You have to love the story about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford who was supposedly hiking the Appalachian Trail for four days but now says he was actually in Argentina ending an affair.
Sure, I feel sorry for Sanford's wife and four boys, three of whom are teens and the youngest of whom is just 10. I don't feel Sanford's pain but that's probably because he lied and left his state without a governor while he was off fooling around or whatever he was doing.
Then there's the story of Nevada Sen. John Ensign, who resigned from a party leadership position early this month, after news came out about an affair with a former staff member. Ensign is vocal about family values and opposes gay marriage. So much for the sanctity of marriage. What more does he think homosexuals could do to marriage?
In each case, there's a legitimate news value to these stories. Sanford apparently left the state with no one in charge and Ensign is violating his own holier than thou principles. But here's the thing: you can always find news value in public officials' family life or to put it another way, the personal life of politicians has become fair game for better or worse.
I love a scandal as much as the next guy and I guess I wouldn't advocate going back to ignoring personal issues. F.D.R. couldn't hide the fact that he was crippled today and J.F.K. certainly couldn't hide his numerous affairs. But it's amazing how we accept the fact that politicians' personal lives are up for grabs and then find ways to justify it afterward.
As for the politicians who know the rules of the game and are well aware that the world is watching, their inability to keep it in their pants will never cease to amaze us. The Republican leaders are dropping like flies and that's because they're using the wrong organ to do their thinking for them.
But I don't want to get all sanctimonious here. I love a good scandal and I'll be following all the details of Gov. Sanford and his long, long detour around the Applachian Trail.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Twitter in Iran
I loved the report in the Times today about an Obama official calling Twitter to ask them not to shut down so that tweets from Iran could continue. Iran has shut down texts on cell phones and journalists aren't allowed to cover the protests, so Twitter has become one of the few places where reports can be posted.
I actually joined Twitter just to look at the tweets from Iran. I remain unenlightened but I'm sure if I spent more time I would find the photos and posts that are actually from Iran. I just got a lot of posts telling people to make their avatar green to show support for the people in Iran. I'm not sure what a green avatar has to do with Iran. In fact, I'm not sure what an avatar is, but I was interested to see the conversation about Iran.
Robert Schlessinger at U.S. News and World Report points out that not all the tweets and blog posts from Iran are accurate and that they don't replace journalism. And he's right, of course. There's no interpretation or sorting through the facts.
Marla Singer on Zero Hedge makes the point even more strongly warning readers not to "believe the hype." She points out that the secret police in Iran can use Twitter just as easily as the protesters and, since Twitter isn't anonymous, they can use it to find the people who are sending out Twitter.
Still, it is inspiring that people have found a way to get the word out, for as long as they're able to do it. It's not so much a testament to the power of Twitter as a testament to the power of information to leak out despite attempts to suppress it.
I actually joined Twitter just to look at the tweets from Iran. I remain unenlightened but I'm sure if I spent more time I would find the photos and posts that are actually from Iran. I just got a lot of posts telling people to make their avatar green to show support for the people in Iran. I'm not sure what a green avatar has to do with Iran. In fact, I'm not sure what an avatar is, but I was interested to see the conversation about Iran.
Robert Schlessinger at U.S. News and World Report points out that not all the tweets and blog posts from Iran are accurate and that they don't replace journalism. And he's right, of course. There's no interpretation or sorting through the facts.
Marla Singer on Zero Hedge makes the point even more strongly warning readers not to "believe the hype." She points out that the secret police in Iran can use Twitter just as easily as the protesters and, since Twitter isn't anonymous, they can use it to find the people who are sending out Twitter.
Still, it is inspiring that people have found a way to get the word out, for as long as they're able to do it. It's not so much a testament to the power of Twitter as a testament to the power of information to leak out despite attempts to suppress it.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Can new blog site True/Slant succeed?
Another blog collective designed to provide a “new” kind of journalism and make money is the newly launched site True/Slant: an original content site that has 100 contributors, many of whom are well-known veteran journalists from CNN, TIME, Rolling Stone and The New York Times.
The beta site launched on June 6 with 100 “entrepreneurial journalists” who are blogging already or who have perspectives on the news as academics or professionals who will create original blogs and “curate” news stories in print or video with their own perspectives.
The contributors also agreed to try to “break down barriers between the writers and their audience,” by having online conversations with some of the people who comment on their sites. Everyone is allowed to comment but contributors get to pick comments that they think further the discussion and to highlight that discussion. Contributors are also encouraged to comment on each other’s posts.
The other unique aspect of this site is that True/Slant will give advertisers the same ability to post content and use stories and headlines and video on their blogs as the contributors have and to have a “dialogue” with readers. True/Slant promises that the TS/Ad Slant page will be clearly labeled so that readers will know it’s an advertorial.
It’s unclear how the contributors make money but it seems that part of it will be finding their own advertising sponsors, according to Dan Gillmore, of The Knight Foundation’s IdeaLab (a great site about “reinventing community news for the Digital Age).
A press release about how the business works doesn’t shed much light on the subject. stating that True/Slant “redefines the static employer-employee model.” Some contributors are looking for a platform, others are “sharing in revenue generated from their pages,” while still others “earn stipends based on their editorial contributions.”
I think it’s fair to say that many journalists, like me, are phobic about becoming salesmen both because there is that traditional line between advertising and news and because many of us are former English majors who would rather remove our fingernails than have to sell to people.
There is certainly a potential conflict if contributors are soliciting advertisers although I suppose if they then send them off to their own corner of the world, it might be OK.
I’m also skeptical about the moneymaking potential but then again, I am currently making no money at all, so right now a “stipend” sounds pretty good.
The site has a lot of interesting posts. Recent posts have a blog on “The case against post-feminist marriage,” by Mark Stricherz of the Catholic Independent, a blog on Sarah Palin and a blog on “Next Generation Arranged Marriage,” by Ali Eteraz, of American Saracen. It also has a section called “Headline Grabs” in which contributors link readers to other blogs, stories and video.
I hope that True/Slant works. It’s an interesting model and I like the fact that it clearly separates advertising and editorial at least on the site. I’d still like to know more about how it all works. But as Gillmore, the director of the Knight Center for Digital Media, points out, it’s one of several ideas out there that are trying to keep journalism alive. Even if we don’t know what that will look like, that has to be a good thing.
The beta site launched on June 6 with 100 “entrepreneurial journalists” who are blogging already or who have perspectives on the news as academics or professionals who will create original blogs and “curate” news stories in print or video with their own perspectives.
The contributors also agreed to try to “break down barriers between the writers and their audience,” by having online conversations with some of the people who comment on their sites. Everyone is allowed to comment but contributors get to pick comments that they think further the discussion and to highlight that discussion. Contributors are also encouraged to comment on each other’s posts.
The other unique aspect of this site is that True/Slant will give advertisers the same ability to post content and use stories and headlines and video on their blogs as the contributors have and to have a “dialogue” with readers. True/Slant promises that the TS/Ad Slant page will be clearly labeled so that readers will know it’s an advertorial.
It’s unclear how the contributors make money but it seems that part of it will be finding their own advertising sponsors, according to Dan Gillmore, of The Knight Foundation’s IdeaLab (a great site about “reinventing community news for the Digital Age).
A press release about how the business works doesn’t shed much light on the subject. stating that True/Slant “redefines the static employer-employee model.” Some contributors are looking for a platform, others are “sharing in revenue generated from their pages,” while still others “earn stipends based on their editorial contributions.”
I think it’s fair to say that many journalists, like me, are phobic about becoming salesmen both because there is that traditional line between advertising and news and because many of us are former English majors who would rather remove our fingernails than have to sell to people.
There is certainly a potential conflict if contributors are soliciting advertisers although I suppose if they then send them off to their own corner of the world, it might be OK.
I’m also skeptical about the moneymaking potential but then again, I am currently making no money at all, so right now a “stipend” sounds pretty good.
The site has a lot of interesting posts. Recent posts have a blog on “The case against post-feminist marriage,” by Mark Stricherz of the Catholic Independent, a blog on Sarah Palin and a blog on “Next Generation Arranged Marriage,” by Ali Eteraz, of American Saracen. It also has a section called “Headline Grabs” in which contributors link readers to other blogs, stories and video.
I hope that True/Slant works. It’s an interesting model and I like the fact that it clearly separates advertising and editorial at least on the site. I’d still like to know more about how it all works. But as Gillmore, the director of the Knight Center for Digital Media, points out, it’s one of several ideas out there that are trying to keep journalism alive. Even if we don’t know what that will look like, that has to be a good thing.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Blogging Rants
I've been blogging for about a year now and it still feels like sending a message in a bottle into the ocean or maybe sending a paper airplane off a skyscraper, so I was interested to see the article in the N.Y. Times Style section Sunday about the large number of bloggers dropping out of the blogosphere.
The Times story cites a Technorati estimate that only about 7.4 million of 133 million blogs were updated in the past 120 days. That's a huge failure rate and it's safe to say that people stop blogging because they're busy, they're tired and frankly, they're a little discouraged.
In my case, I'm sure my blogs aren't taking off because I haven't promoted them and because I'm writing about journalism in one and parenting in the other: two prosaic and (yawn) boring subjects to lots of people I'm sure. Maybe I have to do something more edgy.
I also haven't gotten the proper tone: personal, snarky and humorous. I try for humour sure but I sense that I'm not hip enough or maybe that's just the insecurity of a 50-year-old journalist/mom with one foot in 2009 and the other back in the 20th century when we had typewriters and simple computers and jobs.
I have admittedly been inconsistent about posting and clueless about finding an audience. I get the theory and I think it goes something like this: you write a marvelous, literary, fascinating blog that everyone wants to read. People start reading it and they can't get enough. Soon you have an audience of gazillions and everyone is beating a path to your door. A major magazine wants to run your blog. There's a book contract and a possible movie deal. Yeah right.
My dear friend Tracy Schroth and a few other people have worked on a blog about local politics called The Secret News in Emeryville, Calif. and they've been very successful. They've gotten a huge audience, they've been quoted in the New York Times and politicians are apparently quaking in their boots. So the blogging thing can work but it's tough going for most of us.
I'm still slogging away despite it all. I suspect that I have to do a lot more to get my blog noticed. Maybe nude photos? I'm kidding, I'm kidding. This blog thing is like some giant mountain I have to climb and seriously I'm just a short-distance walker. But you never know.
The Times story cites a Technorati estimate that only about 7.4 million of 133 million blogs were updated in the past 120 days. That's a huge failure rate and it's safe to say that people stop blogging because they're busy, they're tired and frankly, they're a little discouraged.
In my case, I'm sure my blogs aren't taking off because I haven't promoted them and because I'm writing about journalism in one and parenting in the other: two prosaic and (yawn) boring subjects to lots of people I'm sure. Maybe I have to do something more edgy.
I also haven't gotten the proper tone: personal, snarky and humorous. I try for humour sure but I sense that I'm not hip enough or maybe that's just the insecurity of a 50-year-old journalist/mom with one foot in 2009 and the other back in the 20th century when we had typewriters and simple computers and jobs.
I have admittedly been inconsistent about posting and clueless about finding an audience. I get the theory and I think it goes something like this: you write a marvelous, literary, fascinating blog that everyone wants to read. People start reading it and they can't get enough. Soon you have an audience of gazillions and everyone is beating a path to your door. A major magazine wants to run your blog. There's a book contract and a possible movie deal. Yeah right.
My dear friend Tracy Schroth and a few other people have worked on a blog about local politics called The Secret News in Emeryville, Calif. and they've been very successful. They've gotten a huge audience, they've been quoted in the New York Times and politicians are apparently quaking in their boots. So the blogging thing can work but it's tough going for most of us.
I'm still slogging away despite it all. I suspect that I have to do a lot more to get my blog noticed. Maybe nude photos? I'm kidding, I'm kidding. This blog thing is like some giant mountain I have to climb and seriously I'm just a short-distance walker. But you never know.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Newsroom of the Future
I joined a group called the "Next Newsroom," a project out of Duke University that envisions what a future newsroom would look like. It's also looking at revamping the campus newspaper The Chronicle. Anyone who joins can post their thoughts about what newsrooms will look like in the future.
Here's what I had to say about "The Next Newsroom:"
I hope there are newsrooms in the future. There is a certain amount of optimism and faith involved in assuming that there will be. I don’t have to remind anyone familiar with media today that these are dark days in newspaper newsrooms and broadcast newsrooms.
I always assure my students that there will always be journalism in some form. We just don’t know what it will be yet. So maybe it’s best to assume that there will be future newsrooms in some form.
Perhaps future newsrooms won’t be a geographic place but a digital space. That’s what happening with hyperlocal media and with Internet news. I’m old-fashioned enough to think that there’s a loss if there’s no central gathering place for news gatherers but I guess that’s what the Internet has become.
Future journalists will do what many current journalists are doing: everything. They’ll write articles, blog, do multimedia and podcasts and whatever else fits in. I hope that there will still be a place for skilled trained journalists and editors who look over their shoulder. I know there’s a lot of wonderful stuff coming out of blogs and perhaps I truly am a dinosaur but I hope there’s a place for the balanced reporting, in-depth stories and investigative pieces that are the hallmark of good journalism.
If the future newsroom is staffed with future journalists then there’ll have to be a way to pay them. Maybe news organizations will all run on the NPR, non-profit model. Sure, NPR has had cutbacks too but their audience has grown while other news organizations’ audiences have shrunk. They must be doing something right.
Perhaps news organizations will find some way to make money from the Internet. There is widespread skepticism that Internet readers will pay for content but maybe they will. I know I was one of the few people paying for the Times archive so I would be one of those people. Whether there’s enough people like me, I’m not so sure. My few students who read the newspaper read it online. They pay for iTunes or at least some of them do. But the newspaper isn’t quite so fun and it’s worthless the next day.
I hope future newsrooms will find ways to reproduce traditional newsrooms’ best features: the shared ideas, the collegiality, the shared passion. If they can do that, it’s probably OK that there’s no way to gather around the coffee machine anymore.
Here's what I had to say about "The Next Newsroom:"
I hope there are newsrooms in the future. There is a certain amount of optimism and faith involved in assuming that there will be. I don’t have to remind anyone familiar with media today that these are dark days in newspaper newsrooms and broadcast newsrooms.
I always assure my students that there will always be journalism in some form. We just don’t know what it will be yet. So maybe it’s best to assume that there will be future newsrooms in some form.
Perhaps future newsrooms won’t be a geographic place but a digital space. That’s what happening with hyperlocal media and with Internet news. I’m old-fashioned enough to think that there’s a loss if there’s no central gathering place for news gatherers but I guess that’s what the Internet has become.
Future journalists will do what many current journalists are doing: everything. They’ll write articles, blog, do multimedia and podcasts and whatever else fits in. I hope that there will still be a place for skilled trained journalists and editors who look over their shoulder. I know there’s a lot of wonderful stuff coming out of blogs and perhaps I truly am a dinosaur but I hope there’s a place for the balanced reporting, in-depth stories and investigative pieces that are the hallmark of good journalism.
If the future newsroom is staffed with future journalists then there’ll have to be a way to pay them. Maybe news organizations will all run on the NPR, non-profit model. Sure, NPR has had cutbacks too but their audience has grown while other news organizations’ audiences have shrunk. They must be doing something right.
Perhaps news organizations will find some way to make money from the Internet. There is widespread skepticism that Internet readers will pay for content but maybe they will. I know I was one of the few people paying for the Times archive so I would be one of those people. Whether there’s enough people like me, I’m not so sure. My few students who read the newspaper read it online. They pay for iTunes or at least some of them do. But the newspaper isn’t quite so fun and it’s worthless the next day.
I hope future newsrooms will find ways to reproduce traditional newsrooms’ best features: the shared ideas, the collegiality, the shared passion. If they can do that, it’s probably OK that there’s no way to gather around the coffee machine anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
