Posts Tagged ‘journalism’

Are Media Channels Diverging Or Converging?

Are media channels fragmenting? While looking over the new Vancouver Sun website recently (congratulations again on the redesign to Kirk Lapointe and his team), a blog post by Pamela Fayerman on the Sun’s Medicine Matters blog caught my eye.

Fayerman’s post, entitled Health and medical blogs; what interests you?, offers a couple of interesting thoughts on the changing nature of journalism:

We know that print stories are just a stop along the information highway for readers, not their final destination. Tom Rosenstiel, an author and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says reporters are like hunters/gatherers of information. Our role, on the digital side, is to do the aggregation work so that readers can use links where they can go to learn more.

Meanwhile, on my way home from work yesterday, I listened to the latest Media Bullseye Radio podcast with Ike Pigott. The panel featured a lively discussion about the role, nature and future of mainstream media and how it will influence social media (and vice versa) as different media channels converge.

There’s an interesting trend in these two pieces – they both talk about the different media coming together:

  • Fayerman’s piece mentions media as aggregators (a role frequently played by bloggers)
  • The Custom Scoop team talked about convergence between the different forms of media.

Over the last couple of years I’ve observed lots of discussions about the way that conversations are fragmenting. I’ve bemoaned this trend with social media tools as they take up ever-increasing amounts of time just to stay involved with the diverse channels.

I found it interesting that on one day I came across two mentions, on both sides of the old/new media divide, that mentioned a similar trend.

What do you think? Are channels fragmenting or converging?

Update: Ike offered a useful summary of his key points around convergence in the comments:

  • “Print, radio and television news outlets aren’t really all that different when you look at their web components.
  • The fear among all forms of media about “scooping yourself on your own website” is gone. Getting news on your site first does indeed count as “getting it on the record.”
  • The typical silos that media relations people used to consider are gone. If you’ve got some relevant b-roll for your event or news release, you stand a better chance of getting it on the newspaper’s website than you do of the TV stations pulling from it.
  • Eventually, those outlets that are still competitive now will continue with web as the primary means of distribution, but with legacy branding from when they were primarily pulp or broadcast.”

Why Christie Blatchford Won’t Blog

Christie Blatchford wrote an excellent piece in Thursday’s Globe and Mail entitled, “I’m not blogging this, mark my words.”

Her article is basically a rant about the challenges of blogging in Beijing, of the challenges of journalists blogging and of the effects that new media tools like blogs and podcasts are having on journalistic quality. I won’t recite it all for you here, but here are a few of Blatchford’s more notable points:

On journalistic quality:

This is the democratization wrought by the Web, and if it has actually helped open up closed societies such as China’s, in the West its chief effect, at least upon journalism, is to diminish whatever craft, and there is some, is left in the business.

On conversations online:

On The Globe website, our slogan is “Join the Conversation,” but in the blogosphere, what follows isn’t usually a conversation but a brief, ungrammatical shouting match. You can have more pensive chats in a bar fight.

On writing:

It is not true that anyone can write. It is not true that anyone can write on deadline. It is not true that anyone can do an interview. It is not true that anyone can edit themselves and sort wheat from chaff. It is not true that even great productive writers like The Globe’s Jim Christie or Ms. DiManno or Mr. Farber can hit a home run every time they sit before the laptop. But the odds of them doing it are greatly increased if they haven’t already filed 1,200 words to the Web, shot a video, done a podcast and blogged ferociously all day long.

I don’t agree with all of Blatchford’s points about blogging, but I think she does hit a few home runs with this piece.

Journalists are being asked to do more and more with their time. I don’t think, as she quotes Michael Farber saying, that we only have a finite number of words in us, but if you have to get more and more words out every day the quality is surely going to down.

The blogosphere does sometimes degenerate into a shouting match. Of course, you will encounter idiots and immaturity wherever you go but it’s more visible online. I think the key there is a good commenting policy and smart moderation. Unfortunately, I think the law of averages plays a part – as a site gets more popular, a certain percentage of readers will engage in mindless shouting.

Writing is an art. Not everyone can do it well. One of my old bosses was fond of saying that you can’t teach everyone to write well; it takes a certain level of talent to do it. That means that some sites will be poorly written, and that readers have to learn to be discerning in what they read. That also means taking some responsibility for what you choose to consume.

What do you think of Blatchford’s article?

Twitter Becoming A Source, Not Just News

Twitter logo Is Twitter moving beyond being a news story and towards becoming a credible source for them?

Not too long ago I got excited whenever I saw Twitter mentioned as the subject of a news article. Recently, though, I’ve noticed an increasing number of mainstream news articles using Twitter as a source rather than a subject.

The idea of Twitter as a source for journalists is nothing new. Twitter users memorably beat the mainstream media to the punch during the June 2008 earthquake in Chengdu, and there was widespread coverage of Twitter’s role in getting a Berkeley student out of an Egyptian jail. However, it’s only recently that I’ve started to see the service mentioned as a source rather than a news story in itself.

The latest was a piece by Geoffrey York in today’s Globe and Mail about Chinese athlete Liu Xiang’s unexpected withdrawl from the 110-metre hurdles in Beijing. York writes:

“One fan at the Bird’s Nest stadium, Celia Chen, said the thousands of Chinese spectators seemed “shockingly angry” when they poured out of the stadium after their hero’s withdrawal. “This country really doesn’t know how to lose,” she told others on the Twitter social-networking service.

Twitter is far from being a household name. However, with recent Twitter-focused articles in Business Week, USA Today and LA Times and mentions like this cropping up with increasing frequency, that time may soon come.

Citizen Journalists Break Toronto Explosion Story

I got home from my run today to see a Twitter message from Jeremiah Owyang about an explosion and subsequent large-scale evacuation in Toronto’s north end.

Yes, through the wonderful power of the web, the news traveled down to San Francisco and back up to me. A tremendous demonstration of the power of online communications, and of Twitter in general. However, it’s an equally powerful demonstration of the ability of citizen journalists to break news.

Rannie Turingan, aka photojunkie, captured the scene in both video and photo after the first explosion woke him at around 4am.

One of his photos made it on to the LA Times blog today. Owyang says Rannie had his coverage up before the press coverage started.

Skip to around 1:50 into this next video to see a spectacular explosion…

…and a close-up (language not safe for work):

The Toronto Star, National Post (which pretty much compiled this post completely through citizen journalists), Dose and other publications are all linking to amateur coverage of this event.

You can check out other photos on Flickr and other videos on Youtube.

(Photo credit: photojunkie.ca)

Don’t Believe Everything You See

File this in the “oh, not again” file…

Multiple newspapers including The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times and NYTimes.com published a photograph of Iran’s recent missile test today.

The photograph shows four missiles moments after their launch. The problem? It appears only three missiles were launched.

Below are two photos, taken from roughly the same spot at pretty much the same time. The one on the right was published by numerous outlets – the one on the left emerged later.

missiles

As the New York Times Blog notes:

“[…] the second missile from the right appears to be the sum of two other missiles in the image. The contours of the billowing smoke match perfectly near the ground, as well in the immediate wake of the missile.”

Since then, several sites including the Los Angeles Times and MSNBC have published retractions about the photo.

This isn’t the first time news organizations have fallen for altered photographs – in 2006 Reuters apologized after publishing images of war-torn Lebanon that proved to have been edited, and in 2007 the LA Times published allegedly altered photos of US-manufactured weapons found in Iran.

Who says it’s only bloggers that get things wrong?

(Photo credits: AFP/Getty Images (L) and Iranian Revolutionary Guards(R))

Study Examines The Impact Of PR On News

Courtesy of the Cardiff School of Journalism comes a fascinating study on the link between PR and news. The researchers set out to study the British media to discover how much journalists rely on PR and the wire services.

Opinion page of a newspaper To anyone who is aware of the changes going on in the mainstream media right now, there are very few surprises in the report. Essentially, today’s journalists are required to do more with less time. The resulting pressure has increased their reliance on material provided by communications professionals.

These findings do, however, add some weight behind the anecdotal stories of trends in the traditional media. Indeed:

“…our research suggests that 60% of press articles and 34% of broadcast stories come wholly or mainly from one of these ‘pre-packaged’ sources.”

One area that did surprise me, though, was the analysis of PR impact on different topics:

  • 37% of health/nature stories are based mainly or wholly on PR material (perhaps reflecting the restrictions on advertising, and hence higher reliance on PR, for pharmaceutical companies)
  • Business/consumer news and entertainment/sport news follow closely behind health/nature
  • The study found that “Politics appeared to be less PR ridden…”
    • In government-related stories, there’s a distinct difference between different media:
      • 39% of PR material found in broadcast media came from government sources
      • 21% of PR material in the press was from government
      • The broader public sector (hospitals, police, etc) provided 23% of the PR material found in the press

Interestingly, the study found that of the stories featured a single primary source, 50% of those in print media aren’t contextualized by other information. That percentage is significantly lower for broadcast media.

This is symptomatic of the challenges being faced by journalists nowadays. The pressure to produce three times as much content as they did twenty years ago means that journalists are heavily reliant on pre-packaged information and have little time to follow-up on it.

All of this provides significant opportunities for organizations (via communications professionals) to achieve favourable coverage in the mainstream media (which, as Edelman’s Trust Barometer found, is much more trusted than than official corporate communications).

Download the full report here (use Word to open).

International Olympic Committee Allows Beijing Athletes To Blog

The International Olympic Committee has ruled that athletes at the Beijing Olympics will be allowed to write about their experiences during the games.

They’re referring specifically to blogs. If you’re not familiar with blogs, in this context they’re essentially journals that are available on the web.

According to the BBC, this is the first time the committee has allowed blogging by participants.

A couple of things to note:

  • Pictures and video of the games are banned from the blogs to prevent copyright infringement.

I guess I can understand this – the committee sells the media rights to the games, and wants to protect its income from these sources.

  • The committee "considers blogging… as a legitimate form of personal expression and not a form of journalism."

I’m not so sure about this one. The committee is definitely on track when it comes to viewing websites as a form of personal expression, but "…not a form of journalism?"

It’s pretty clear by this point that blogs can be a perfectly legitimate form of journalism. It’s not traditional journalism, for sure, but anyone who follows the online space knows that blogs are becoming a greater big threat to the traditional media (if they aren’t already).

A quick web search of "blogs as journalism" produces over two million results. One of the "scholarly articles" at the top of the search results, from 2003, is entitled Weblogs Threaten and Inform Traditional Journalism:

Blogs are quickly becoming a very influential media tool, one that can challenge conventional notions of who is a journalist and what journalism is.

This was from five years ago.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. I mean, I don’t consider this site to be journalism. This site is more about my personal commentary and thoughts on my area of interest. Perhaps this wording was the only way that progressive members on the committee could convince others that they should allow blogging at the games. Who knows, maybe without this the participants would have to register as journalists or some other nonsense.

Still, I’d like to see the International Olympic Committee acknowledge the important role that blogging plays in today’s media landscape.