Saturday, November 13, 2010
Saturday, April 11, 2009
In Response To Art Brodsky
To be honest, I can see where the AP is coming from. They want to protect their content online just as much as they want to protect it in print. And yet, I cannot fathom a way in which they will "hunt down" that many news sources using their content. It seems as though it would be impossible.
Also, it seems as though Singleton is attempting to go against the forces of change when it comes to how consumers get their news. Is he just going to stop putting content online altogether until he gets his money? His news services would be more prominent and useful online whether he was getting paid or not.
At the end of the day it is all a money game. And, I do believe AP will have to charge for their content to appear online, otherwise they will be as at risk as every other news organization.
Here is the thing that I find the most interesting...
Google gets paid by AP, NY Times, and tons of other news organizations to create search capabilities for them. So the newspapers are giving their money to the biggest search database in the world. However, Google repeatedly gets people looking for news through their search engine, where they continue to make money. What I can't understand really is--if the newspapers continue to pay money to Google to display their content, but they can't afford to stay afloat, will the news then go solely to a service like AP, who refuses to let their content be used online without payment? Seems like a sticky situation.
Also, it seems as though Singleton is attempting to go against the forces of change when it comes to how consumers get their news. Is he just going to stop putting content online altogether until he gets his money? His news services would be more prominent and useful online whether he was getting paid or not.
At the end of the day it is all a money game. And, I do believe AP will have to charge for their content to appear online, otherwise they will be as at risk as every other news organization.
Here is the thing that I find the most interesting...
Google gets paid by AP, NY Times, and tons of other news organizations to create search capabilities for them. So the newspapers are giving their money to the biggest search database in the world. However, Google repeatedly gets people looking for news through their search engine, where they continue to make money. What I can't understand really is--if the newspapers continue to pay money to Google to display their content, but they can't afford to stay afloat, will the news then go solely to a service like AP, who refuses to let their content be used online without payment? Seems like a sticky situation.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Response to Shirky and Johnson
“Newspapers are dying.” “Find a new career.” “Journalism is going to the masses.” All phrases that as a graduating senior I hear every day. I hear them from not only friends and family, but also professors. The lackluster attitude of where the journalism industry is going is more prevalent than the more upbeat opinions of Johnson and Smith—that is for sure!
So where do we stand now as graduating seniors, “jumping” at the chance to get into the working world? Well, I am standing somewhere in a couple of newsrooms, interviewing anyone and everyone about their opinions on the direction of journalism. Last week I talked with the Kristi Ritter, editor of Longmont Times-Call Special Sections, (http://www.timescall.com/magazines.asp) about what she thought the direction of small local newspapers should be. Her opinions were similar to Johnson’s, as she said people want to read local content. They don’t want AP generated national news on the front page of their newspaper anymore. They want to know what happened down the street at the neighborhood parade. Ritter thinks if newspapers put more focus on their local sections, which are generated in-house, there will be better reception to newspapers. Does Ritter think the Denver Post is toast? No way, Ritter says she thinks most major cities will keep a large circulation newspaper.
Dan Brogan, editor of 5280 Magazine, (http://5280.com/), chatted about the news industry with me over a couple sandwiches at Dixon’s in Denver. Brogan says there is a good chance that magazines will be safer in this shift in news industries, but newspapers are going to continue to take a heavy hit. His ideas… Why would anyone pick up a newspaper to read national content anymore when they can get all the information they need on the web? He says, what I have thought for years, “There is no such thing as breaking news in a newspaper, when it broke over 24 hours ago on the Web.” Does Brogan think the Post is toast? Yes! Brogan takes the approach of Johnson and Shirky when it comes to hyper-localization. As Johnson points out, there are tons of blogs popping up about the Brooklyn area, and even the New York Times is adding it as content. Brogan thinks if there is any type of printed newspaper in large cities it will be in a hyper-localized form that resembles something like the Cherry Creek News (http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/), which is a neighborhood publication. The newspapers will be printed by specific neighborhood or area.
As for the digital dilemma, I think there are several pros and cons. The obvious pros are how quickly news can be distributed online, how much content can be found online, etc. I agree with Johnson and Shirky that we are already in a news revolution cycle, and there is really no going back, only going forward. However, I think the reason the newspaper is going kicking and screaming in this direction is for two reasons.
1) The majority of people working in the newspaper industry are traditionalists. They are the type of people who enjoy getting up in the morning and looking over their newspaper with a cup of coffee in hand. They enjoy having Fido fetch it from the sidewalk at 5 a.m. so they have a tangible piece of print in hand.
2) With the invention of citizen journalism, there is the question of job security, as well as accuracy of news. We have been taught from the beginning that many Web sites are not to be trusted, so why should we trust all these “news sites” popping up now. They aren’t real journalists. They don’t have degrees. They are just “joe shmo” with a laptop in a New York City Starbucks.
I agree with the second statement, and I am pretty sure many people in the newspaper consuming audience would also agree. So, what can we do to move with the ages as graduating seniors? Truth be told, I am not entirely sure. But, what I do know, is the first person to figure out how to make online models consistently profitable and accessible daily will be the next prodigy, following William Randolph Hearst of Joe Pulitzer sans the printing press.
So where do we stand now as graduating seniors, “jumping” at the chance to get into the working world? Well, I am standing somewhere in a couple of newsrooms, interviewing anyone and everyone about their opinions on the direction of journalism. Last week I talked with the Kristi Ritter, editor of Longmont Times-Call Special Sections, (http://www.timescall.com/magazines.asp) about what she thought the direction of small local newspapers should be. Her opinions were similar to Johnson’s, as she said people want to read local content. They don’t want AP generated national news on the front page of their newspaper anymore. They want to know what happened down the street at the neighborhood parade. Ritter thinks if newspapers put more focus on their local sections, which are generated in-house, there will be better reception to newspapers. Does Ritter think the Denver Post is toast? No way, Ritter says she thinks most major cities will keep a large circulation newspaper.
Dan Brogan, editor of 5280 Magazine, (http://5280.com/), chatted about the news industry with me over a couple sandwiches at Dixon’s in Denver. Brogan says there is a good chance that magazines will be safer in this shift in news industries, but newspapers are going to continue to take a heavy hit. His ideas… Why would anyone pick up a newspaper to read national content anymore when they can get all the information they need on the web? He says, what I have thought for years, “There is no such thing as breaking news in a newspaper, when it broke over 24 hours ago on the Web.” Does Brogan think the Post is toast? Yes! Brogan takes the approach of Johnson and Shirky when it comes to hyper-localization. As Johnson points out, there are tons of blogs popping up about the Brooklyn area, and even the New York Times is adding it as content. Brogan thinks if there is any type of printed newspaper in large cities it will be in a hyper-localized form that resembles something like the Cherry Creek News (http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/), which is a neighborhood publication. The newspapers will be printed by specific neighborhood or area.
As for the digital dilemma, I think there are several pros and cons. The obvious pros are how quickly news can be distributed online, how much content can be found online, etc. I agree with Johnson and Shirky that we are already in a news revolution cycle, and there is really no going back, only going forward. However, I think the reason the newspaper is going kicking and screaming in this direction is for two reasons.
1) The majority of people working in the newspaper industry are traditionalists. They are the type of people who enjoy getting up in the morning and looking over their newspaper with a cup of coffee in hand. They enjoy having Fido fetch it from the sidewalk at 5 a.m. so they have a tangible piece of print in hand.
2) With the invention of citizen journalism, there is the question of job security, as well as accuracy of news. We have been taught from the beginning that many Web sites are not to be trusted, so why should we trust all these “news sites” popping up now. They aren’t real journalists. They don’t have degrees. They are just “joe shmo” with a laptop in a New York City Starbucks.
I agree with the second statement, and I am pretty sure many people in the newspaper consuming audience would also agree. So, what can we do to move with the ages as graduating seniors? Truth be told, I am not entirely sure. But, what I do know, is the first person to figure out how to make online models consistently profitable and accessible daily will be the next prodigy, following William Randolph Hearst of Joe Pulitzer sans the printing press.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Ethics Blog
What is a phenomenon that you see in news that you find troubling? Is it unethical? What standards of ethics do you feel are under challenge? What should our industry do in such a case?
One phenomenon that I find troubling is the amount of investigative journalism meant more for entertainment than news. Many news outlets have turned to an almost "yellow journalism" and a sensational look at news. CNN's Nancy Grace is a prime example. The talk show host has interrogated many, speculated about cases that haven't even been heard before a judge yet, and does it all in the name of journalism. Her antics provide for an entertaining show-- but is it really news?
Some may say she has the background as a journalist, and therefore it makes her qualified to spread the news. I would agree in a sense, but the manner in which she conveys news is more sensational than newsworthy. Her speculation on cases has recently led to a lawsuit against her. She questioned a woman on her show about the whereabouts of the woman's sun. Apparently, the questioning turned to speculation that the woman may have been involved or responsible for her son's disappearance. The woman committed suicide shortly after the show, and the family filed suit. Was Grace's conduct an act of investigative journalism or just a way to get a rise out of a lackluster audience?
MSNBC's Dateline has also walked a thin line between investigative journalism and sensationalism with their series "To Catch A Predator." The show which is designed to lure potential online predators into the hands of authorities is a set-up of sorts. The show is creating the news as opposed to the news creating the journalism. Should journalists cross this line? I would argue no, however there is a school of thought that says journalists have a commitment to the public to make them aware of situations and "To Catch A Predator" is a perfect example. I believe we do have a commitment to the public, but for journalists to create a stake-out and then write about it follows along the lines of yellow journalism in my opinion.
These are just a couple examples of investigative journalism that may have taken us back to the days of Hearst-- but I am sure there are many more to come, which is what bothers me the most.
One phenomenon that I find troubling is the amount of investigative journalism meant more for entertainment than news. Many news outlets have turned to an almost "yellow journalism" and a sensational look at news. CNN's Nancy Grace is a prime example. The talk show host has interrogated many, speculated about cases that haven't even been heard before a judge yet, and does it all in the name of journalism. Her antics provide for an entertaining show-- but is it really news?
Some may say she has the background as a journalist, and therefore it makes her qualified to spread the news. I would agree in a sense, but the manner in which she conveys news is more sensational than newsworthy. Her speculation on cases has recently led to a lawsuit against her. She questioned a woman on her show about the whereabouts of the woman's sun. Apparently, the questioning turned to speculation that the woman may have been involved or responsible for her son's disappearance. The woman committed suicide shortly after the show, and the family filed suit. Was Grace's conduct an act of investigative journalism or just a way to get a rise out of a lackluster audience?
MSNBC's Dateline has also walked a thin line between investigative journalism and sensationalism with their series "To Catch A Predator." The show which is designed to lure potential online predators into the hands of authorities is a set-up of sorts. The show is creating the news as opposed to the news creating the journalism. Should journalists cross this line? I would argue no, however there is a school of thought that says journalists have a commitment to the public to make them aware of situations and "To Catch A Predator" is a perfect example. I believe we do have a commitment to the public, but for journalists to create a stake-out and then write about it follows along the lines of yellow journalism in my opinion.
These are just a couple examples of investigative journalism that may have taken us back to the days of Hearst-- but I am sure there are many more to come, which is what bothers me the most.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inaugural Balls
So much for pomp and circumstance. What happened to the days where the President and First Lady had their first dance at the White House with one inaugural ball. Now days it is ten inaugural balls filled with concerts from pop stars like Fall Out Boy, hollywood hotties fresh from Sundance like Leonardo DiCaprio, and a play by play of how exactly the President and First Lady chose their outfits. It is called a stylist folks!
The excitement and fervor from the celebrity set is taking over the television. I have watched Usher, Faith Hill, Pete Wentz, Beyonce, Sting, Stevie Wonder, Kerry Washington and more mix it up with dignitaries like they have won the Presidency themselves.
Lauren Binney, a CU student voted in the election for the first time this year. She said she didn't even know that there were 10 inaugural balls. "I feel like they have made Obama into a celebrity. All of these celebrities have taken away from the seriousness of the subject."
Even some of the major news stations have picked up on this questionably funny trend of celebrities out in mass. Fox was just quoted saying, "Maybe usher will come out and Pete Wentz, and Beyonce, and they will all get together and sing."
The appeal of this star studded event (and I am not talking about the American flag) is that celebrities sell! So take your pick--and tune into one of the many inaugural balls.
A list of the balls where or Obama/Biden are guaranteed to appear:
Neighborhood Inaugural Ball
Commander-in-Chief's Inaugural Ball
Youth Inaugural Ball
Obama Home States Inaugural Ball
Biden Home States Inaugural Ball
Eastern Inaugural Ball
Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball
Midwest Inaugural Ball
Southern Inaugural Ball
Western Inaugural Ball
The excitement and fervor from the celebrity set is taking over the television. I have watched Usher, Faith Hill, Pete Wentz, Beyonce, Sting, Stevie Wonder, Kerry Washington and more mix it up with dignitaries like they have won the Presidency themselves.
Lauren Binney, a CU student voted in the election for the first time this year. She said she didn't even know that there were 10 inaugural balls. "I feel like they have made Obama into a celebrity. All of these celebrities have taken away from the seriousness of the subject."
Even some of the major news stations have picked up on this questionably funny trend of celebrities out in mass. Fox was just quoted saying, "Maybe usher will come out and Pete Wentz, and Beyonce, and they will all get together and sing."
The appeal of this star studded event (and I am not talking about the American flag) is that celebrities sell! So take your pick--and tune into one of the many inaugural balls.
A list of the balls where or Obama/Biden are guaranteed to appear:
Neighborhood Inaugural Ball
Commander-in-Chief's Inaugural Ball
Youth Inaugural Ball
Obama Home States Inaugural Ball
Biden Home States Inaugural Ball
Eastern Inaugural Ball
Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball
Midwest Inaugural Ball
Southern Inaugural Ball
Western Inaugural Ball
The New America
I was at the gym at 8:00 am watching the beginnings of the inauguration. I was on my elliptical powering through yet another hill, while watching the U.S. dignitaries arrive. I listened to Ann Curry talk about the feelings of many Americans out on the lawns of the mall. The same word was repeated over and over again. "Overwhelmed" Young and old, black and white, from all around Americans were saying they were overwhelmed by the making of history today.
Which is why I was surprised to see that when I looked left and right, the two students on the elliptical next to me were busy watching MTV's "The City." Was this an outright accost on the level of thinking of young Americans? Was this a blaring and embarrassing example of just how jaded young Americans really can be?
I asked the girl next to me why she was not glued to the inauguration proceedings. She simply said, "Because I didn't vote for him." I wanted to say, "Neither did I, but this is still history in the making."
I ran home as the invocation was being given. It was in fact one of the longest invocations in the world. I made it home just in time to see Senator Biden being sworn in. As I rushed to my living room, there were all eight of my roommates glued to the television. Megan Meyer, a senior communications major said she wanted to hear what Obama had to say, regardless of her political beliefs.
Lauren Swisher a senior marketing major said, "With the economy the way it is, people are looking to Obama to make some changes. He said he wants to inspire Americans with his inauguration speech. I am an American--and I am waiting to be inspired."
As we sat there listening intently, there was a sense of inspiration. Whether it was the new President and his fluctuating voice which hit every note with intensity and determination or it was just the fact that my roommates were watching, there was hope. As President Obama said, “With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." It was nice to know that my roommates had listened to these words and knew what it meant to enter this new "era of responsibility." President Obama's words were not lost on all young Americans ears. There are still a few of us out there listening.
Which is why I was surprised to see that when I looked left and right, the two students on the elliptical next to me were busy watching MTV's "The City." Was this an outright accost on the level of thinking of young Americans? Was this a blaring and embarrassing example of just how jaded young Americans really can be?
I asked the girl next to me why she was not glued to the inauguration proceedings. She simply said, "Because I didn't vote for him." I wanted to say, "Neither did I, but this is still history in the making."
I ran home as the invocation was being given. It was in fact one of the longest invocations in the world. I made it home just in time to see Senator Biden being sworn in. As I rushed to my living room, there were all eight of my roommates glued to the television. Megan Meyer, a senior communications major said she wanted to hear what Obama had to say, regardless of her political beliefs.
Lauren Swisher a senior marketing major said, "With the economy the way it is, people are looking to Obama to make some changes. He said he wants to inspire Americans with his inauguration speech. I am an American--and I am waiting to be inspired."
As we sat there listening intently, there was a sense of inspiration. Whether it was the new President and his fluctuating voice which hit every note with intensity and determination or it was just the fact that my roommates were watching, there was hope. As President Obama said, “With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." It was nice to know that my roommates had listened to these words and knew what it meant to enter this new "era of responsibility." President Obama's words were not lost on all young Americans ears. There are still a few of us out there listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)