The fourth estate will be lost to some other realm. What then will the schools teach us our purpose is?

There's a reason why we don't have any dinosaurs

I think this video clip says it harshly, but it's true. Hanging onto a costly print product could just be the last bad business decision some of these enormous dailies make.

Jim Lehrer discusses the Tribune Co.

First, I would have embedded the video for you here, but you can only digg or del.icio.us it (those aren't the only sites it supports, just the most common). So please go here to view it.

Okay, did you watch it?

Good, now we can talk about it. My favorite part is the disagreement between Jon Fine and Esther Thorson about the impact of the ever-shrinking newsroom. As Thorson rightly points out, those pages Fine said he wouldn't miss from his beloved New York Times weren't really there for him anyway. Those are the pages someone else is missing.

I have an example. This morning my boyfriend and I are having coffee over the paper, and he is digging through to see what sections are in today's edition. He squeals as he comes across "Entree" the weekly food-focused section. It usually includes one or two guest columns, a few recipes, an AP health story, etc.

I have never gotten excited about seeing it, and probably only read it once. As Thorson also mentions, there is one section neither one of us bypasses: City/Region. It's the only place to find out what's really going on here.

Fine says that newspapers should have been focusing on that all along. He also says he could go on the Internet and find 100 stories about what happened in Iraq today. Time to experiment...

Now I know that Google News is not one of the best aggregates so we'll check there and Yahoo! News as well. I am going to exclude any stories that are not about what actually happened during the war today.
Google News links: Associated Press story about soldiers who are in Iraq but want to help comrades in Afghanistan. That was the only story on the first page, which contained 30 articles with "Iraq" in the headline. Nothing on page two. Even the foreign newspapers were all about the U.S. presidential candidates and not about what's actually happening. Bear with me here, I think I'm going to make a point. There is one sentence in this world report from Reuters, published by England's The Guardian. That's on page four. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer today had an update on Iraq. That's on page five.

Okay, I don't feel like I've quite made my point yet so I'm headed over to Yahoo! to see what turns up. I'm impressed, second story is an AP story about total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq. Here is a CNN.com story about a car bombing that killed 15. It also has the AP story about soldiers wanting to be in Afghanistan and this story from Reuters about security. On the second page of hits is a story from AFP about taking control of Shiite provinces.

Okay, what did I learn?

I confirmed what everyone already knew, Google News isn't that good, and Yahoo! is better. It gave me way more variety of stories, rather than the same thing over and over again. We also learned from Yahoo! news that the only reporters in Iraq belong to the three biggest wire services in the world. Now I don't find this surprising or disappointing. At least we have someone there.

But do we have lots of these AP, Reuters, and AFP reporters telling us what's happening? Nope. As evidenced by the lack of variety in these stories, we don't have many reporters there. And I certainly didn't find Fine's suggested 100 stories about what happened in Iraq today. In fact I'm pretty sure I didn't even scrape the surface of what actually happened.

As an addendum I refer you to this article in the current issue of American Journalism Review

And so it begins

In this article from the The Daily Telegram, a Wisconsin paper, reveals it will publish daily news, photos and video on its Web site and reduce it's print edition to two days each week. It intends to remain a paid subscription print edition. Hmm...

Let's start with putting some of the article here since one is required to sign up for a membership (it's free, but a hassle) to see the story:

Following a growing trend in the newspaper industry, The Daily Telegram will refocus its emphasis toward Internet publishing, company executives said today.

The Telegram’s Web page, www.superiortelegram.com, will become the primary source of day-to-day breaking news, said Publisher Ken Browall. It will feature printed news and photos of events as they happen seven days a week, along with audio and video clips.

Online news coverage will be supplemented by a twice-weekly printed version of The Telegram that provides exclusive Superior and Douglas County news and sports features plus a wide variety of community news and columns not offered by other Twin Ports media, Browall said. The twice-weekly Telegram will remain a paid circulation newspaper.

RELATED CONTENT
	Decisions were difficult, but not unexpected
	Article comments (21)

Internet publishing has grown in popularity as traditional print advertisers have gradually moved to the newer medium. Meanwhile, print advertising revenue has declined nationwide, and newprint costs have grown. This year, the revenue stream has been particularly weak as the struggling economy, poor credit conditions and slow hiring has hurt traditionally strong classified advertising customers in the automobile, real estate and help wanted sectors.

Okay, here's my brilliant idea. Instead of reducing the number of times per week a print edition is produced, newspapers should instead make people buy the print edition in stands and make sure Web content is available to subscribers, first thing, everyday.

For the old fashioned people who wish to receive print papers at their homes, newspapers could charge them a special rate, more than the online edition but less than if you bought it in the stands.

Here is why I think this will work: Newsprint is expensive and limiting. The Internet is cheap and limitless. With more innovative placement of advertising, newspapers can sell ads online, save money on ink and newsprint, still produce the product people are used to getting, still get subscription numbers to use when selling ads, offer similar penetration, attract younger audiences, incorporate more styles of storytelling, and still satisfy the older generation who can't imagine getting their newspaper online. If newspapers are almost exclusively sold in boxes, the paper still has the chance to attract new readers and distribute news to those who aren't regular readers.

Of course, this means that the Web site has to offer cell phone compatible Web sites in addition to the full sites. These sites are much simpler though, and should be easier, not harder, to create.

Bring me the future, NOW!

Business Week decided to give the Kindle a go 'round in a review yesterday. The review gives it overall good marks, although the author complains that he forgot to charge it a few times during his trial run and found himself frustrated because you never have to plug in a newspaper.

Well that's kind of silly, right? You got used to plugging in your phone didn't you?

Arik Hesseldahl writes he also has complaints about the very few, poor quality photos that the Kindle supports. I can see that as a very valid complaint. Photographs often make the difference in how moving a story can be.

A positive Hesseldahl says is that he read more of the papers he received (as well as saving trees and money). I argue, he only received two of the four he used to get so... I do have to ask, how in the world did he get time to read four newspapers in the morning? I could see it being possible on a device like the Kindle, but this guy must have a really long commute. Those are hours you can never get back.

I think more newspapers should write about and consider technology like the Kindle. If newsprint costs so much, only print those papers that people will pick up in stands. Ensure that your loyal readers who want their news delivered to their homes have the chance to save the planet and some money by giving them high tech ways to get the paper.

Here they don't update the Web site sometimes until mid-morning. I think they should do it late at night. I also think the news staff doesn't spend enough time thinking about how they can help the newspaper which gives them sustenance survive and make money.

Sinking the McClatchy ship

Columbia Journalism Review looked at how the McClatchy papers affected by recent staffing cuts covered their own reductions. An interesting survey, the saddest part is simply that a corporation of such immensity would be forced to go this route.
My favorite part:

But, frankly, all of the reporters who drew this bitch of an assignment deserve some love, because it cannot be easy to report on the disintegration of one’s own newsroom.“As best you can, you try to separate yourself out,” said The Sacramento Bee’s Dale Kasler. “In a strange sort of way, it’s better to cover the story than to just sit around and think about it, like everyone else is doing, and have a rotten day.”

Ugh. Can you imagine. Many of the news staff have brought up the buyout announced yesterday to me. They seem to be working in fear. Two mentioned they are bottom-of-the-totem-pole employees in the newsroom. One quipped, "You might be here longer than me." Oh no. There go my dreams of staying and living a happy life of marriage and backyard gardening.

Guess I'll need to stay mobile, and I'm thinking more and more everyday that I need to start applying for some grants to see if someone will pay me to write my grandfather's life story. That would buy me some time to see what will happen next in this business.

Signs of The Times

If the New York Times is the indicator of the health of our industry, falling ad revenues are sign that the worst is yet to come. No paper is immune to the decline in both readership and economic health the country is experiencing. Just a few years ago, it seemed all people wanted to talk about was how to get more individuals to read the news. Now the Internet has provided us with all the news we can swallow, but the discussion has turned to how to keep the news that is important coming.

A talk at the newspaper I am interning at yesterday announced a buy-out for retirement age workers in an attempt to reduce payroll costs. The paper simply can't sustain the cost to revenue ratio, like many others have already found. It was somewhat surprising to me that this was the first talk that had been given, the first offer to retirement age or almost retirement age employees to leave their posts for sunnier climates.

Ahh! I knew it!

The future of newspapers is in a portable device that can update in real time, as soon as something is published. Each day consumers will read the paper on an electronic device where their newspaper is delivered. I did not know this technology existed, but it does. The roll-up TV will be used for not only watching television, but rumor has it, newspapers are investing in developing this technology for their own use. 

I imagined this several years ago. I have no proof that this was my idea first. In fact, it probably wasn't, but I had an idea that while the paper copy would not be around forever, I have been certain that people would have one permanent item that would deliver their news to them. 

Another news delivery system I just learned about is the Kindle. This is also awesome. Bring the price down some more and this thing might just catch on. Although I hear some are disappointed that it doesn't deliver images in color yet.

More news: Hurray?

So Vanity Fair examined the New York Times to see whether there have been equal amounts of space devoted to news over the years. For the author, the outcome was surprising, but for this journalist, it wasn't.

Vanity Fair found the Times devotes more space to news content in the A section now than it did 10 years ago. Although the blog alludes to the cause, burgeoning advertising revenue, it fails to comment on how this reflects the larger picture. Newspapers are competing for ad dollars more and more, and the threat to the newspaper ever looms. How do we afford to pay for those important journalistic endeavors?

Few papers have overseas correspondents anymore. I used to dream of writing stories that mattered about people in other countries, now I have few hopes of realizing that dream, unless working for a foreign paper. This brings me back to the idea that if more newspapers were non-profits, then the pressure to make money would be lessened and the ability to spend money to get stories to make a difference would increase.

Shall we blame the economy or the readership?

The St. Petersburg Times has announced it will enter a hiring freeze and offer retirement incentives to employees to cut costs at this Poynter-owned nonprofit newspaper. The newspaper has seen declining advertising revenues due to the overall economic downturn being experienced in the country. Or at least that's what reason the editor gave to employees in a letter.

The thing I like the best is the comments on the story. From disgruntled employees to former subscribers, people certainly have a lot to say about the state of business at the St. Petersburg Times. I think the comments about local news are particularly interesting, because I believe that is what will keep newspapers relevant in the lives of readers. If they never see themselves in the paper, it certainly becomes irrelevant. Additionally, a newspaper has to prove it can reach the readers that advertisers also want to reach. Without advertisers, I don't know whether newspapers will have the support they need to pursue their true mission.

I also like the idea of non-profit newspapers. They can pay their staff well without turning a profit. I think the community can respect that as well. It would solve a lot of the problems with advertising crossing into news and asking for favors.

Reaching the audience

I read an interesting piece on NPR today about how journalists should handle offers of help from readers and listeners who are touched by a particularly moving story. The article says there are often no definite guidelines present at most news organizations.

The point of telling stories is to make change or get people motivated. It seems odd that we don't have set methods for dealing with our success. We find ways to deal with them, because we are humans and we want to help. But, as the article points out, we can't be responsible for funneling that help to people, and we can't accept donations on behalf of others. It goes against our rule of remaining the observing party.

CNN maintains a Web site designed to guide people to charitable organizations that accept donations which CNN has done stories about. It doesn't solve everything, especially since you may want to help one particular family and the links go to major organizations, but it is a start. 

Why those PBS telethons are important

The New York Times reported that the phenomenal PBS newscast "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" is experiencing some of its most difficult financial times right now. With corporate sponsorship harder to come by, the aging Lehrer, 74, won't speak about a potential replacement to anchor the show.

NewsHour is not the only PBS show mentioned. Some of my personal favorites such as "Nova" and "Antiques Roadshow" have found they must experiment with new types of funding models, since corporate sponsors want to know more about audience and use these sponsorships as marketing tools rather than solely philanthropically.

My aunt used to volunteer in Iowa answering phones during the PBS telethon, and I remember being excited about seeing her on TV. I no longer have that giddiness about seeing someone I know on television, I know how it works now, I am gaining a better understanding of why those telethons are so important. Supporting the broadcasting that isn't tailored to attract advertisers rather than educate may become a necessity in the future, especially if public television refuses to lower itself to the depths of traditional networks. I mean, there can only be one OC Tree Hill 90210, right?

Check out Jim in Charlie Rose's greenroom:

Ruhl Lecture: "Participatory Media: Challenges to the Conventions of Journalism"

Here is initial coverage of the Ruhl Lecture at the University of Oregon today. I'll provide more comment and analysis later.

The Internet has opened up possibilities for journalism that several years ago traditional, mainstream journalists never would have considered possible. Citizens are taking the helm and producing news about their communities that doesn’t necessarily conform to what traditional media calls news. The difference is citizen journalism is produced by the “experts” in a community that care about that community.

“Participatory Media: Challenges and Conventions of Journalism” was the topic of Executive Director of J-Lab Jan Schaffer’s lecture at the 32nd annual Ruhl Lecture, presented in conjunction with the Payne Awards Thursday.

J-Lab supports innovations that help citizens participate in public life, and Schaffer drew examples from grant and award winners of J-Lab’s projects to illustrate the effects citizen journalism has had on its communities. She suggested that mainstream media, endangered as it seems to be, should embrace these sorts of Web sites.

“We don’t see many partnerships between mainstream and citizen media,” Schaffer said. “I believe we can figure this out if we just pay attention.”

Schaffer said J-Lab has found community news sites to be responsible, even if creators draw questions about what journalists consider ethical.

“We find (creators) to be literate and passionate about their towns and yearning for a sense of place in their communities,” she said. Several community news sites have become so credible that contributors or creators have been asked to run for public office, something definitely against journalistic ethical creed. Schaffer said citizen journalists have their own set of ethical criteria, and it may be time for mainstream media to rethink what it finds to be ethical as well.

While community sites may report on a meeting where there was consensus, traditional media might think there is no story if there is no controversy, in which case, mainstream media could be seen as instigating or perpetuating controversy in their communities.

“Readers are not keeping score. They don’t really care the about the score day-to day,” she said. “They just want their leaders to address and solve problems.”

Roseburg’s The News-Review Editor Vicki Menard found Schaffer’s comments about hyperlocal sites covering their own communities interesting because Roseburg is surrounded by several small, outlying towns.

“I wonder if that could happen in our area,” she said. Thinking in terms of traditional journalists, it was hard for her to believe citizen sites are run by volunteers. “Citizen just means you really just want to do this for free?”

The talk inspired Menard to consider ways to enhance The News-Review’s newly revamped Web site to provide what Schaffer described as the umbrella mainstream media should offer to their communities.

University School of Journalism and Communication Dean Tim Gleason opened the lecture by saying it is an exciting time be involved in the news and quoted a speech given at the University of Kentucky in April.

John Carroll, former editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader, told University of Kentucky students, “There will be journalism in the future. And the journalism of the future will have tools unlike any imagined by earlier generations.”

Admitting the inevitable

 A recent survey of newspaper editors found that most think newspapers will be free in the future. It seems logical considering that most breaking news is already free, and many people catch their headlines online, which is essentially free - except the initial investment of resources to access the Internet.

While newspapers in the print edition still come at a nominal cost, many people that I've talked to say, "Why would I pay for the paper when I can read it online for free?" And those papers that aren't producing interesting online content, or have Web sites that appear amateur, are certainly not earning themselves readers using online content. And think of how far a story online can travel and compare that to how much exposure it gets in a newspaper with 20,000 circulation.

While many online news consumers want their news as quickly as possible, that does not excuse journalists from fulfilling their primary function of being watchdogs for the public. It is discouraging to see that many editors responded they thought the quality of journalism will decline due to the emphasis on speed. Certainly both aspects of journalism can work together in this changing news environment. I believe that advances in information dissemination will lead to greater news-gathering abilities in less time. This is the perfect union of speed and investigation.

See Yahoo! news story here.

The future isn't bleak

Rich Gordon, an associate professor of journalism at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, wrote an article published in 2005 titled "Online opportunities make journalism's future bright, despite gloomy feelings" in Online Journalism Review that argued the downturn in the media industry may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean that journalism as a profession will disappear.

Well I certainly hope it won't, I am about to finish my degree.

But more to the point, he suggests that the Internet has opened up tremendous other opportunities. In a telephone discussion with him today, I asked what has changed since the article was published. He responded that media outlets are finally seeing they must change their business model. Although it might seem as though the industry has experienced a rapid decline in readership and viewership recently, and it might be tempting to blame that on the Internet, he said newspaper circulation stayed stagnant while the population increased, meaning this has been a gradual loss. He suggested that with the overabundance of media offerings available now, more people are reading the news than ever, they simply aren't getting it all in the traditional print format.

"It's scary and uncomfortable and challenging and any other negative adjective you can come up with," he said. "Three or four years ago there were still an awful lot of people in the traditional media publishing community with their heads in the sand."

Gordon said those people are now beginning to understand that the industry needs to adapt and innovate in order to stay relevant. Although he admitted he is concerned with how much investigative reporting will be funded because the days of giving five reporters six months to work on a project are probably gone. Hopefully those types of groundbreaking stories aren't gone as well. I am hoping, myself, that those kinds of stories will be easier to do with the amount to technology available to us.

Gordon said there's no real set path for a journalist just out of school to follow. This job is one of constant learning, and to remain employable, journalists must learn to adapt. I think that's valid. I don't worry about finding an entry level position at a mid-size daily newspaper. I don't think that will be a problem, I just don't have as much confidence that I will be doing the same kind of journalism down the road. Actually, I'd like to write books someday, maybe after I pay off my student loans.

In 20 years.

Citizen journalism

It's hard not to associate yourself with television "journalism" when you work for print media.

The new community journalism

So where do story ideas come from? Better yet, where should they come from?

Connecting to the community is more important to journalism today than ever before. As readers are falling off in droves, newspapers nationwide are seeking new ways to connect to the community and remain relevant to readers. One concept in its trial stages is the idea of crowdsourcing for journalists.

Essentially, this means that newspapers are turning to readers for information and tips and then using those to develop investigative stories. Why didn't we think of this before? It makes perfect sense, especially since good tips often come from anonymous whistleblowers interested in making a difference in their community.

While journalists live in the communities they cover, they are not the recognizable faces from the nightly broadcast, and are often somewhat mysterious to readers. It takes effort to find out what your favorite writer looks like, and they can't be everywhere all the time. To find out what people are talking about, what easier way than to ask them in a way that makes it possible to ask many at once?

In this article from American Journalism Review, proponents of the concept make it very clear that the need for professional journalism is not diminished by the concept of asking readers for information. In fact, the need for editing content, especially reader produced, is in some minds more apparent.

Robert Niles argues in "Why journalists make ideal online community leaders" that journalists should embrace the idea of being discussion moderators on the Web. He suggests that the skills journalists cultivate such as asking open-ended questions that inspire thought and knowing how to choose your words carefully make them naturals for developing user-generated content.

Crowdsourcing isn't just for journalists:

Building an inside out onion

This article from Newsweek suggests that the era of user-generated content is nearing completion. Apparently people are tired of being mislead by faulty information on the Internet. While journalists get at least some training in how to tell a trustworthy Web site from one that could contain false information, most average Internet users in the U.S. don't. 

So how is one to tell the faux from the Fabergé? It's hard to say. Some Web sites look so real they are very convincing. Sourcing is often the only way to determine the quality of information. Government Web sites are trustworthy, but if you're going to use the information in a Wikipedia article then you had best follow the sourcing links to find out how accurate the information really is. 

What I see is a merging of user-generated content and expert content. Participatory journalism is the way of the future. It will blend reader contributions, from photo submissions to videos caught on cell phones, with stories researched and written by professionals.

Journalism 2.0

In an earlier post I briefly discussed the idea of Web 2.0, the interactive Internet. Merits not withstanding, it is here for good. So how is a journalist to incorporate this participatory Internet to give their readers the most comprehensive experience possible?

I had the pleasure of being a part of a teleconference with Journalism 2.0 author Mark Briggs. A free PDF version of his book is available here.

Briggs wrote his book for the members of his newsroom, he said, but, "I'm glad it's getting more use than it was intended for." Briggs, a self-taught media guru who works as online editor of the Tacoma News Tribune, said the skills new journalists need should encompass many areas, and that it is not necessary to be really good at one thing. His book is meant to jump start any journalist's presence on the Web, so I tend to think of it as a "Dinosaur's Guide to the Internet." But that doesn't mean I'm not going to read it and use the skills it teaches.

A vocal advocate of blogs, Briggs has a blog that compliments the book. Briggs said all reporters should blog, and that many, although initially resistant, find that they can use their blog to organize their reporting for the print edition. Commenting on the natural flow of writing that appears in blogs, he said the News Tribune sometimes reverse publishes things that are written in blogs for the print edition because an author's voice is not distilled from the piece.

Briggs' enthusiasm for the possibilties of the Internet and connectivity were very apparent when he said, it's never been a better time to be a journalist if you're excited and willing to take advantage of the new tools now available.

To see a collection from the Pew Center of neat ways that newspapers and other Web sites have been using the Internet to connect to the community or tell stories in a entirely new way, click here.

Why archives should be free

Isn't it funny how newspapers will let you read the day's or the week's news for free, but if you develve deeper in the Web site to find related stories, background information and the like, you are often asked to cough up? Well, I for one disagree with this practice.

I think of news archives as history, and I don't really think anyone can own history. It may depend on whether you consider newspapers works of creativity, such as sculptures and books. Arguably, books can center around history, but they remain the property of their creators. Unless the author explicitly sells the rights to his or her creation, and does so to the extremity of no longer retaining any such rights, the creative work remains copyrighted to the creators.

Now, in the case of the newspaper, this is certainly not so. When a reporter comes back with a story, that story is sometimes hacked into little bits by different parts of the copy cycle or is placed in the newspaper looking relatively similar to what the reporter originally wrote. This creative work belongs not the reporter, nor the various parts of the copy wheel, but to the newspaper, and inevitably, the community in which it is consumed. It becomes a part of the community because, if it does its job correctly, it will inspire some dialogue, thus becoming a part of history. The news does and should be an active participant in our lives. We should be motivated, outraged, inspired by what we read in the paper, and then take those feelings to others.

By producing stories, the newspaper is an active part of the community that forever affects what history looks like. To better see my point, try to imagine what our nation would look like without the influence of the press. That's too broad. What if the New York Times had not published stories about Nixon and Watergate? What would our government, constantly shrouded in secrecy, be doing while no one was looking? Check out this analysis from American Journalism Review of the effect Watergate had on journalism.

I believe that just as documents are housed in public libraries for anyone to see, so should be the recording of the past as it happened. Newspaper stories have an active voice and undeniable influence on the world around them. Just as they record history, they also influence its course, therefore becoming a part of it that belongs to the public.

Define New Media

So as we continue to contemplate the effects of new media on reporting, it might be useful to define new media. I found this video to be enlightening:



But wait, what was that about Web 2.0? What the heck does that mean? Check out this very good explanation:



Andrew Keen has a very good point, but I can't completely agree that user generated content is a detriment to the traditional news and information values of the Web. For instance, how many times have videos taken with camera phones been the only visuals of certain events?

I believe more interaction on the Web can only lead to a more connected community. A more connected community will hopefully lead to a more informed and involved community.

Jumping on the bandwagon

It seems like journalists are always the last to get with the times. An example is a trend article in the February/March issue of American Journalism Review that discusses journalists joining Facebook.com, a social networking site (for those of you who are really, really behind the times).

When I joined the Emerald in fall of 2006, one of the first pieces of advice I was given was to join Facebook because it is an invaluable tool for the college journalist. People use it to find others who are interested in the same things, they post phone numbers (many of them cell phones) and they RVSP to events, so it's easy to talk to them for a preview. Facebook is a way to judge sentiments on campus, to find and follow trends and locate people associated with newsmakers you don't know.

It makes me wonder, reading these articles, if that's the way it will be when I graduate. Will I always be on the heels of the innovators? College journalists seem to be on the cutting edge, and I firmly believe that I have attended one of the best journalism schools in the nation. But thinking back to when I was shopping for a university, I was sold by the campus publication as much as I was the school itself.

So college is almost over and I will soon learn the ways of the professionals. I hope that I can also stay on top of new things. Won't that make me even more valuable to my profession? It is stressed so much in classes that it is important to leave school with as many sets of skills as possible, to make oneself more appealing to potential employers. It's said journalists are increasingly asked to do more than just report, they must take photos and understand a little html and be videographers who can edit sound and bloggers as well. Sometimes you hear you don't have to do all those things, just a few.

While this is reiterated in class like a broken record, what is also said is that our instructors can't predict what is happening to our business. Newspapers are laying off employees left and right and the need to figure out how to make money using the Internet is constantly looming. Another article in AJR demonstrates the feeling resounds throughout the industry. It is an uneasiness about what lies ahead.

So how is one to stay on top of trends and be the most diverse employee they can when no one knows what to expect in our industry?

First on the scene

I know exactly how it might play out. Something big is breaking in your town. The phone tree is blazing as cells ring throughout the city. "Drop what you're doing. Get over to the square. I want you to call in every fifteen minutes. Chris is in charge of writing up your stuff. Are you on your way?"

Reporters and photographers are on heightened alert, trying to observe everything, senses piqued for every nuance, eyes darting to take in all they can.

Back at the newspaper office, your partner Chris is scouring the Internet to see who will get it up first. She can't write anything until you confirm what's going on. The blog is open, ready for the first information to float back from you.

In my last post I talked about the Oregonlive blog with breaking news. This blog sits at the ready for real breaking news when they need it. The newspaper uses it to post just about anything considered news throughout the day, weather, documents, photos, as long as it's news it might just show up on there.

Perhaps by posting just about anything that qualifies as news, the Oregonian is training me to expect this constant flow of information through its continuously updated scroll. Where do we, the journalists, want our readers to turn when a story breaks in our town? Do we want them to trust us to get them accurate information quickly?

Yes.

While I would have expected that when the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, the Star-Tribune had coverage on a breaking news blog, I can't seem to find one on their Web site. They have plenty of special interest blogs though. You also have to pay for their archives, which are anything older than 14 days.

I think I will save that discussion for a different post. Archives should be free.

To be a blogger, you must read blogs

I've set out to find blogs I enjoy reading. One thing I hardly even think of being a blog is the constantly updated news on the Oregonian Web site. But it is a blog, one I read several times a week. I find mistakes in it pretty often, in fact last term during a copyediting class we had to find a certain number of editing mistakes in newspapers, and since the blog is published by the Oregonian, those errors counted.

I also get some great news tips from blogs. Sometimes it seems like the authors are the only ones paying attention. Other blogs I ignore entirely when they pop up on a Google alert. While it is amazing that so many people can have such a loud voice, there is plenty of room for abuse.

Conversational tone is essential for a blog to be popular. Hot Spots, published by the Tampa Bay Times has the tone I would like to strive for. Easy going and like a conversation, many photos with the information one would want to know, this blog acheives both an informal tone and informative content.

I also like the idea of explaning to readers the process that goes on inside the editorial board meetings. The Spokesman Review allows readers to ask questions of the editors and responses are posted on this blog. Now that's community journalism.

On becoming a blogger

For every story I do, I use the Internet in some fashion. The Internet is crammed with information I need to quickly and effectively do my job. It is hard to imagine a world, not so distant, in which reporting was without this invaluable tool. The Internet is home to databases of every sort, contact and directory information and analysis of every topic known.

So it is only right that newspapers provide their services through this medium, and use it to enhance their commitment to public service. Blogs are an excellent way to accelerate that, as more newspapers realize that community journalism is about more than telling stories, it’s about having a conversation.

On the Oregon Daily Emerald site, there is space for blogging. One of the most exciting ideas is to write about things that have happened that can’t make it into traditional news stories or have to be scaled down because of space limitations. An example of this would be the journalist’s experience while researching a story. Recently, Mike O’Brien of the Emerald wrote a story about a training studio for cage fighting in Springfield. While there, he donned the protective padding and took a kick from an Ultimate Fighting Championship participant. He, as the observer, is not allowed by journalistic conventions to put his experience into the story because the story is not about him, but the experience is still worth sharing. Normally this would be carried out in casual conversations with people he knows (like me), but in the realm of the blog, he can share with the reader how it felt to be kicked by the owner of the studio. See the blog here.

I think the thing that most often inhibits me from making regular blog posts is time. Thoughts and information take time to gather, and in a world where I am working, studying and maintaining relationships, time for reflection suffers.

But, I have to join this world of communication because that is what drives my livelihood, not blogging per se, but communication, my field of supposed expertise. And as all journalists are being forced to admit, the world is driving us to utilize the Internet everyday.

Online journalism

As the realm between traditional journalists and bloggers blurs, how important is it to keep the boundaries visible? Should bloggers be split into categories? Is this need for distinction why so many journalists resist the move to online journalism?

A couple of intuitive Poynter.org articles by Steve Outing provide some perspectives on the line separating traditional journalists and bloggers, and what can be gained from one another’s techniques.

In “What journalists can learn from bloggers” Steve Outing suggests that some of the parts of blogging that often make traditional journalists scoff could enhance traditional journalism. Outing suggests that journalists are more confined than perhaps they need to be.

I must say that I think the restraint that journalists exhibit in publishing unconfirmed information is an asset to the profession. Some believe that speed is of the essence and as long as a blogger is upfront about his or her sources and is quick to correct any mistakes, then anything goes.

While this may lead to mistakes, there are mistakes in all facets of journalism. People want to know things instantly in today’s world, and the Internet has given them that reality. Television broadcasts often must report whatever information is available, just like any other news outlet, which may not be exactly accurate. The information is continuously updated and clarified as it becomes available. That is the truth of the news.

But then there are things that can be verified, and should be before being reported.

A second article, “What bloggers can learn from journalists” explores some of these potentially detrimental consequences that bloggers may face in what could be called their careless postings.
I believe Outing’s most valid arguments are the ones about protecting oneself from libel charges. When successful, these lawsuits can be financially crippling, and as Outing points out, most bloggers aren’t protected by a news organization that can pay for a costly lawsuit.

I have no idea how many bloggers are familiar with the strongest defense against libel, which incidentally is one of the biggest criticisms traditional journalists have with bloggers: the truth. The problem is bloggers may not expend the energy necessary to confirm the truth before publishing.

Some of the other points in Outing’s second article are too preachy for me to agree with. As an editor, I am very acutely aware of grammar, punctuation and spelling errors. They irk me any time I encounter them on the web. But I believe that the majority of the population doesn’t care nearly as much as I do about these things.

I also don’t think bloggers need to adhere to a code of ethics. I think it is more important for consumers of knowledge to be consumers in the same sense as going to the grocery store. When one shops for information, as one would do with a can of soup, comparisons should be made and the source of the product should be considered. How much nutrition, sodium and fat are in this can of soup?