#10: Singing The Standards
November 14, 2006
During a meeting at my workplace this week, a group of copy editors asked the managing editor whether the same standards of accuracy that apply to print product also apply to the online product.
In a nutshell, the managing editor’s answer was this: When it comes to content created by the newspaper, yes. When it comes to user-generated content, no.
All media should pay attention to ethics and standards of accuracy in a time of media concentration and sensationalism, according to Mark Glaser’s August 2004 OJR.org article, “On the Wild, Woolly Internet, Old Ethics Rules Do Apply.”
The ability of one person to publish their thoughts to a global audience remains a unique online activity, difficult or impossible to duplicate in broadcasting or print, Glaser wrote. This incredible freedom of expression online has opened up global distribution for every human thought or deed, good or bad.
Add to this the values of “a culture that increasingly expects and demands “access” to any and all information at breakneck speed,” states Stephen Ward, an associate professor of journalism ethics at University of British Columbia.
The next generation of journalists will be wired from childhood, more used to this wild and woolly frontier, and more exposed to a multimedia landscape that shocks and amazes them at every turn, Glaser observed. Ethics and standards for online journalism need to remain part of the picture.
The ethic of “show everything just because we can” is no ethic at all, Ward said. He advocates that online journalists should adopt reasonable and responsible practices and standards.
I agree. But the model should be one that makes sense for online, a medium with notable differences from print.
“There are still far too many people in the print newsroom who seem to believe it is the online staff’s duty to replicate the newspaper as closely as possible,” remarked my colleague Jeanne A. Leblanc, a senior online producer at courant.com. “We will continue to get undue pressure from them to do that. And they will continue to believe that we are failing in our mission, until they understand that it’s our responsibility to serve a differenet audience in a different medium, and that this demands different decisions.”
Online news faces the pressure of speed and immediate demand. That fact usually translates to fewer eyeballs looking at the story before it is published.
However, online news also has the luxury of immediate correction and updating. A print newspaper, once its printed, can’t be corrected the same day. An online news story can be changed within the same few minutes, if necessary.
The Associated Press has constantly rewrote stories and corrected or confirmed information with each new version that goes out on the wire. As local newspapers become more like a 24-7 news wire service, the journalists who work for them must be willing to do the same thing for their Internet audience.
There have been plenty of times at courant.com when we had readers email us after the first version of a story went up on the web. These readers often point out factual errors or other issues with the story. The online news producers would convey this new information to the reporter and/or editor so they can address those issues for the next version of the story, oftentimes the printed version in the morning paper.
As a result of the online churning of a story, the readers of the newspaper in the morning will get a more correct/complete version of that story, often with added perspective and higher standards.
Online, news organizations must work to get the story right and get it out there as quickly as possible. If they do it in that order, they will have no problems. If they do it the other way round, after a while they won’t be taken seriously, observed Simon Waldman, director of digital publishing for Guardian Unlimited.
Another burning question raised by my print colleagues: How can a news organization steer the ethical/accuracy wheel, if it hands over the keys to readers with user-generated content?
As Web 2.0 models lead news organizations to collaborate more with readers, it is giving consumers the ability to contribute their own “news” and opinions to a traditional media website. The idea is that participation by readers will lead to retention of those readers and their $$.
“Information has two forms of value. First, information that is new is valuable, but in a limited sort of a way. More valuable is information that has been vetted and organized in a way that gives the user meaning,” said Kelly McBride, a faculty member for The Poynter Institute. “That kind of information starts out in the first category, then it is verified and categorized by a credible organization, which elevates the information to the second category. “
“Anyone can achieve the first level of value. It takes a bit of skill and intelligence and knowledge and hard work to get to the next level,” McBride said.
I think readers are smart enough to tell which content comes from the “news organization” and which comes from “the ordinary reader.” User-generated content should be labeled as such, as well.
If a news organization wants to uphold its print credibility online, it needs to make high journalistic standards a priority, put enough resources behind their web operation and be willing to adjust the rules to fit the medium.
If a traditional news organization also expects to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon and invite readers to contribute, it needs to be willing to ease those standards for user-generated content.
I think for many traditional news outlets, both of these goals are a major culture shift. The loosening of control is easier said than done.
Citations:
Simplicity
November 14, 2006
This morning, my 63-year-old father was complaining about his new cell phone. He can’t figure out why after a few days, the text messages in his inbox disappear. Frustrated, my dad says he is ready to pitch the whole thing in the trash. He’s not patient when it comes to new technology. He can’t understand why the design isn’t more simple.
After absorbing his rant, I left for work and turned on NPR in my car. The program – On Point - happened to be about “Simplicity in Technology.” The tagline: “In search of simplicity. Technology is supposed to make life better. But does it have to be so complicated?”
The show featured tech simplicity guru John Maeda from MIT and his 10 laws of simplicity when designing any interactive technology.
Here are Maeda’s first two:
1. The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.
2. Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.
Listen to the audio report here.
Burn. Baby. Burn.
November 10, 2006
Anvils on my head
November 10, 2006
I get headaches. Not that often, but when I do, they tend to be raging, nasty headaches that sometimes last from morning ’til night. They first started the year I graduated from college and began my career as a professional journalist.
Now, while I do suspect that my job occassionally contributes to my headaches, most of the time I think my migraines are brought on by the weather. Specifically, the barometric pressure.
Today, it feels like there is a 10-ton anvil pushing down on the left side of my face. I can’t really see straight because of the pulsing/pounding pains near my left eye. For some reason, Motrin doesn’t seem to be helping today either. It sucks.
I guess I’m not alone. Weather.com actually has a Aches and Pains Forecast.
Info Central
November 9, 2006
New development in the world of online journalism:
Like other newspaper companies, Gannett is losing readers and advertising revenue as folks turn to the Internet and other mediums to get their information.
So in response, Gannett says it is making a strategic shift from newspapers to “Information Centers.”
These centers will focus on seven objectives – public service, digital, data, community conversation, local, custom content and multimedia.
Gannett Chairman Craig Dubow called it “the newsroom of the future,” and said it will deliver information to the reader however they seek it – whether in the newspaper, on the Web, by mobile devices or through other products.
Gannett also plans to merge newspaper and online operations of USA Today and other publications. Read More…
#9: Digitized Democracy
November 7, 2006
The evolution of digital technology is giving consumers more control over media content, according to Princeton University Professor Edward W. Felten.
Whether it is digital music, movies, television shows or news, consumers nowadays can choose what, when and how to watch/listen/read digital content.
Before, if you wanted to watch a particular TV show, the network dictated the time it would be broadcast. Now we have TIVO.
Before, if you wanted to read news about your community, you depended upon your local newspaper to physically deliver it to your home. Now we have the Internet.
Before, if you wanted to hear the new song by Band X, you had to either wait to hear it on the radio or go to the store and buy the album. Now we have ITunes.
The technology has brought about a “great earthquake” in the media world, observed Felten. This technology in the hands of consumer is the ultimate shift in control TO the consumer. And the repercussions are echoing inside media companies, who equate loss of control with loss of revenue.
If through digitized technology consumers can obtain, copy and distribute content produced by media companies free of charge, than how can the media companies survive?
We are constantly asking this question at the newspaper website where I work. If the newspaper is essentially giving away its content for free over the web, than the newspaper is creating a business model that it can’t sustain.
Yes, the newspaper website does sell some online advertising. However, that revenue stream of online ads is not large enough to support the newspaper’s phalanx of reporters, editors and online producers. And if the company can’t afford to pay the people who gather and produce the content, then there will be less content for consumers.
Don’t get me wrong. I really like the idea of consumers being in control. I’m a consumer, too. I like downloading music and carrying it around on my MP3 player. I like being able to TIVO my favorite TV shows and watch them according to my schedule. And I like being able to read all the news I’m interested in on the Internet. It is like another level of democracy.
But realistically, all this media content has to come from somewhere. Producing it and making it available to the public costs money.
Now the question is whether consumers and media companies are willing to share the costs of this “digitized democracy.”
Consumers today aren’t willing to pay much, it seems. Media companies certainly don’t want to give up huge profits.
“Emerging technologies,” Cass R. Sunstein wrote, “hold out at least as much promise as risk, especially because they allow us all to widen our horizons.”
Can this digitized democracy eventually shake out a level playing field for all? Time will tell.
Citations:
