Mobile News: Characteristics, Content

Mobile news is versatile, immediate and portable, and if formatted and designed properly, can be just compelling as a news web site or a printed newspaper.

The audience for mobile news is mainly a new audience. It is not the same people who prefer traditional print news. Individuals who subscribe to print products are shrinking in number as information consumption habits shift to digital delivery.

Mobile news/information appeals mainly to young people, who have never known a world without computers, cell phones, SMS and digital audio. Mobile news/information also appeals to technologically savvy working professionals, commuters and parents who spend a lot of time away from home and on the go and who have integrated mobile phone communication into their daily lives.

Based on this audience, here is a list of content that would specifically appeal to a mobile, Connecticut-centric demographic:

• Local weather reports
• Traffic updates
• School closings
• Sports scores
• Stock prices
• Breaking news alerts (crime, politics)
• Movie times
• Local event listings database with SMS alerts
• Local restaurant database including restaurant reviews
• Searchable local classifieds with SMS alerts (real estate/jobs/cars/auctions)
• Most popular stories / photo galleries
• Opportunity to submit/share mobile user-generated content, such as local photos/videos/comments.

SOURCES

Peacock, Melissa. “Online Newspaper Audience Grows; Looks Toward Mobile.” CMS Wire: Jul 29. 2008. Retrieved on 10/17/2008 from http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-publishing/online-newspaper-audience-grows-looks-toward-mobile-002950.php

 

“Newspaper Web Sites Attract Records Audiences.” Newspaper Association of America: April 14, 2008. Retrieved on 10/17/2008 from http://www.naa.org/PressCenter/SearchPressReleases/2008/NEWSPAPER-WEB-SITES-ATTRACT-RECORD-AUDIENCES-IN-FIRST-QUARTER.aspx

Podcasting Gaining Ground

Podcasting is gaining ground as a viable information delivery channel for news organizations.  Back in 2004, when podcasting first hit the personal technology scene, most traditional news organizations foundered with the new technology. Some either put too much effort into producing and distributing podcasts with less than profitable results, while others chose to ignore the technology as merely a trend for a niche audience.

But technology, skills and audience preferences have evolved quickly in the past four years. Portable audio and video are now penetrating American consumer culture. Online audio and video have become part of the mainstream due in part to the incredible influence of YouTube and iTunes.

A survey conducted by eMarketer in January 2007 put the “active” U.S. podcast audience at 6.5 million and projected growth to 10 million the end of 2008. Other research by Bridge Ratings LLC projects that 63 million people will be plugging into podcasts by 2010.  That’s a huge potential audience – many of them young people – whose everyday hardware regimen includes mobile phones and earbuds for listening to portable audio.

Every news organization now has a good second chance to jump on the podcasting bandwagon.

So what is a podcast exactly? It is a free, prerecorded audio or video program that can be automatically downloaded to a user’s computer through a voluntary subscription feed. Once the podcast file is on the user’s computer, the user can transfer it to a portable, digital media device and listen/watch the content on his or her own schedule, while on the go or doing other things.

Both the technology of podcasting and the consumer-chosen content advances the popular phenomenon of “personal media.”  People nowadays are creating their own media space by ripping bits from disparate  products and reintegrating the parts in new ways.

By making news information personalized and convenient, the rapid penetration of portable audio devices represents an opportunity for news organizations to re-engage news consumers in a manner consistent with modern lifestyles and behaviors.

“[Podcasts are] a way to reach listeners you weren’t going to get anyway,” like people in their offices or on the subway, observed Steve Dolge, managing editor of wtopnews.com in Washington, D.C. “We need to go where the people are instead of trying to force them where we are.” 

There are a number of news organizations who have recognized the growth potential in podcasts and are using the medium effectively as another means to dissipate information.  For example, in February 2006, the British newspaper The Telegraph hired its first “podcast editor.”  That same year, all-news radio stations such as WTOP in Washington, D.C., and WBBM in Chicago created special “news to go” podcasts for commuters to listen to in transit or at work. The headline on the WBBM podcast web site marketed the effort with the tagline: “We report. You download.”

What’s the podcasting risk for news organizations? The risk is wasting money and time on the production of “boring” podcasts that garner little audience. Journalism organizations looking to expand into podcasting should partner with professional broadcasters so the quality, production value and interestingness of the content maintains high standards.

Anyone with decent computer skills can produce a podcast. User-generated podcasts present competition for the mainstream media. So if anyone can produce a podcast, traditional news organizations have no excuse for not attempting to do it, too.

The content should influence the technology. News organizations shouldn’t force a reason to create a podcast, but rather, decide through journalistic judgment whether a podcast or vodcast could be the most effective way to get a particular piece of information out to the world. Podcasting cannot yet replicate the live, up-to-the-minute quality of broadcast news. But as portable players go wireless, “news on demand”— both audio and video — should become reality.

Amy Gahran, an e-media news expert at the Poynter Institute, suggests this carte du jour for better news podcasts:

• Keep news podcasts snappy, lively and less than 5 minutes. 
• Get right to the point. Intrigue the audience as well as inform.
• Provide links to stories mentioned in the podcast. Post daily show notes and make them easy to find – for mobile users, too. 
• Measure the results. Can additional traffic to the site be credited it to the podcast? Track which stories are most engaging to your podcast audience, which will help you refine your show to suit them. 
• Lastly, podcasts done right can help to turn “news grazers” into regular readers or listeners. 

SOURCES

Outing, Steve. “New Newspaper Job: Podcast Editor.” Poynter Online, E-Media Tidbits. Feb. 6, 2006. Retrieved on 10/8/2008 from http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=73502

Huntsberger, Michael & Stavistky, Alan. “The New ‘Podagogy’: Incorporating Podcasting into Journalism Education.”  Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. Columbia: Winter 2007. Vol. 61, Issue. 4; pg. 397-411

Palser, Barb. “Second-mover advantage: when launching online products, listening to the audience is more important than speed” American Journalism Review: April-May 2008. Vol. 30; Issue 2; p. 46

Zorn, Eric. “Pull up a chair, then plug in to some podcasts.” Chicago Tribune: Sep 6, 2007. pg.1

Potter, Deborah. “Podcasting the Future.” American Journalism Review: February/March 2006.

Yelvington, Steve. “Podcasting and the Rise of Personal Media.” Poynter Online – E-Media Tidbits: Oct. 27, 2004. Retrieved on 10/8/2008 from http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=73502

Gahran, Amy. “Getting Smart About News Podcasts.” Poynter Online – E-Media Tidbits: Jan 23, 2008. Retrieved on 10/8/2008 from http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=136334

iPhone envy

Handheld devices have become useful tools for mobile computing. With the expansion of wireless Internet availability, people increasingly want to be able to browse the web from their handhelds. But on most cell phones, the small screens are unable to convey the richness of web content.

That is, until the iPhone.

The iPhone is a cell phone with many of the capabilities of a digital media player as well as a Web-enabled handheld computer. It boasts a remarkable visual user interface driven by touch and virtual keyboard technology.

Busy consumers gravitate toward products that help them get things done (utility). They will repeatedly use products that help them affirm their personal relationships and individual identities (purpose).They will develop loyalty to products that are functional, intuitive and easy-to-use (performance).  And they will buy products that don’t cost too much (economy).

People also are generally drawn to gadgets that look cool (aesthetics).

When it was released by Apple in 2007, the iPhone promised to fulfill all five of these categories. It seemed to have it all rolled into one sleek, black handheld with richly luminous graphics. The iPhone managed to capture consumers’ attention by tapping into their design sensibilities, curiosity and aesthetic consciousness.

As a handheld, the iPhone is ergonomic. It offers clear typography and interaction cues for navigation. It has successfully attracted a cache of complementary software, such as Google mapping interfaces and the New York Times, making it all the more valuable to consumers. And more companies are rolling out specialized iPhone applications as the gadget becomes a “platform” for information delivery

But as consumers by the millions literally bought into the iPhone hype, deficiencies with the iPhone revealed themselves.

“Despite all the hoopla about the elegant operating system and stunning screen, odds are that even a cheap cellphone has better voice quality; your old fashioned BlackBerry is more dependable than my e-mail system; and an inexpensive digital camera takes better quality pictures,” wrote George Gombossy, consumer columnist for the Hartford Courant. “In short, the iPhone is a beautiful tiny computer, but in some ways it’s like a combination hammer-screwdriver-wrench — it does it all but none well.”

Early adopters of the product found that the iPhone’s anytime/anywhere accessibility diminished due to network slowness. Apple partnered with AT&T to deliver service to consumers, but AT&T’s 3G network isn’t as robust in many areas. Apple has yet to allow consumers to use the iPhone on any service network they choose. The AT&T iPhone contract is both restrictive and expensive.

The novel touch screen of the iPhone doesn’t work so well for those with large, heavy or less than dexterous fingers. And the iPhone is still missing some features that users expect as “standard” – such as the ability to record video.

An uneven deficit in one or more of the five categories – performance, utility, purpose, economy or aesthetics – tends to foster negative user experiences. For example, the iPhone’s look makes up for some of functional expectations, but if its performance is really bad, people won’t bother trying use it, no matter what it looks like.

But if designers and developers at Apple are smart, they will take heed of the negative experiences and complaints, and work to make sure the next generation of the iPhone is better.

And no one likes restrictions or high prices. The business folks at Apple should realize that the iPhone could dominate the market if it makes a point to be less proprietary and more open source. The easier it is for people to connect the iPhone to products they are already loyal to, the more likely people will want it as a part of their daily lives.

SOURCES

Gajendar, Uday. “Experiential Aesthetics: A Framework for Beautiful Experience.”  Interactions: Magazine of the Association of Computer Machinery.  Vol 15.  September / October, 2008. pp 6-10.  Retrieved on 10/2/2008 from http://interactions.acm.org/content/?p=1140 

Gombossy, George. “iPhone 3G Is Nothing To Write, Or Call, Home About.” Hartford Courant. Sept 28, 2008. Retrieved on 9/29/2008 from http://www.courant.com/hc-watchdog-0928,0,1541295.column

McQuail, Denis. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, 5th edition, 2005. Why people Use Media.

Cusumano, Michael.  “Technology Strategy and Management: The Puzzle of Apple.” Communications of the ACM. Sept 2008. Vol 51. No. 9. pp. 22-24.

The Redesign Process

My job as an online editor at a traditional newspaper company involves a lot of convincing…that is, convincing print journalists to rework their content so it is not just “on the web” but “of the web.”  Same can be said of designing content for mobile media. Content should be tweaked to take advantage of the unique constraints and abilities of the platform that delivers their information. 

So, for example, a 1,000 word story that works well in print, would not be the same if it was produced for  TV, would need to be altered to be broadcast on the radio and could be different online in a desktop browser. What if the same story is accessed by someone on a mobile phone? The traditional print version wouldn’t be ideal, nor any of the other iterations on TV, radio or online. It is best if the content is fine-tuned to fit the mobile browsers capabilities.  

Questions to answer first: Who is the audience for this product and what are their expectations? What content is relevant to the mobile user to fulfill their expectations? How can this information be beneficial to someone on the go? How can it be easily viewed and consumed on a small screen?  

With so much information available at people’s fingertips these days, publishing content in any medium seems to be pointless unless an audience actually can access it with the least amount of stress, and find it useful.

Yes, I Text.

Yes, I text. My friends. My family. I text privately when talking is inappropriate. I text when I don’t feel like having a long conversation. I once dated this guy who preferred to communicate a lot by text.  The relationship didn’t last very long because, in part, the communication remained really shallow. How much can you really say in 160 taps? How much is misunderstood?

I use some abbreviations when texting , but I prefer to type out the full words and use punctuation. Can’t help it. I’m a journalist. I want the recipient of my text to know what I’m talking about. When my mother texts me from the Philippines, I sometimes have no idea what she is saying because of her bizarre textspeak. Then I have to send her another message asking for a clearer explanation.     

You can certainly use text to communicate in the “backchannel” – like passing a note in class. But it shouldn’t ever be used as someone’s primary or sole form of communication. There is value in hearing another human being’s voice and seeing the expression on their face.

A Poetic Way To Interpret Failed First Dates

“…one-time intersections of two people looking for something other than what they found.”

– from the wonderful short story “The 5:22″ by George Harrar

Good reason to blog

“Write what should not be forgotten.” — Isabel Allende

Trees and stones

“Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from masters.”
—St. Bernard

The YouTube Shift

Just before the end of 2005, programmers Chad Hurley and Steve Chen launched a simple, social website that allowed anyone with an Internet connection to upload video clips and share them. Within a matter of months, YouTube.com had become a phenomenon–recognized as one of the fastest-growing websites in the world. Some 100 million video clips were being viewed daily on YouTube by summer 2006, with 65,000 videos being uploaded onto the site every 24 hours. [1] Further acknowledging YouTube as the medium of the moment, Time Magazine named “You” (referencing YouTube) as the Person of the Year for 2006.[2]

YouTube’s exponential growth in popularity serves as evidence of a revolutionary shift in the media landscape: consumers have become producers. YouTube’s user-friendly interface and social networking elements invited people to create their own communications and distribute it for free to a wide audience. People accepted the invitation en masse.

The videos posted on YouTube include home videos and remixes, personal rants, television excerpts, music videos, movie trailers, commercials and highlights from television history. Most clips are posted by users and increasingly, by producers and networks themselves.

Now, much of the content available on YouTube is frivolous. But some videos are serious, including clips of incidents that have political consequences or document important trends, reveal truths, or spread disinformation, propaganda and lies. The weighty stuff has caused some scholars to question whether video sharing sites like YouTube have the power to bring greater accountability and transparency to governments around the world. “International news operations may have thousands of professional journalists, but they will never be as omnipresent as millions of people carrying phones that record video,” argued Moisés Naím in a January 2007 article in Foreign Policy. [3]

The media business traditionally has been defined by three characteristics: information production and distribution is expensive, arduous, and usually outside of the control of ‘ordinary’ citizens. YouTube has broken that mold. Video sharing sites open doors for democratic participation, both in terms of entertainment production and political communication. And open access/sharing websites like YouTube allow for forms of expression to be distributed that might not otherwise be available to a broader audience. [4]

“The YouTube motto (‘Broadcast Yourself) is indicative of the idea that the system is designed to allow members of the general public to engage in an activity (‘broadcasting’) that was traditionally the domain of large, powerful media corporations,” wrote Christian Christensen, a new media scholar at Karlstad University in Sweden. “The importance of distribution in the media process is often overlooked, yet it is perhaps almost as important as the actual media product itself. What YouTube and other video-sharing websites do is eliminate the need for attracting the interest of the narrow number of distribution companies from the media mix and allow media producers to self-distribute by simply uploading their films straight onto the web.”

The histories of communication technologies have shown time and again that audiences rarely adopt and use media in the ways they were originally envisioned. YouTube was developed by two 20-somethings who wrote code. The audience decided how to use it. “Everyone wants to consume their media the way they want to consume it. You can’t control that,” acknowledged Stefanie Henning, a senior vice president at Fox Television Studios. [5]

YouTube is also unique in that it didn’t rely on traditional multi-million-dollar marketing campaigns to gain popularity. People learned about the site through electronic word of mouth – forwarded email links, blogs, embedding and MySpace profiles. [6] “Users want to be passionate about what their interests are. The habit of sharing them has become a cultural phenomenon,” said Richard Rosenblatt, founder and former chairman of MySpace. [7]

YouTube’s success has been attributed in large part to its easy-to-use, straightforward interface. Users do not need to log-in to view clips, or need to worry about software compatiblity, downloading files or even clicking a play button. Videos begin streaming as soon as the webpage loads, and relational videos are offered to users in a scrollable sidebar, so users can click from one clip to another without doing multiple searches. [8]

Another primary draw of YouTube is its vastness. The more users contribute to YouTube, the more value it acquires. And to be sure, consumers like YouTube because watching and/or participating is free.

Others attest that YouTube exploded into a cultural and business phenomenon over many other video-sharing websites because no other site was as willing to turn a blind eye to illegal content. “What turned it into the world’s most popular video-sharer was a series of widely watched videos that the uploaders didn’t have the legal right to put on the web,” wrote Jaime J. Weinman in MacLean’s magazine in November 2006.

The first “illegal” clip was of the Saturday Night Live sketch “Lazy Sunday.” It became a viral online phenomenon. NBC eventually demanded the skit be removed in February 2006. But by then, an estimated 5 million people had viewed the clip on YouTube, helping the site to become part of the cultural zeitgeist. [9]

The rise of YouTube has contributed to the culture of “the clip.” Specific moments that users want to watch can be searched and accessed without having to watch live broadcasts, make recordings, or wait through commercial breaks. The instantaneity of YouTube panders to the immediacy desires of modern media consumers. [10]

YouTube does have a policy of taking down a copyrighted video if the owner complains. But YouTube does not prescreen videos to make sure they’re not in violation of copyright. It allows any video to be immediately processed and distributed. By the time the owner has it taken down for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the site has already gotten lots of exposure. And though entertainment companies like Universal have entered into agreements with YouTube to post authorized TV and movieclips, they’re still outweighed by the hundreds of other users still posting unauthorized clips every day. [11]

“You write YouTube a letter and the content gets removed within eight hours,” explained Alan Bell, a Paramount Studios’ executive. “But the site is so vast that the next day it’s up on the platform again, posted by another user.” [12]

Now YouTube’s premise–a website where people freely upload and view video of all sorts–has nothing to do with traditional journalism, but it is teaching mainstream journalists a few things about modern media consumers.[13] Audiences today are part of a networked society, and members of that network want to produce, publish and share their own content. If traditional media companies want to remain relevant, they need to become active members of the network and offer users the opportunity to create and contribute.

One positive for journalists: the YouTube shift is creating a strong demand for reliable guides – individuals, institutions, and technologies that people can trust to help sort through the morass of content and distinguish the good stuff from the bad stuff, the facts from the lies. [14]

References:

1, 4, Christian Christensen, “You Tube: The Evolution of Media?” Screen Education; 2007, Issue 45, 36-40.

2, 6, 8, 10, Lucas Hilderbrand “YouTube: Where Cultural Memory And Copyright Converge.” Film Quarterly 61, no. 1 (October 1, 2007): 48-57.

3, 14. Moisés Naím “The YouTube Effect.” Foreign Policy no. 158 (January 1, 2007): 104,103.

5, 7, 12. Michael Goldstein, “If You Can’t Beat ‘Em…” MediaWeek, vol. 17, Issue 21, (May 21, 2007)

9. Wendy N. Davis, “Downloading a File of Copyright Woes.” ABA Journal 93, (March 1, 2007): 10-11.

11. Jaime J. Weinman “Say hello to the YouTube losers.” Maclean’s, November 6, 2006, 70.

13. Francis Pisani, “Journalism and Web 2.0.” Nieman Reports 60, no. 4 (December 1, 2006): 42-44. http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p42-0604-pisani.html

*Note: This essay was written by Marie K. Shanahan for a graduate level course at Quinnipiac University in Spring 2008. A collaboratively-edited version of this essay is included in a Wiki called “The New Communication Professional” at http://newcompro.halavais.net.

Blogs and Journalism

“The invention of the Weblog has shoved journalism into a reformation, perhaps a revolution,” wrote Joseph Rago, an assistant editorial features editor at the Wall Street Journal[1].

The majority of blogs on the Internet are simply personal web sites — sites that exist because blogging software is free, readily available, and automates much of the HTML coding needed for web publication[2]. But for many of these “bloggers,” the motivation to use these tools is frustration with the traditional media. Now that the publishing tools are at the people’s disposal, blogs are “giving voice to those who, in the pre-Internet era, may have felt voiceless” [3].

So mainstream journalists and their traditional news organizations can hardly ignore the exponential proliferation of blogs. Blogs are challenging the news industry to embrace new ways of practicing journalism, one that places value on collaboration as a way to re-establish credibility with readers.

There is a line to be drawn between the short-form, diary-type information presented in the average blog and “journalism.” Most weblogs do not provide verifiable sources or original reporting. Most weblogs do not present news of interest to the broader public or adhere to an ideal of objectivity and fairness. Rather, the typical blog is personal, laced with a tone of informality, aimed at a niche audience and deeply opinionated.

“We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought – instead panics and manias, endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendencies to substitute ideology for cognition,” criticized Rago of Wall Street Journal[1].

But despite the news industry’s displeasure with blogs and typical bloggers, almost all major news organizations now feature professional journalist-driven blogs of their own. Seasoned journalists are using blogs to expand their own writing repertoire in the days of shrinking news hole. Others use the self-serve publication software to expand on their regular news stories, provide live ‘breaking news’ updates or eyewitness accounts, to express opinions, start conversations, and, for those who know how to blog well, build community.

Blogs are able to break down many of the existing barriers between journalists and the public because they propel journalists into a larger community where “a posting is picked up and passed from one blogger to the next, each adding community and expanding the discussion”[4]. Instead of following the highly-structured narrative of print journalism, blog writing style is more informal and approachable, inviting the reader to participate [5].

Hyperlinking is a fundamental aspect of blogging, and it is being done by journalist bloggers. Good journalists weave together information from many sources to make a bigger whole and to provide perspective. Hyperlinking allows journalist bloggers to directly link to online resources. Linking to numerous primary sources allows writers to give context to complex stories. Hyperlinking provides a level of transparency that is impossible with a printed news story. Willing readers can determine for themselves whether the subject matter has been accurately represented[6].

According to Rebecca Blood, author of “The Weblog Handbook,” “Bloggers who reference, but do not link material that might, in its entirety, undermine their conclusions, are intellectually dishonest.” Not surprisingly, blogs serve as a corrective mechanism for bad journalism. Sloppy reporting and mistakes are likely to be quickly publicized and passed around the blogosphere. The ever-watchful eye of the blogosphere is nudging the print media to pursue more balanced sourcing outside the traditional halls of government and corporations[7].

“By widening the disclosure circle through information sharing, Weblogs along with other Internet mechanism, have contributed to the truth-finding process,” observed Paul Andrews, a columnist and blogger at the Seattle Times[8].

Journalist bloggers are also taking on the role of “conversation leaders.” A blog entry is a “stub for conversation,” according to Vincent J. Maher, lecturer in new media studies at Rhodes Univ., S. Africa. News reports, generally, also start a lot of conversations. Blogging allows that conversation leader role to become more explicit. Because they offer instant interactivity, blogs engendering dialogue and exchanges[9]. Journalist bloggers can guide their conversations by being active in the dialog, linking to additional sources, sifting through new information, aggregating, encouraging good contributions, discouraging bad ones, and highlighting smart ideas from the public. What the public has to say about what’s being written on a blog is regarded as just as important as what the professional journalist wrote. Readers opinions, posted publicly, add value to the blog as a whole.

“Journalists bloggers can essentially work with citizen journalists to enrich news stories with the perspectives of “everyday Joes and Janes, who offer more voices, more texture to public debate,” wrote Jose Vargas in a Nov. 2007 article in the Washington Post.

Some mainstream journalists have even used blogs to “float” story ideas before the public and get reader input on how to pursue them[10]. Andrews, the Seattle Times blogger, observed that “in the sense that many minds contribute to greater understanding, blogs are helping journalism expand from a centralized, top-down, one-way publication processes to the many-hands, perpetual feedback loop of online communications”[11].

Journalistic blogging is taking on new forms, too, such as microblogging. Some mainstream news organizations are now using a social networking website called Twitter to text message 140-character-maximum reporting ‘updates’ from the field.

“One of the things were are supposed to do a journalists is take people where they can’t go,” John Dickerson, chief political correspondent for the online magazine Slate, told the New York Times[12]. “[Microblogging] is much more authentic, because it is really from inside the room.”

Microblogging often amounts to about two sentences of information, presented with typos and incomplete sentences. But it has been called “genuine” and at times “enlightening” because it takes advantage of the immediacy of the web and mobile information and communications technology (ICT), and taps into the curiosity and impatience of modern information consumers [13].

But blogging by professional journalists does not come without problems, and risks. Bloggers can’t help but thrive on their opinions and the medium is fast and furious. Less rigorous editing, if any at all, is the norm because of the web’s immediacy. Readers will not perceive a difference between a news organization’s online blog post and a story that is printed. Weblogs maintained and written by professional journalists at traditional news organizations will be judged as “journalism” if they uphold the same standards as the entire organization[14].

‘Behaving in a manner that safeguards the integrity of the news institution and avoids real or perceived conflicts of interest is central to the compact between a journalist and his employer,” wrote Brian Toolan, former editor of The Hartford Courant[15]. “Journalists should operate in ways that don’t display bias or predisposition. These are ethical considerations, not legal ones, but they are central to the conduct of journalism.”

References:

1. Rago, Joseph. The Blog Mob. Wall Street Journal, (December 20, 2006). Eastern Edition.

2. Andrews, Paul. Is Blogging Journalism? Nieman Reports. Vol. 57. No. 3 (Fall 2003): 63-64.

3. Vargas, Jose Antonio. Storming the News Gatekeepers; On the Internet, Citizen Journalists Raise Their Voices. The Washington Post. (November 27, 2007).

4, 5, 10. Grabowicz, Paul. Weblogs Bring Journalists Into A Larger Community. Nieman Reports. Vol. 57. No. 3: 74-76.

6. Blood, Rebecca. Weblogs and Journalism: Do They Connect? Nieman Reports. Vol. 57. No. 3 (Fall 2003): 61-63.

7. 8, 9, 11. Andrews, Paul. Is Blogging Journalism? Nieman Reports. Vol. 57. No. 3 (Fall 2003): 63-64.

12, 13. Cohen, Noam. Campaign Reporting in Under 140 Taps. New York Times. Jan. 21, 2008, Late Edition. C3.

14. Howell, Deborah. A Blog’s Blast Damage. The Washington Post, (February 11, 2007). Final Edition. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed February 2, 2008).

15. Toolan, Brian. An Editor Acts to Limit a Staffer’s Weblog. Nieman Reports. .Vol. 57. No. 3 (Fall 2003): 92-93

*Note: This essay was written by Marie K. Shanahan for a graduate level course at Quinnipiac University in Spring 2008. A collaboratively-edited version of this essay is included in a Wiki called “The New Communication Professional” at http://newcompro.halavais.net.

State of the News Media 2008

By the Project for Excellence in Journalism

“The state of the American news media in 2008 is more troubled than a year ago.

And the problems, increasingly, appear to be different than many experts have predicted.

Critics have tended to see technology democratizing the media and traditional journalism in decline. Audiences, they say, are fragmenting across new information sources, breaking the grip of media elites. Some people even advocate the notion of “The Long Tail,” the idea that, with the Web’s infinite potential for depth, millions of niche markets could be bigger than the old mass market dominated by large companies and producers.1

The reality, increasingly, appears more complex….”

– http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org

History of Propaganda in America

Fascinating. This is part one of six.

Watch the rest here.