Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Facebook and Profit
While I agree with mostly everything that Courtney asserts here, my question lies with the last sentence, the comment that Facebook is now about profit. Hasn't it always, to an extent, been about profit, from the first time it took money from an individual or a venture capital firm? Surely these companies were not throwing Zuckerberg money out of the goodness of their hearts but out of the promise of future funds returning to their wallet.
Journalists and Social Networking
While reading the Nieman Reports piece on the role of journalism in social networking, I was struck by the idea that the social networks are not mere tools that we now use, but they are the world in which we use additional tools. As more and more internet users turn to networks like Facebook and Twitter for their breaking news tidbits, these sites are quickly changing the game.
In the past, one would have to wait for the media source to digest and then spit back out the information. Even with so called "breaking news", TV and radio networks were forced to first turn inward and decide how exactly they should at least begin covering the story. This is not to suggest that they would have to understand the end point of their coverage, but at least the beginning with which to take the air with. However, with the social networks continuing their rise in power and popularity, they are, in a way, cutting out the middle man that was the major media outlets in the days of yore.
Nowadays, users can turn to their feeds and see instantaneous updates about a situation. Hell, even the major networks utilize Twitter as a source of information. Take the Iranian election protests earlier this year, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. These were events that were largely being reported on by the participants, literally as the events were occuring, allowing the citizens of the world to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the events as they were unfolding. No longer were people forced to turn to the major corporate networks in order to gleam information. The trade off here was that the users (and the consumers of the news) were forced to understand and decide what to trust, on their own. Ultimately, however, that's what we trust our news organizations to do. This process just cuts out that middle man.
This is both an exciting and disconcerting notion. While in the right hands of responsible intelligent consumers of the news, this is a huge boost in access and power. No longer are we forced to listen to Reporter X drone on about an event that happened hours ago. Now, we're able to (hypothetically) hear from the person who started said event. That's the beauty of Twitter. Where Facebook is best (and most efficiently) used as a means of keeping in touch with people whom you know, Twitter doesn't necessarily provide that same service. Rather, Twitter allows you to follow people you've never met yet trust as a source of news (Hello, Bill Simmons!). It allows me to track down the participants in the controversies in Iran rather than having to hear Brian Williams tell me about those participants. Exciting stuff.
On the other hand, in the wrong hands (read: unintelligent and irresponsible news consumers), this leads to a dangerous means of spreading rumors. The situation with Michael Jackson, mentioned in the Nieman article, is just such an event. While many of the early people reporting his death turned out to be correct, this is the type of Tweeting that starts rumor riots. If one listens or follows a single feed, they will be misinformed (although one could also argue, fairly easily, that if one only watches/listens to a single news channel, they'll be just as misinformed). If one takes the time to broaden and listen to many feeds, Twitter opens a new realm of news coverage, one that ultimately leads to the question: Do we still need professional journalists or will citizen journalism emerge as the de facto means of receiving and reporting on news (I only half kid)?
In the past, one would have to wait for the media source to digest and then spit back out the information. Even with so called "breaking news", TV and radio networks were forced to first turn inward and decide how exactly they should at least begin covering the story. This is not to suggest that they would have to understand the end point of their coverage, but at least the beginning with which to take the air with. However, with the social networks continuing their rise in power and popularity, they are, in a way, cutting out the middle man that was the major media outlets in the days of yore.
Nowadays, users can turn to their feeds and see instantaneous updates about a situation. Hell, even the major networks utilize Twitter as a source of information. Take the Iranian election protests earlier this year, or the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008. These were events that were largely being reported on by the participants, literally as the events were occuring, allowing the citizens of the world to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the events as they were unfolding. No longer were people forced to turn to the major corporate networks in order to gleam information. The trade off here was that the users (and the consumers of the news) were forced to understand and decide what to trust, on their own. Ultimately, however, that's what we trust our news organizations to do. This process just cuts out that middle man.
This is both an exciting and disconcerting notion. While in the right hands of responsible intelligent consumers of the news, this is a huge boost in access and power. No longer are we forced to listen to Reporter X drone on about an event that happened hours ago. Now, we're able to (hypothetically) hear from the person who started said event. That's the beauty of Twitter. Where Facebook is best (and most efficiently) used as a means of keeping in touch with people whom you know, Twitter doesn't necessarily provide that same service. Rather, Twitter allows you to follow people you've never met yet trust as a source of news (Hello, Bill Simmons!). It allows me to track down the participants in the controversies in Iran rather than having to hear Brian Williams tell me about those participants. Exciting stuff.
On the other hand, in the wrong hands (read: unintelligent and irresponsible news consumers), this leads to a dangerous means of spreading rumors. The situation with Michael Jackson, mentioned in the Nieman article, is just such an event. While many of the early people reporting his death turned out to be correct, this is the type of Tweeting that starts rumor riots. If one listens or follows a single feed, they will be misinformed (although one could also argue, fairly easily, that if one only watches/listens to a single news channel, they'll be just as misinformed). If one takes the time to broaden and listen to many feeds, Twitter opens a new realm of news coverage, one that ultimately leads to the question: Do we still need professional journalists or will citizen journalism emerge as the de facto means of receiving and reporting on news (I only half kid)?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Blogger Question
More of a question than any sort of observation or answer: Are people who write blogs specifically for newspapers (i.e. Colin) bloggers? Or are they journalists? I was thinking about this while reading Aldon Hynes' piece on what bloggers should be doing to fill in the gaps that the closing of newspapers are leaving. Aldon suggests that they act more like journalists would i.e. covering the news, going to events and writing about them.
Essentially, what differentiates bloggers who are paid by a newspaper to do it vs. someone who does it for free? Does a blogger just need to attend and cover said current events to become a "journalist"?
Essentially, what differentiates bloggers who are paid by a newspaper to do it vs. someone who does it for free? Does a blogger just need to attend and cover said current events to become a "journalist"?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Courant Criticisms Pt. 2
When reading the Columbia Journalism Review's article of the Hartford Courant's coverage of a local hostage situation, I was immediately struck by how similar the dilemma that the Courant faced was to the one facing the writers of the San Francisco Chronicle, Vallejo Times-Herald and San Francisco Examiner in the Zodiac killings (memorably portrayed in David Fincher's best-of-the-decade masterpiece Zodiac). In Hartford, the hostage-taker demanded that if the Courant didn't un-publish a story about the situation, he would blow up the house in which both he and the hostage were holed up. In San Francisco, the Zodiac demanded the papers publish his letter to the respective editors or risk a killing spree. The Courant declined to remove the story and the Bay Area papers chose to publish the letters.
Now, there are obvious differences here but the dilemma that the papers faced are remarkably similar. The CJR points out that "there is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish", a point which I agree with. However, a commented, "John P." makes a interesting point under the story:
I'm not sure there is a true right or wrong answer here but it surely asks an interesting question. For those of you that haven't seen Zodiac, its absolutely worth seeking out, if for nothing else, a cinematic portrayal of the events described above.
Now, there are obvious differences here but the dilemma that the papers faced are remarkably similar. The CJR points out that "there is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish", a point which I agree with. However, a commented, "John P." makes a interesting point under the story:
Let's say I'm a sleazy businessman and I get word that the local paper is printing a damaging article about me tomorrow. I just need to get someone to call the paper and threaten to blow something up unless they cease publication. Sounds like fun.The papers face a true conundrum here. Do they relent to a criminal, thus setting a dangerous precedent that their journalistic integrity can be compromised by what may be an idle threat? Or, do they stick to their story and see what happens? I tend to think that the second option is a better one, as I don't like where the first option leads to. If the papers are supposed to be spots of true journalism, they need to be willing to report the facts without fear of a backlash. They need to publish what they have discovered and stick by them. In both cases, the papers, to an extent, stood their ground. While Bay Area papers published the Zodiac letters, they initially buried them deeper in the paper until it became clear that the writer of the letters was a legitimate threat to public safety.
I'm not sure there is a true right or wrong answer here but it surely asks an interesting question. For those of you that haven't seen Zodiac, its absolutely worth seeking out, if for nothing else, a cinematic portrayal of the events described above.
Courant Criticisms
The question of the week is to take a look at the Hartford Courant, the one of the true mainstay major newspaper of the CT region. Since I don't read the print edition (not sure it's worth the money nowadays), I'll limit my concerns to the online edition.
I think the one thing that the Courant does a good job with is their bloggers (no, really!). Finding those blogs, however, is a different story. The blogger section of the front page is buried past the screen cut, forcing a user to scroll down even to discover the roll of Courant bloggers, past a few news boxes, a rather uninspired photo section and the weather. Even here, it only lists the past few posts from across the paper. Prior to the recent website redesign, the Courant had a drop down menu for all their bloggers as a quick hit spot to get to the writer you wanted to read. Now, you're forced to wade through the different sections of the paper to get to the blog you want to read. That aside, once you get to the blogs, most are rather robust with a good selection of regionally important material. I tend to skew to Entertainment related news (music, movies and TV), so let's (briefly) look at the two major entertainment blogs the Courant offers.
I routinely read Eric Danton's Sound Check, which, for local music news, is as good as it gets. Danton wisely focuses on the region's music scene as opposed to cover national news. I frequently notice him out at concerts in Hartford, Northampton and the like and his blog reflects it. Updated frequently with notable information, it's a solid read for Hartford music fans who actually want to engage with interesting, worthwhile tunes.
Roger Catlin's TV Eye is generally pretty good as well. While it focuses more on actual television shows, which leans away from local coverage, Catlin's insights and opinions generally enrich a viewing experience. While I'm not a regular reader, I do actively seek it out fairly often.
The remaining bloggers (Colin McEnroe, the Sports crew) are all solid. For the most part, the Courant's beat blog on Huskies basketball is as good of coverage as one can find for all your UConn basketball needs. The bloggers all cover the local scene with a great deal more efficiency than the actual Courant, which was leading me to consider what the coverage would look like if every reporter was blogging rather than writing columns.
It would obviously lead to the demise of the print edition as the blogs just wouldn't translate into a printed page. However, it'd give the readers of the online Courant up-to-date bursts of information from the writers that they have come to know and trust. Equally so, the reporters wouldn't have to strictly focus on a single story. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but writing a blog offers a great deal more of freedom and speed. The problem with the blogs are that they allow for a great deal of self-publishing. That said, adjust the editors to focus more heavily on the blogs and go online exclusively. You'll have adjusted the paper for the coming generation and would have beat most other regional papers to the punch. While it'd be sad to see the Courant printed edition go away, the paper does a good job with their bloggers, I'd like to see more focus swing in that direction.
I think the one thing that the Courant does a good job with is their bloggers (no, really!). Finding those blogs, however, is a different story. The blogger section of the front page is buried past the screen cut, forcing a user to scroll down even to discover the roll of Courant bloggers, past a few news boxes, a rather uninspired photo section and the weather. Even here, it only lists the past few posts from across the paper. Prior to the recent website redesign, the Courant had a drop down menu for all their bloggers as a quick hit spot to get to the writer you wanted to read. Now, you're forced to wade through the different sections of the paper to get to the blog you want to read. That aside, once you get to the blogs, most are rather robust with a good selection of regionally important material. I tend to skew to Entertainment related news (music, movies and TV), so let's (briefly) look at the two major entertainment blogs the Courant offers.
I routinely read Eric Danton's Sound Check, which, for local music news, is as good as it gets. Danton wisely focuses on the region's music scene as opposed to cover national news. I frequently notice him out at concerts in Hartford, Northampton and the like and his blog reflects it. Updated frequently with notable information, it's a solid read for Hartford music fans who actually want to engage with interesting, worthwhile tunes.
Roger Catlin's TV Eye is generally pretty good as well. While it focuses more on actual television shows, which leans away from local coverage, Catlin's insights and opinions generally enrich a viewing experience. While I'm not a regular reader, I do actively seek it out fairly often.
The remaining bloggers (Colin McEnroe, the Sports crew) are all solid. For the most part, the Courant's beat blog on Huskies basketball is as good of coverage as one can find for all your UConn basketball needs. The bloggers all cover the local scene with a great deal more efficiency than the actual Courant, which was leading me to consider what the coverage would look like if every reporter was blogging rather than writing columns.
It would obviously lead to the demise of the print edition as the blogs just wouldn't translate into a printed page. However, it'd give the readers of the online Courant up-to-date bursts of information from the writers that they have come to know and trust. Equally so, the reporters wouldn't have to strictly focus on a single story. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but writing a blog offers a great deal more of freedom and speed. The problem with the blogs are that they allow for a great deal of self-publishing. That said, adjust the editors to focus more heavily on the blogs and go online exclusively. You'll have adjusted the paper for the coming generation and would have beat most other regional papers to the punch. While it'd be sad to see the Courant printed edition go away, the paper does a good job with their bloggers, I'd like to see more focus swing in that direction.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Michael Moore on the Death of Old Media
From a Q&A session following a screening of his most recent, Capitalism: A Love Story. From Hollywood Elsewhere.
Moore makes an interesting argument here in regards to people vs. advertising. Plus, anyone who consults David Simon, creator/writer of the best TV show ever, The Wire, deserves to be heard.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Backs Newspapers
An interesting story this morning about President Obama backing the newspaper industry.
"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."
My question is what difference does it make whether a newspaper is published in print versus only on the internet, ala the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? How does that change the newspapers ability to publish worthy, accurate news? The printed word is the printed word, regardless of whether its on newsprint or in hypertext. It may be more difficult to sell the news on the internet but it's not impossible. Facebook is starting to show signs of being able to turn a profit. A reputable newspaper should be able to do so also.
"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."
My question is what difference does it make whether a newspaper is published in print versus only on the internet, ala the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? How does that change the newspapers ability to publish worthy, accurate news? The printed word is the printed word, regardless of whether its on newsprint or in hypertext. It may be more difficult to sell the news on the internet but it's not impossible. Facebook is starting to show signs of being able to turn a profit. A reputable newspaper should be able to do so also.
The Impact of Social Networking on Annie Le
"Maybe it is the legal system, and not the Internet, that should be adjusting to the new order of things."
The above quote, taken from the MediaLite article by Robert Quigley, strikes me as being the most adept moment of the piece. It's easy for people to complain about the new obstacles that Web 2.0 presents to tried and true institutions. It's another for them to actually attempt to change and adapt with the changing times. Technology has always and will continue to frighten people who don't understand it. History is littered with people who struck against what they felt was the unstoppable wave of change. However, I can't help but feel that the struggle that these people feel is all for not. Technology is moving forward. Ultimately, one has to as well.
Does the advent of new social networking systems change a great deal of our society? Absolutely. Is it for the worse? I'm not so sure. While there are some definite issues that have arisen from the rise of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., these aren't necessarily issues with the services themselves but rather with the people who use them. I find that people spend their time blaming the problems they may have with these services on the service themselves. They feel their privacy is violated, that it can lead to an all-too-quick spread of false information. Yet, these people typically use these apps in a way that adds to the problem. I suppose my point here is that as technology changes with the coming times, it's ultimately up to the people to change with the technology as past generations have. It's not the technology's job to change with the people, but to push the people forward.
The Annie Le case is certainly more high profile than some small town killing. That is undeniable. Still, it comes down to individual restraint as to how people act in regards to the use of technology. Does this mean that it will be impossible to find a juror who hasn't heard of the internet rumors regarding the case? Absolutely not. Quigley says that "If this past week’s coverage is any indication, whatever trial springs out of the Le case will be a media circus, and the temptations will be even greater." Once again, that may be true. But it's foolish to blame the internet for a juror's inability to follow the simple, straightforward rules set forth before him. It comes down to personal responsibility and tact. Decry the lack of that in our society but don't blame a budding technology as the reason for it. Society hasn't started it's media downfall since the popularization of Facebook began. It was happening well before that, without any help from Twitter.
The above quote, taken from the MediaLite article by Robert Quigley, strikes me as being the most adept moment of the piece. It's easy for people to complain about the new obstacles that Web 2.0 presents to tried and true institutions. It's another for them to actually attempt to change and adapt with the changing times. Technology has always and will continue to frighten people who don't understand it. History is littered with people who struck against what they felt was the unstoppable wave of change. However, I can't help but feel that the struggle that these people feel is all for not. Technology is moving forward. Ultimately, one has to as well.
Does the advent of new social networking systems change a great deal of our society? Absolutely. Is it for the worse? I'm not so sure. While there are some definite issues that have arisen from the rise of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc., these aren't necessarily issues with the services themselves but rather with the people who use them. I find that people spend their time blaming the problems they may have with these services on the service themselves. They feel their privacy is violated, that it can lead to an all-too-quick spread of false information. Yet, these people typically use these apps in a way that adds to the problem. I suppose my point here is that as technology changes with the coming times, it's ultimately up to the people to change with the technology as past generations have. It's not the technology's job to change with the people, but to push the people forward.
The Annie Le case is certainly more high profile than some small town killing. That is undeniable. Still, it comes down to individual restraint as to how people act in regards to the use of technology. Does this mean that it will be impossible to find a juror who hasn't heard of the internet rumors regarding the case? Absolutely not. Quigley says that "If this past week’s coverage is any indication, whatever trial springs out of the Le case will be a media circus, and the temptations will be even greater." Once again, that may be true. But it's foolish to blame the internet for a juror's inability to follow the simple, straightforward rules set forth before him. It comes down to personal responsibility and tact. Decry the lack of that in our society but don't blame a budding technology as the reason for it. Society hasn't started it's media downfall since the popularization of Facebook began. It was happening well before that, without any help from Twitter.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Facebook, Twitter and Profitability
Much has been made over the past week about Facebook's supposed even running when it comes to cash flow and for the most part, it's big news. Some of the big internet startups at the end of the tech bubble were having issues with monetizing their site, i.e. creating a way for it to turn a profit for investors. Facebook went the way of advertising, hoping that enough traffic plus enough ads would provide them with enough money to offset their operating cost, thus providing their investors with some sort of return on their investment.
However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.
Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.
Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.
However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.
Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.
Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
