Archive for the ‘social media’ Category

  • First Day of School

    1

    My summer will officially end at 2:50 p.m. when I go to my first class of my last year in college. With the start of a new year comes a plethora of opportunities—you can anyone you want to be (why yes, I will take that flier to try out for your a cappella group and Bhangra dance troupe!). Fortunately, though, I know I want to be a journalist, and I have spent the past three summers working to ease the transition from student-journalist to professional, paid, real-person, real-job journalist (by the way, my resume and clips pages are all up to date with this summer’s activities).

    While they don’t get paid and normally don’t get published by traditional media outlets during the year, student-journalists are still journalists. As Robert Niles of the Knight Digital Media Center points out in his advise for journalism students blog post, the career of a student-journalist has already begun.

    His other advice includes:

    • Everyone who posts online has the potential to be a journalist. Immediate access to a global publishing medium allows any source to become a breaking news reporter, even if it is only for a fleeting moment.
    • Your career is only as strong as your network. Networking has taken a digital turn thanks to the rise of social media. Now, you no longer have to have met someone in the flesh to make a professional connection.
    • Get passionate about a field and start to master it. Niles recommends turning it into a second major. My second major, for the record, is Spanish—I consider it a tool to hopefully allow me to reach more people and travel across the globe.
    • Conduct yourself as a journalist, at all times, and never stop reporting. This goes back to bullet point number one: anything posted online has to potential to be newsworthy to someone else. Journalists by definition are unbiased and open-minded—any hint of bias could come back to become your own personal Kate Moss cocaine scandal.

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Facebook and Media Partnership

    0

    I’ve previously blogged about Facebook’s potential to help journalists and small websites like mine. Last month, Justin Osofsky, Facebook’s head of media partnerships, detailed more of Facebook’s power to help the media.

    In a post titled, Working with Media Organizations to Build Social News, Osofsky unveils information on driving traffic, increasing engagement and an analytics system that website managers can use to track the number of times their posts get liked or shared—and by whom.

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • The Future of News

    2

    The sooner we accept this as a relic of the past, the better. Image from State Library of Queensland's Flickr page.

    …is not just full of  doom and gloom.

    Michele McLellan, a longtime editor at The Oregonian, posted a summary of her recently-competed study of just over 100 promising journalism web start-ups on The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard’s website. I would encourage anybody interested to read the full Nieman post (it starts out with an extended tree vs. sprouts metaphor, a tried-and-true indicator of good writing).

    McLellan and her research partner, Adam Maksl, established a criteria for admission onto the list (the production of original news in ways that attempt to be fair and transparent with demonstrated effort in finding a sustainable revenue model) and divided their findings into four categories:

    • New traditional -  sites dominated by original content produced by professional journalists. The newsroom staff may be smaller than in a traditional newspaper newsroom, but tends to have more journalists than two of the other categories, community and micro local.  Many are embracing digital connectivity with their users while keeping traditional journalism as their bread and butter.

    my selected highlight: The Texas Tribune. A self-described non-profit, nonpartisan public media organization. Its mission is to “cover every line in the state budget” and to promote civic engagement and discourse on matters of statewide concern through original reporting and on-the-record, open-to-the-public conversations with elected officials and other newsmakers.  With a staff of 27, the site advocates reading this as a supplement to your local newspaper, since it has probably cut back on political reporting. Funding comes strictly from donations, no advertising. The site itself is beautiful.

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Are New Media Tools Worthless?

    2

    How much is Twitter worth? Well, according to 1,981 people surveyed by the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, it is worth zero dollars. In a capitalist, money-driven society, some would consider this product worthless. Almost half of Internet users (49 percent to be exact) reported using free micro-blogs like Twitter, according to the report.

    Jeffrey I. Cole, the director of USC’s Center for the Digital Future, tells us media folk the painful truth we already know:

    Such an extreme finding that produced a zero response underscores the difficulty of getting Internet users to pay for anything that they already receive for free

    Other new media tools received less-than-favorable responses about their value as well. According to those surveyed, 50 percent of Internet users never instant message, 79 percent never work on a blog, 80 percent never participate in chat rooms and 85 percent never make or receive Internet phone calls (sorry Google Voice).

    So while content providers and aggregation services continue to roll out new Twitter products (Google now lets you search Twitter lists! The new UberTwitter App saves you the awkwardness of unfollowing that person who tweets too often by letting you “mute” his or her tweets!), the question is, who are these for? If reporters and editors are the only ones who get excited and use new media tools, does this mean they officially count as a distraction instead of an asset?

    The survey continues to bring forth good news by exploring the level of trust people have in information on the Internet. A record-low 61 percent of users said that only half or less of online information is reliable, and 53 percent said that most or all of the information provided by search engines is reliable and accurate, down from 64 percent in 2006.

    The price a consumer is willing to pay for a good or service is linked to its perceived value, according to Jerry Bernstein, the founder of St. Louis-based Price Improvement Team. So if Internet users do not trust a source, why would they pay for that information? (cue 60 Minutes ticking clock)

    Not all real estate has plunged in value—the historic buildings in Oxford are still considered priceless by many who see them.

  • How to Save Journalism

    0

    Times Square sold its soul to advertisers long ago. Would the media be doing the same thing if it put ads in emails sent by reporters?

    Last week, Andy Boyle, a journalist who is a friend of mine, put out a tweet that caught my attention:

    An e-mail from a guy at a newspaper just contained an advertisement at the bottom. So. Can e-mail ads save journalism?

    The Pew Research Center estimated back in September 2009 that about 58 percent of all American adults send or read an email on an average day.  This compares with just 17 percent of people who say a print national newspaper is part of their daily news diet (slide 16).  But we already knew print is dying, right?

    [side note - it would be inaccurate of me not to report that the same Pew survey says that 50 percent of people view a local print paper on a typical day. That makes me wonder what all exactly qualifies as a local print paper.]

    So, there is no question that placing advertisements in a journalist’s email would help advertisers reach a wider audience than if they advertised in a printed paper. If a reporter is not out in the field, than he or she is likely sending out emails to sources and subjects. On top of that, it would be fairly easy to identify the demographics of certain audiences—for example, a sports reporter will probably be emailing men in the coveted 18-49 age group. A local advertiser could team with the local beat reporter, and so on.

    We already know the technology is available—see the ads at the top of your Gmail messages based on the content of your emails as exhibit A. Journalism, though, has a much stricter set of ethical guidelines than most professions.

    So, would selling ad space in reporters’ emails be ethical?

    I can’t pretend to know. Ethical issues are rarely black and white, and history is rife with examples of how media outlets use advertisements in ways that violate unspoken (and sometimes spoken) ethical rules. Obviously, the reporter and editors should play no role in the arranging and selection of these ads—let the business people take care of that. Local TV news has been using product placement since at least 2008 during its broadcasts—is that really different from letting ads run at the bottom of emails containing a non-endorsement disclaimer?

    Out of this ethical debate, there is one certainty—print outlets need to find a new advertising model, and they needed to find it yesterday. It’s through outside-the-box ideas such as this that will give birth to the new business model.

  • Sports Journalism, Twitter and the World Cup

    0

    As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in sports journalism, I am used to the realization that, for most newspapers, the

    sports section is the most popular with readers. Sports stories drive the most hits, engage people that are only casually interested in “news,” and lend themselves well to creating promotional items that can generate extra revenue for their perspective papers.

    Europe loves its soccer (as evidenced by my picture from Real Madrid vs. Xerez in Estadio Santiago Bernabeau, September 20, 2009).

    And now I have another piece of evidence to bolster my claims—Twitter announced over the weekend that the Japan vs. Demark soccer game set a new record for Tweets per second (TPS). When the referee blew the final whistle, the Twitter crew counted 3,283 TPS (They also note that the Netherlands vs. Cameroon game ended six minutes earlier). The old record? Another sporting event, of course—3,085 TPS at the end of the Los Angeles Lakers victory over the Boston Celtics in game 7 of the NBA finals. The Twitter blog also said that, “The second week of the World Cup continued to see consistent spikes in TPS after goals that are remarkable increases over our average of 750 TPS.”

    Techcrunch.com goes into more detail:

    Last week the all time highs were in terms of Tweets-per-second took place after goals were scored in the following games: Japan scores against Cameroon on June 14 in their 1-0 victory (2,940 TPS), Brazil scores their first goal against North Korea in their 2-1 June 14 victory (2,928 TPS) and Mexico ties South Africa in their June 11 game (2,704 TPS).

    One of the most remarkable observations from this data is that none of these games involve the United States. As stateside journalists, it is easy to get caught up in our United States (note—not American) bubble. The audience for news, though, is worldwide.

    So, why is this helpful for Journalists?

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • Words, Words, Words.

    0

    I love words. Don’t get me wrong, editing video and taking the perfectly-framed picture are rewarding journalistic activities, but I’m a writer at heart (and a good English major – bonus points if you recognized the title of this post was a quote from Hamlet). With that said, words were in many headlines last week (pun intended):

    • The Awl reported that Phil Corbett, the  standards editor at the New York Times, banned the word “tweet” from the newspaper and in online articles. Corbett put the word in the category of colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon—all pitfalls journalists try to avoid. His rationale? People who use Twitter get the verb—but Corbett does not consider Twitter mainstream yet. Corbett responded on the Times Topics blog by saying he did not ban the word outright—his memo was just a reminder that the word should not appear in hard news stories.
    • A few days before the Times was chirping about Twitter (another pun intended), The Gray Lady issued 50 Fancy Words, the list the top 50 words that most often stumped its readership. Many (okay, most) stumped me as well.
    • And finally, McSweeney’s ode to the font Comic Sans. Be warned – the language is “colorful” to put it one way. On a more serious note, font choice is a serious matter—design gurus meticulously look for just the right one. And even those famous for their style, such as The New Yorker, keep tinkering until they get it just right.

    Happy word painting. Exit pursued by a bear

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words: well, that's about one for each bike in this shot of Amsterdam

  • The Facebook Frenemy

    2

    I’ve spent the past few hours tinkering with my blog. Last week, when this site was still just a storyboard in my head, my buddy and fellow Poynter College Fellow Emily Ingram gave me this metaphor, which I love:

    Your site becomes your sandbox. You go play there when you want to avoid work

    Searching and test driving different plugins is an easy way to breeze through two hours. So is trying to figure out how to add my tagline underneath my name in my header :( .

    Regardless of how badly I want “Paint by Words” to show up under “Laura Keeley” right NOW, I do feel a sense of accomplishment for adding two Facebook plugins with relative ease.

    The easiest to spot is the Like button right at the end of this post. As the link shows, the code is available directly from Facebook. I went the plugin route and used the one aptly titled Facebook Like. It’s hard to believe that the Facebook Like button has only proliferated the entire Internet since this April. There are still bugs with the button—”likejacking” worms are abundant on my newsfeed—but for myself and other bloggers, this tool is golden.

    Now if a Facebook user stumbles upon my blog and likes it enough to click the button, his or her entire Facebook network will know. This has the potential to be viewed by hundreds or thousands of people, depending on the number of friends said liker has. Then one of these friends might click on the link and spread it to their friends and so on.

    Boom! Instant viral success.

    » Read the rest of the entry..

  • New wrapping for Twitter links

    0

    (Blog update: resume is live. Look for clips tomorrow)

    Twitter is the easiest way for journalists to establish a presence on the web. So when its developers announced changes to the way links are counted against the 140 character limit of individual tweets, people noticed.

    Twitter’s Sean Garrett announced the policy change today in a Twitter blog post, aptly titled Links and Twitter: Lengths Shouldn’t Matter. The official reason for the change is to foil the spread of malware, phishing and other web dangers. All links will be wrapped into a t.co URL starting sometime this summer.

    Will this announcement change the way people tweet?

    My guess: No, not really. Its biggest impact will probably be in the way tweets are displayed on screen.

    Twitter has not decided exactly what the display change will be. Garrett gives this example in his post:

    » Read the rest of the entry..