Thursday, May 10, 2012

The responsibility of learning

I always find the Pew Research Centre data fascinating - the information is all based on US findings, of course, but it's a wonderful insight into the way people think (and, given the right technology, operate). 

The latest one - Learning in the Digital Age - is no exception. It's packed with stats and graphs, although my personal favourite slide is this one:





74% of smartphone users are sharing where they are and what they are doing there. A later slide says 52% of adults are on social networks (I would have probably guessed higher, probably due to my own bias)  
If mainstream media organisations can't find a way to tap into these people - collaboratively, editorially and commercially - we may as well pack up and go home. Although some of the information pertains to libraries and librarians, it inevitably has resonance with me as a journalist. 
Like this slide 



From a media point of view, you could say "We report best passively..." has been replaced by "We report best actively" - the engagement, collaboration and transparency that newsrooms should strive for is just the same. 
And, taking the last part of the sentence into consideration, I believe we should manage our own learning. 
Training is vital, and no one should be expected to be able to produce edited video without having some idea of how to go about it but when it comes to learning about social media, data tools, mapping, sharing, online tools that make doing the job or telling the story easier/better/richer - from Audioboo to Zemanta- there is a responsibility to keep up with what's happening.  

Learning on the job is part of the job. Whether it's listening to colleagues, reading tech blogs, following interesting people on Twitter (it even suggests who you should follow now, after all) or Quora, asking questions.... learning about the new tools of the trade comes down to putting your journalist abilities into good use.
After all, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Universal journalist prototype

The pros and cons of shorthand for journalists is a question that seems to vex j-students up and down the UK, as I discovered when Tom Rouse asked me for my view recently. 
As our conversation continued on Twitter and others joined in I learned that a) shorthand was essential b) shorthand  was not essential and c) North America isn't as enamored with shorthand as the UK.
So, that's less than conclusive. Personally, I think it's necessary to have a benchmark standard and 100wpm shorthand does offer that but I think ruling out everyone who doesn't have it is pretty short-sighted to.  

Tom's journalism.co.uk article is here; I think that possibly the best advice I'd be able to give would be this: If I were a student shopping for journalism courses right now, and wanted to go into mainstream media, I'd pick one with shorthand and bust my chops to get 100wpm. 
Once you have that piece of paper no one can take it from you and many editors will not consider anyone who doesn't have it. But... I think that within 5 years this will no longer be the case, and shorthand will be with the 'nice to haves'.
I know award-winning journalists with shorthand and without; editors who insist on it, and editors who take pride in clambering the slippery slope without ever troubling a dipthong. 
Such dichotomies are of no use to would-be reporters considering courses though. 
But I'd have more concerns about the journalistic attitude of an interview candidate who couldn't talk - with enthusiasm and authority - about sourcing, verifying and creating content. That sort of thing is a lot harder to learn - and time-consuming to teach. 
Frankly, my universal journalist prototype gets tweaked all the time but, in addition to having a mind that was basically one big question mark, I'd want them to be a bit like this...




Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Of Pinterest and pastures new....

WalesOnline's Pinterest presence has been steadily growing in the two months since we set it up, with 16 boards now covering everything from music to sport and interior design. 
It's a great resource and we've hooked it up to Facebook and Twitter to enable cross-promotion of what we're up to, so as an experiment I'm happy to see it progressing well. 
Anyway, digital journalist Gareth Rogers has been using it to great effect for the Bluebirds Banter blog, but today he showed me an ingenious way of displaying photo content well on our site, via Pinterest.

One of the limitations of our current CMS is that it doesn't allow you to really showcase great photos well - as a user, you can't click on an image to enlarge it, for example. 
It may seem like a small thing, but when you've got images that the reader would want to see in more detail (or an infographic, for example) it can be somewhat restrictive.
Anyway, Gareth came up with a clever workaround (necessity really is the mother of invention) to show off a series of fashion photos from the Aintree race meet - he pinned the images to our Piinterest news board, and then embedded them back on the site. Now , when you click on the image, it opens, large-scale, in a new tab.
I love Gareth's solution. And I love the fact I work* with clever people who don't let system limitations get in the way of story-telling.

On the site it looks like this (full story here):


and when you click on the image, you see it like this (or click here):






I think it's very nice; take a bow, Mr Rogers. 

* On the subject of work, I have a new job - I'm heading to North Wales to edit the Daily Post, starting on Monday. 
I've loved my time with WalesOnline and Wales on Sunday - it's been hugely educational and I got to work with some great people - but (despite being a committed worshiper at the Church of Digital) I'm massively excited to be given the chance of editing a daily newspaper, and working with the DP team in print and online.
However, first I have to persuade two cats into travel baskets and brave the A470 to North Wales. Compared to that, editing is a doddle...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Finding the value in media disruption

The ever-popular media game of Media Buzzword Bingo continues apace; most recently, Curation has been shouldered aside in favour of Disruption (used in a 'go, team!' way, rather than the less-upbeat dictionary definition as found here).

The latest person to lament the lack of disruption being carried out by the media is Ross Levinsohn, EVP of Yahoo!’s Americas region. 
Speaking on a panel he complained that “in the traditional media, there aren’t disruptors anymore", adding that media leaders were “fearful, not fearless. Who’s taking those chances? Google, Apple. Silicon Valley is fearless when it comes to disrupting." 
Levinsohn made this plea for more disruption ('innovation' would be a more appropriate term, I think) on March 26; nine days later, Yahoo announced it was cutting 2,000 jobs (14% of its staff) as part of multi-million cost saving exercise.
Frankly, that's pretty disruptive from the corporate and individual perspective.


And, speaking from, if not inside the belly of the beast then at least from a nearby vantage point, I would further suggest fighting disruption with disruption isn't the solution. We're mostly just trying to hit on something that works. 
There's the vexed question of free content. The Guardian and The Times are the high-profile names slugging it out in the Battle of the Paywall, but they aren't alone in such explorations. 
Trinity Mirror (my employer) says ubiquitous content will not be placed behind a paywall, but consumers would be charged to access ‘high-value” unique content of its national titles.
Johnston Press also ruled out a paywall for web and mobile content, although its strategy does include charging for tablet apps. 
Midlands News Association - which placed its content behind a paywall in April 2011- scrapped that strategy after nine months and opted instead for paid-for tablet apps.
Another of the regional press companies, Newsquest, has placed its Scottish titles’ content behind metered paywalls
 The common factor is... well, the common factor is everyone is trying something different. I don't think this meets the dictionary or Levinsohn definition of Disruption, and I'm not even saying qualifies as innovation - experimentation is probably a better description for what's being tried out. 


Robert Picard  says the “fundamental problem for media firms” is that of selling 19th and 20th century products in the 21st century, often without altering the value of what is offered, or the relationships with customers 


He's right; the economic model of the modern Press typically follows this pattern: 
1. Create content with assumed commercial value - news, ads, photos, whatever. Some paying customers (advertisers) have a degree of control over the content they've funded; others (readers) do not.
2. Attempt to sell content via one very expensively produced platform
3. Distribute said platform via extremely expensive methods
4. Make the same content freely available on a separate, inexpensive, easily distributed platform, which also allows real-time interaction with users, feedback and sharing
 
Alan Mutter's excellent post 'Four ways newspapers are failing at digital'  looks at similar issues, citing week digital product portfolios (including the shovelware issue), an ageing audience and lack of diversity, limited revenue opportunities, and feeble competitive response. (If that sounds too depressing, he does also have a series of suggestions for what to do next.)


I think there's another way newspapers are failing at digital, and that harks back to Picard as well. I think we've lost track of what's valuable.
With regards to value and relationships, most news executives would admit the brands are not the essential part of their customer's world they once were. 
People who say there's no money in digital (yes, there are still people who actually do say that) overlook the fact there is a Googolplex of cash in digital.
Google and the Apple are making money hand over fist, packaging up other people's content, distributing it on their platforms, and selling either data, or consumer insights, or advertising around that.
Meanwhile, the Huffington Post's packaging up and distribution of others' content led to a very profitable outcome for Arianna.
That content is searchable (and findable - two things that are mutually exclusive on many regional news sites), it can be shared easily, consumed quickly, works effectively, can be consumed or discarded without consequence. 
But mostly the content offered by Google and Apple is wanted, because the user has selected it (the app, the link, the social tool etc). 


I was talking to our new(ish) YourCardiff reporter today, Jessica Best, who told me the most popular article she'd written since starting was about local activities for Easter. On WalesOnline, a broader article about things to do nationally for Easter garnered 2,000 hits in a couple of hours. 
No one in the newsroom would have considered Things To Do At Easter great journalism, because it's not. It is, however, a great, searchable (and findable) resource for families looking to do a mix of free and paid-for things in Wales over the bank holiday. It was also well-shared socially. 


Great journalism has to be supported financially, and if we're going to do that through building audience, then we have to know what the audience wants - by asking, listening, responding, experimenting, and refining. It's not disruptive but it is a break from the norm, and it adds value.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

What is journalism? What are journalists? (a post J-leaders ramble)



My poor neglected blog. It's been weeks since I've had the head-space to sit down and write out some thoughts.
But I have been saving items that made me think a lot, for when I did have some time. Things like this tweet...  
which sums up my exact same feelings on the subject of citizen journalism definitions and made me recall there was an interesting set of notes in my Google Docs I should take a look at. 

In February I was at UCLan as part of the Journalism Leaders course residential week, slogging towards my MA (hence not having the headspace to blog) which included a discussion of what is a journalist, during a session led by Megan Knight. 
I made copious notes as it's a Moibus Strip of a theme in which the multiple definitions are conveniently twisted to fit one's own view. 
These are some of the jottings I made during and after the session; I kept thinking about it for days afterwards and I'm still intrigued by it, particularly Pierre Borudieu aspect, of which more later
The question of who is a journalist comes back to what is journalism. 
Defining these two aspects needs to examine the fundamental principles of the industry, the skill and the individual. It is far more than platform v platform and is probably the definitive response to Are Bloggers Journalists?
It's a cyclical question that looks like this:
How do you identify someone who is a Journalist?
* From employment? (what about the freelance/unemployed who worked in media)
* From education? (Journalists who find citizen journalism threatening are focusing on the lack of education. The type of education that people have access to can also be a class issue)
* From outputs? (what are the outputs? Is a film reviewer a journalist? Eg. I believe my blog contains writing about journalism rather than journalism itself. But as my posts contain information I've investigated, or data I've interrogated others might define that as journalism)
* From self-identification or association with a body Eg. The NUJ? (In China, journalists have to be registered. People writing about their communities and local news are not termed journalists in any way).
So, journalism is not a profession but most journalists would say it is. Journalism also creates journalism in its own image . 
Those are some of my verbatim notes. Questions I also noted down during the session included: Do people become what their industry needs them to be? Do they subsume their own personality traits, inclinations and/or ethics to become what the identity of their employer needs them to be?  
The answer to all of the above is yes, I would suggest. And by ethics I don't mean phone hacking, I mean things like being sent out on a death knock - an occasion when you know you aren't exactly adding to anyone's sum of joy - and doing it anyway.
 
The identity of the journalism product is more important than the identity of the person - such as the editor - associated with it. 
The personalities change all the time, but the product has been a constant (although that is changing now, of course. Consider the Liverpool Daily Post's shift to a weekly


During the session we discussed the idea that as journalism dis-aggregates and digital disruption becomes more commonplace, editing becomes more about the human function - getting the right people in the right jobs; becoming more responsible for the commercial aspects of the business. (This is probably going to form part of my MA research topic). 

All this led to the introduction of Pierre Bourdieu's theories and the idea of Social Capital. 
I'd never heard of Bourdieu before this, but I really connect with his idea that a person has social capital within their Field and their Habitus is designed to increase that social capital. 
Most of us are far more focused on the Field, because it increases the social capital among our peers. We go after stories (we become active and visible on social media too, I would contend) partly to maintain our status in society. 
And as well as the idea of social captial, I think online social networks have allowed journalists to change their Field as well - it's provided a huge opportunity for people to break out of the 'journalists writing for journalists' trap we've all fallen into at one time or another.

What do online networks mean for the Tribe of Journalists and peer pressure? Your peers may be sat next to you, but they may also be on the other side of the world, sharing their views with you. 
If people have a different Habitus as a result of no longer being inside their Field as much, where do their loyalties lie?

I think that would mean journalists adept at using social tools are less likely to fall into the trap of writing for other journalists. 
I suspect they are closer to their audience not just because they talk to them online but because their online spaces are now their Habitus, and their Field - the group they are writing for - is significantly larger and more disparate.

A final thought. As we were debating what is a journalist the news broke that Marie Colvin had been killed in Syria. So, perhaps the short answer to What is a Journalist is: She was.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Tweeting court cases - the case for the defence

Technology and court reporting - it's the debate that keeps on giving.
In March 2009, after the Palm Beach Post won the right for a reporter to leave the courtroom to tweet an update (seriously, this happened) I wrote that the UK needed to get the courtroom press bench online and networked, and you suddenly really do start to have open justice.   

I wasn’t especially hopeful though. 
However, just a few years later we were given right to tweet updates from court without shuffling apologetically out of the room; journalists can sit with an laptop and tweet from the press bench (assuming we remembered to bring a dongle).

This is an amazing and wonderful thing that we must not take for granted; re-reading my old post and seeing the excuses I made as to why the justice system in England and Wales might not change was illuminating; to be honest, I am surprised the Twitter ruling was achieved in such a short space of time.  

However, there is a problem, as highlighted in Press Gazette today: Tweeting from court: ‘It’s multi-skilling gone mad’ was the headline and the article pointed out the pitfalls.
Chris Johnson, from Mercury, highlighted the obvious issue of prejudicial tweets (just last month a reporter named a juror while live-tweeting the Harry Redknapp trial) but there were also two unnamed reporters complaining about the demands of covering the case and tweeting it.
One said: “While you’re fiddling around with your 140 characters, you may miss a key bit of evidence, or might not have the time to take a good shorthand note of something. It’s going to end in tears.”

The pressures of tweeting a high profile case are obvious, and can take some planning to surmount.
The South Wales Argus recently overcame the difficulty of meeting real time demand with detailed court reporting by assigning two staff to the key days of a murder trial - one to liveblog via Twitter, and one to take notes for print.
That’s a big commitment for a regional newsroom to make, and fair play to the Argus for seeing the issue and understanding the differing needs of its reporters and audience.
But such an undertaking it’s not a sustainable use of resources in most over-stretched newsrooms - and it’s also not necessary in most cases.
Evidence is repeated... and repeated, some witnesses add nothing to the story, other than the line ‘the court also heard from Joe Bloggs who said he had seen the defendant walking along Any Street, Any Town, shortly before [insert nefarious deed here]’, and the quotable newsy stuff, are easily picked out of the warp and weft of the evidence by a hack with an ear for interesting copy.

I’ve little sympathy for the anonymous reporter quoted in Press Gazette who claims tweeting in court is too hard; please don't blame the lifting of restrictions enable you to do your job more effectively (hint: Your job is telling people what's happening)
when what you mean is you've not been properly equipped by your organisation. 
Also, anonymous reporter, have you told your newsdesk what kit you need to do live court reporting adequately? Ten years ago your kit would have been a notepad, pen and a mobile phone. Twenty years ago it would have been your notepad, pen, and access to a public telephone. What do you need now? I'd imagine a laptop, smartphone, notepad, pen and connectivity. 
These are not exactly hostage-taking demands.
Journalism is hard - every day difficulties have to be overcome, whether it’s tweeting from court or knocking on the door of a newly-bereaved parent, or dashing out of a council meeting and filing 500 words off the top of your head to meet the  Late City edition deadline (On reflection, Late City edition deadlines don’t exist any more - let’s say for the website instead).
There may be live tweeting happening from other sources - media or in the public gallery (assuming they’ve sought and received permission) but that’s not a reason to stop.
Taking notes on a laptop and cut and pasting summaries into Twitter as appropriate is achievable, and shifts the problem of tweeting in court from manpower to having the correct kit.

But ultimately, this is just a workaround isn't it?
Tweeting from court, being allowed to operate a laptop from the press bench - these are issues that detract from the main problem. If we were to have real open justice then our courts need to be live-streamed, with subtitles - and screens, voice replacement technology and other protection methods for cases where identity is an issue - and with embeddable players so the distribution of judicial process is as wide as possible.
The Leveson hearings have allowed more people than ever before follow significant evidence in real time. 

I’d love to see our criminal courts follow suit.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Rebekah Brooks and Horsegate: There but for the grace of God go I...


I have few things in common with Rebekah Brooks beyond the fact that we're both women and both in the media (ish - it's not like she's gone into Engineering or anything since quitting the Day Job).  
But now it turns out we have two other things in common - we're both horsewomen, and we've both been offered the gift of all creatures great and small by Plod. 

When the revelation exploded on Twitter today, courtesy of the Leveson Inquiry, that Rebekah Brooks had been loaned a police horse by the Metropolitan Police, it was truly astonishing. 
I was reading the latest evidence regarding murdered Private Detective Daniel Morgan, a case I know from my South Wales Argus days and more lately through Media Wales, when Horsegate broke, and I can understand the outpouring of rage, disbelief and - inevitably - humour that followed. 

But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I too had the prospect of animal husbandry dangled before me by Her Majesty's Finest, although it wasn't quite a quarter tonne of horseflesh; it was a cockerel. 
A fighting cockerel that was taken into custody - along with its sparring partner - by Pembroke Dock Constabulary, acting on a tip off that illegal bird fighting was happening at Catshole Quarry. 

Given that more than two decades have now passed, and everyone involved has retired, I can't imagine there's too much at stake to say that my morning trip to the local nick to go through the crime book was disturbed by much ruckus from the back yard, home to the police cars and seized dog pens. 

Walking round I met the then-licensing officer (a character I knew from court and council, and who had boomeranged between sergeant and constable at least twice) bent double wheezing with laughter while two constables attempted to separate a couple of shrieking cockerels who were busy clawing ten bells of crap out of each other. 
Eventually I learned the birds had been confiscated the previous night, kept in separate cat transporter boxes and then, with morning, the idea of putting them in a dog pen occurred. Unfortunately, they were put in the same dog pen and did what fighting chickens (which are essentially Velociraptors with feathers and a smaller brain) do best, until the nearest junior ranking staff were sent in to restore order.

Once the birds were in different pens the problem of long-term care emerged. As I was still involved in the discussion (this happens on regional papers - you find yourself sucked in to the weirdest situations) and was known to be of Farming Stock, I was asked whether I'd be interesting in caring for them til something more permanent could be worked out. 
I assume that meant an RSPCA rehoming but, equally, it could have meant until a special occasion meriting a roast fowl, say a really good drugs bust, presented itself. 

As there was no way I was taking in a psychotic rooster or two I declined, but volunteered a farming friend who lived a few miles away. He had large pens to keep the birds apart or, failing that, shotguns and a pragmatic approach to life and death. 
And that was that - the birds were taken into foster care and housed on separate farms owned by the same family. Their fostering never ended, and they had a free range life that was probably longer than the average chicken's due to their self-defence abilities. I think the RSPCA did prosecute but as I didn't cover the case there is no satisfactory judicial outcome to report. 

But still, like Rebekah, I was tempted although my moral fibre proved tougher. Still, if they'd offered me a pony, who knows what the answer might have been...


Enhanced by Zemanta