Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, will be speaking on the UMD College Park campus Oct. 21 about the future of journalism.
He'll be talking from 2-3:15 p.m. in Room 0200 Skinner, as part of a slate of speakers brought here by the Maryland Media Alumni Association.
You're all strongly encouraged to attend.
Sign-up sheet is outside Penny Fuchs' office on the 3rd floor of journalism.
You'll get extra class credit for attending and posting an item about the chat to this blog.
Details to come in class.
10.03.2007
Questionable Photo...
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,2419,00.html#3_0
This photo, part of Fox New's package of coverage of the Princess Diana inquest, shows the people in the car moments before the crash that killed her. The potentially disturbing aspect of this photo, to me, is the expression on the driver's face. Maybe he's just in the middle of talking about how much he hates the paparazzi or maybe he's yawning, but his wide-eyed, open-mouthed expression suggests to me that maybe he's realizing, at that moment, that he's losing control of the car and is about to crash. I can't remember if he survived the crash or not, but if those were his last moments and I were a member of his family, I probably wouldn't want his facial expression at the moment he realized he was about to die out there for anyone with an Internet connection to see.
I can't fault Fox News for putting the pictures on their Web site, though. After all, they are now part of a public record thanks to the inquest, and I suppose some people are still interested in this ten years later. I do, however, think their coverage is a bit sensationalist. I think putting the photo I just described alone on the front page and running a breaking news banner about the accompanying video of Princess Di in a hotel elevator (how exciting) on her last night is a bit much for something that happened ten years ago, especially when it pushes North Korea's agreeement to disable its main nuclear facility out of the lead news spot.
This photo, part of Fox New's package of coverage of the Princess Diana inquest, shows the people in the car moments before the crash that killed her. The potentially disturbing aspect of this photo, to me, is the expression on the driver's face. Maybe he's just in the middle of talking about how much he hates the paparazzi or maybe he's yawning, but his wide-eyed, open-mouthed expression suggests to me that maybe he's realizing, at that moment, that he's losing control of the car and is about to crash. I can't remember if he survived the crash or not, but if those were his last moments and I were a member of his family, I probably wouldn't want his facial expression at the moment he realized he was about to die out there for anyone with an Internet connection to see.
I can't fault Fox News for putting the pictures on their Web site, though. After all, they are now part of a public record thanks to the inquest, and I suppose some people are still interested in this ten years later. I do, however, think their coverage is a bit sensationalist. I think putting the photo I just described alone on the front page and running a breaking news banner about the accompanying video of Princess Di in a hotel elevator (how exciting) on her last night is a bit much for something that happened ten years ago, especially when it pushes North Korea's agreeement to disable its main nuclear facility out of the lead news spot.
Questionable Content
I think the footage of the tasering of the UF student at the Kerry forum could be considered questionable content. While I don't think the footage was gruesome (you don't see him actually being tasered, you just hear it), I think this footage brings up the controversy over citizen journalism. The networks accepted footage that was not professionally obtained, which a lot of journalists consider to be extremely controversial and are skeptical to do so.
In my opinion, I think that this footage should have been run because it was the only way for them to get the content. I do think, however, that the footage was edited to favor the student because it did not show what happened before his last question.
There is a video of MSNBC's coverage on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI.
In my opinion, I think that this footage should have been run because it was the only way for them to get the content. I do think, however, that the footage was edited to favor the student because it did not show what happened before his last question.
There is a video of MSNBC's coverage on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=tCBcOQkUNjI.
Picture of Child Sexual Assault Victim
This picture shows the image of a child who was the victim of a sexual assault. This has been a major story in recent news. The showing of this image is more deviant than it is questionable. Given the information the police were provided, showing the image of the child was necessary. Usually, however the identity of sexual assault victims (especially children) are kept private. But again given the circumstances of this instance such as the unknown location of the girl and the perpatraitor, the child's safety was at risk. I think the showing of this image was very necessary in order to help close the investigation.
One concern that I have about the photo is that it is still up on some online news sites. I think now that the girl has been found "safe" her image should be removed, however sites such as the one included in this URL continue to make this image available to the public even after the girl was found.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=103639
One concern that I have about the photo is that it is still up on some online news sites. I think now that the girl has been found "safe" her image should be removed, however sites such as the one included in this URL continue to make this image available to the public even after the girl was found.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=103639
10.02.2007
questionable photo
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/
This is an incredibly dramatic photo; and quite graphic. However, I think it tells an important story and is important to include in the article. The United States was sending a very specific message about their work in Iraq, and the picture captures this message effectively. It was on the first page of the story, and there was no prior warning to readers.
I don’t know if it is graphic “enough” to warrant an advisory to the public; perhaps it could be on the second page of the article after one click. Violent pictures are not always bad; this one illustrates a few important points. It shows the news that al-Zarqawi is dead and also conveys how the U.S. is publicizing this information. Although seeing a dead body is certainly shocking, some of the shock value has been reduced because it is a photo of a photo. It could be a "questionable" photo, but I think it's acceptable.
This is an incredibly dramatic photo; and quite graphic. However, I think it tells an important story and is important to include in the article. The United States was sending a very specific message about their work in Iraq, and the picture captures this message effectively. It was on the first page of the story, and there was no prior warning to readers.
I don’t know if it is graphic “enough” to warrant an advisory to the public; perhaps it could be on the second page of the article after one click. Violent pictures are not always bad; this one illustrates a few important points. It shows the news that al-Zarqawi is dead and also conveys how the U.S. is publicizing this information. Although seeing a dead body is certainly shocking, some of the shock value has been reduced because it is a photo of a photo. It could be a "questionable" photo, but I think it's acceptable.
9.30.2007
2004 Tsunami Photographs
Hundreds, if not thousands, of photographs showing the devastation of the 2004 tsunami in South Asia inundated the media following the disaster. On Dec. 28, 2004, both the New York Times and the Washington Post emphasized the loss of children with their front page photographs.
The New York Times took up almost the entire front page above the fold with this photograph, to which many people took offense. The Washington Post led with this photograph, also placed above the fold on the front page. I think the Washington Post made the better decision in this case because its picture conveyed more emotion while still maintaining poignancy and taste. Instead of relying on the shock value that comes with the dead bodies of children in the Times' photo, the Posts's photo appropriately conveys the deep sense of loss and devastation without possibly offending individuals the minute they see the front page.
When I found these pictures online, they didn't come with any warnings, especially not the New York Times' photograph. The Washington Post has a slide show under the Photos from the Disaster tab of images from the disaster. The slide show does come with a warning to viewers of violent or graphic content. When scrolling through the photos, I didn't find anything offensive; although dead bodies were shown, they were covered or wrapped in tarp. I personally don't think the warning is necessary, but it is always better to be cautious than to misjudge a readers' reaction. As an editor I would always want to err on the side of caution, so I would keep the warning label on this slide show.
I think it is important to convey to readers the true gravity of any situation, which is why I would keep the pictures in this slide show online, even though they contain dead bodies. However, I believe in maintaining taste and decency, which is why I would not publish the the New York Times' photo in print or online.
-Priya
The New York Times took up almost the entire front page above the fold with this photograph, to which many people took offense. The Washington Post led with this photograph, also placed above the fold on the front page. I think the Washington Post made the better decision in this case because its picture conveyed more emotion while still maintaining poignancy and taste. Instead of relying on the shock value that comes with the dead bodies of children in the Times' photo, the Posts's photo appropriately conveys the deep sense of loss and devastation without possibly offending individuals the minute they see the front page.
When I found these pictures online, they didn't come with any warnings, especially not the New York Times' photograph. The Washington Post has a slide show under the Photos from the Disaster tab of images from the disaster. The slide show does come with a warning to viewers of violent or graphic content. When scrolling through the photos, I didn't find anything offensive; although dead bodies were shown, they were covered or wrapped in tarp. I personally don't think the warning is necessary, but it is always better to be cautious than to misjudge a readers' reaction. As an editor I would always want to err on the side of caution, so I would keep the warning label on this slide show.
I think it is important to convey to readers the true gravity of any situation, which is why I would keep the pictures in this slide show online, even though they contain dead bodies. However, I believe in maintaining taste and decency, which is why I would not publish the the New York Times' photo in print or online.
-Priya
9.28.2007
Questionable Photo
http://bop.nppa.org/2007/still_photography/winners/OPY/104928/187447.html
Carolyn Cole of the LA Times won BOP Photojournalist of the year for this photo. However, I do not think the picture was appropriate for news. When I look at this picture my stomach literally hurts. Portraying the dead bodies of two children online or in a newspaper seems unnecessary and too graphic. One must remember that online news is easily accessible and all kinds of people could come across that photo. As a news consumer I did not enjoy coming across this photo. I believe the conflict between Israel and Lebanon and its consequences could have been displayed more tactfully. For instance, the tenth photo in the Picture Gallery at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2550369.ece is a good example of how to display violence in less gruesome way. This photo allows the consumer to understand the gravity of the conflict without seeing any dead bodies. I feel as if Cole's photo was put up to shock people and I don't think people need those types of images to understand what's happening.
Carolyn Cole of the LA Times won BOP Photojournalist of the year for this photo. However, I do not think the picture was appropriate for news. When I look at this picture my stomach literally hurts. Portraying the dead bodies of two children online or in a newspaper seems unnecessary and too graphic. One must remember that online news is easily accessible and all kinds of people could come across that photo. As a news consumer I did not enjoy coming across this photo. I believe the conflict between Israel and Lebanon and its consequences could have been displayed more tactfully. For instance, the tenth photo in the Picture Gallery at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2550369.ece is a good example of how to display violence in less gruesome way. This photo allows the consumer to understand the gravity of the conflict without seeing any dead bodies. I feel as if Cole's photo was put up to shock people and I don't think people need those types of images to understand what's happening.
9.26.2007
CBS and Anorexia
Today I read an article on CBSnews.com called "Anorexia Stripped Bare."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/26/earlyshow/health/main3300268.shtml?source=search_story
The article was accompanied by a photo of an emaciated woman and professed anorexic. The photo first emerged on billboards in Italy, and as disturbing as the picture is, the photographer had an understandable reason to broadcast it: to show anorexia without the guise of beauty and fashion and shine light on the fashion industry's obsession with extreme thinness. The billboard is part of a campaign against anorexic models and supports London, Milan and Madrid's ban on too-thin models. The photo is controversial not only because of the issue at hand but because the woman is nude, and the extent of her anorexia- which she's dealt with for 14 years- is very apparent. Her bones are poking from her body, and she looks much older than her 27 years. I was not offended by this article or photo at all because the billboard is meant to be a deterrant against anorexia and employing anorexic models. There is a video link to CBS News' The Early Show, where this topic was also reported, and in the course of the video, the anorexia billboard is shown more clearly. There's nothing about this page that I would have handled differently. The photo is informative and newsworthy because this is a topic that continues to pop up in the media and remains relevant.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/26/earlyshow/health/main3300268.shtml?source=search_story
The article was accompanied by a photo of an emaciated woman and professed anorexic. The photo first emerged on billboards in Italy, and as disturbing as the picture is, the photographer had an understandable reason to broadcast it: to show anorexia without the guise of beauty and fashion and shine light on the fashion industry's obsession with extreme thinness. The billboard is part of a campaign against anorexic models and supports London, Milan and Madrid's ban on too-thin models. The photo is controversial not only because of the issue at hand but because the woman is nude, and the extent of her anorexia- which she's dealt with for 14 years- is very apparent. Her bones are poking from her body, and she looks much older than her 27 years. I was not offended by this article or photo at all because the billboard is meant to be a deterrant against anorexia and employing anorexic models. There is a video link to CBS News' The Early Show, where this topic was also reported, and in the course of the video, the anorexia billboard is shown more clearly. There's nothing about this page that I would have handled differently. The photo is informative and newsworthy because this is a topic that continues to pop up in the media and remains relevant.
Controversial Video on CNN
The front page of CNN on Wednesday Sept. 26, had its lead story about a woman who is going to court saying she was unfairly tasered during a confrontation with a policeman. Immediately under the link to the story and a photo of the officer standing over the woman is a link to a video. In the video there is a clip (about 20 seconds in) of the officer repeatedly tasered the woman and even shoving her with his foot at one point and of the woman being so shocked that she falls into the car she is writhing next to.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/26/chetry.tasered.woman.interview.cnn
I would not have this video on my website. Personally I do not see the need to show a picture of the officer and woman on the front page of the website and then also give a link showing the merciless treatment she receives from the officer. I'm sure if the website is looking for hits, a lot a people would look into this video but it's awful that they show this woman getting tortured by an offic er of the law. I would have shown a photo or two but not a long segment of video.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/26/chetry.tasered.woman.interview.cnn
I would not have this video on my website. Personally I do not see the need to show a picture of the officer and woman on the front page of the website and then also give a link showing the merciless treatment she receives from the officer. I'm sure if the website is looking for hits, a lot a people would look into this video but it's awful that they show this woman getting tortured by an offic er of the law. I would have shown a photo or two but not a long segment of video.
YouTube
The link I found was on foxnews.com. It was the feature story of the day, and it is a link to a YouTube video of a landmine exploding in Iraq with American soldiers driving on a highway.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298122,00.html
Fox directly linked to the YouTube video with the only disclaimer saying "WARNING: Graphic language."
This brings up an interesting debate of how to handle YouTube videos, which are hardly censored and often times have explicit language.
In this case, I would have linked it as well, with the same disclaimer - I think FOX made the right move because it is an unbelievable, eye-popping video that really does show what American soldiers have to deal with every day during the war.
It is a YouTube video that is informative, even in spite of its graphic nature.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298122,00.html
Fox directly linked to the YouTube video with the only disclaimer saying "WARNING: Graphic language."
This brings up an interesting debate of how to handle YouTube videos, which are hardly censored and often times have explicit language.
In this case, I would have linked it as well, with the same disclaimer - I think FOX made the right move because it is an unbelievable, eye-popping video that really does show what American soldiers have to deal with every day during the war.
It is a YouTube video that is informative, even in spite of its graphic nature.
Questionable Link
The link that I found was on CNN.com. It is http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/04/18/sot.nbc.cho.speaks.nbc. This is the video of the Virginia Tech Murderer's speech that was shown by most all TV stations and put on the sites of almost all news sites ran as well.
I don't think that I would run this. The news value is that he made a speech and what he said in it. His reason for putting it on video was to get some recognition and to try to get people to sympathize with him. To me, it isn't a good idea to give a person like him the time of day. To run this video is to fall into his trap. It is granting a murderer his last wish while the people he killed didn't have time to make one.
If a news organization really sees it necessary to give his reasons for murdering, which I wouldn't argue, it is sufficient to put it in text. This doesn't give him the fame or possible sympathy that comes with seeing his face, but it still gets the news across.
I don't think that I would run this. The news value is that he made a speech and what he said in it. His reason for putting it on video was to get some recognition and to try to get people to sympathize with him. To me, it isn't a good idea to give a person like him the time of day. To run this video is to fall into his trap. It is granting a murderer his last wish while the people he killed didn't have time to make one.
If a news organization really sees it necessary to give his reasons for murdering, which I wouldn't argue, it is sufficient to put it in text. This doesn't give him the fame or possible sympathy that comes with seeing his face, but it still gets the news across.
Questionable Content
As a Web editor or Web producer, you will be making some tough decisions on story and photo play and Web-linking policies.
See if you can find at least one example on a news site of questionable links, photos or stories, due to violent content (in coverage of murders, fires, crashes or war), sexual references or hate-based material. Please give the URL for the questionable page(s), and explain diplomatically why you have concerns. Tell me how you would have handled the content differently.
See if you can find at least one example on a news site of questionable links, photos or stories, due to violent content (in coverage of murders, fires, crashes or war), sexual references or hate-based material. Please give the URL for the questionable page(s), and explain diplomatically why you have concerns. Tell me how you would have handled the content differently.
9.05.2007
Really Simple Syndication, or RSS
Journalist Mark Briggs writes in his "Journalism 2.0" book that Really Simple Syndication, or RSS, allows Internet users to use a search tool to find lots of the latest information on a given topic. RSS allows users to bypass a site's home page to find what they're looking for (just as they do when they use search engines or directories).
You can find your information by using stand-alone RSS readers, which launch software to access the info. Blogspace.com links to some readers here: http://blogspace.com/rss/readers.
You'll find an RSS tutorial here:
http://bontragerconnection.com/library/RSS_Basics_An_Overview.shtml
Briggs says some popular stand-alone readers are NetNewsWire, NewsGator, Pluck, FeedDemon and SharpReader.
You can also use readers already built into a Web browser or Web site, such as those on Google and yahoo! If you use yahoo! or Google, the browser will build a page that features the info you're searching for; it personalizes the page for you.
10-MINUTE ASSIGNMENT:
Go to google.com, and click on the downward arrow in the top navigation bar to get to "Reader," as in Google Reader. Sign in, using your google sign-in info.
To the right of the Subscription link on the left of the page, click on "Browse," to add or subtract news sites that you'd like the reader to search for you from pre-formed bundles.
Or go to a site that regularly publishes news you read, click on its RSS link to find specialty topics you'd like added to your reader, and then cut and paste the RSS URL into the reader. (For instance, the RSS URL for Dan Froomkin's column on washingtonpost.com is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/rss/linkset/2005/04/24/LI2005042401085.xml. If I cut and paste that into the "Add Subscription" area of my google reader, I'll begin getting Froomkin's column as a "feed."
Click on the "Home" link on the Google Reader page, to display the info you asked the reader to search for.
Please be prepared to show me your Google Reader home page at the start of next week's class! This will count toward your class participation/blogging grade.
You can find your information by using stand-alone RSS readers, which launch software to access the info. Blogspace.com links to some readers here: http://blogspace.com/rss/readers.
You'll find an RSS tutorial here:
http://bontragerconnection.com/library/RSS_Basics_An_Overview.shtml
Briggs says some popular stand-alone readers are NetNewsWire, NewsGator, Pluck, FeedDemon and SharpReader.
You can also use readers already built into a Web browser or Web site, such as those on Google and yahoo! If you use yahoo! or Google, the browser will build a page that features the info you're searching for; it personalizes the page for you.
10-MINUTE ASSIGNMENT:
Go to google.com, and click on the downward arrow in the top navigation bar to get to "Reader," as in Google Reader. Sign in, using your google sign-in info.
To the right of the Subscription link on the left of the page, click on "Browse," to add or subtract news sites that you'd like the reader to search for you from pre-formed bundles.
Or go to a site that regularly publishes news you read, click on its RSS link to find specialty topics you'd like added to your reader, and then cut and paste the RSS URL into the reader. (For instance, the RSS URL for Dan Froomkin's column on washingtonpost.com is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/rss/linkset/2005/04/24/LI2005042401085.xml. If I cut and paste that into the "Add Subscription" area of my google reader, I'll begin getting Froomkin's column as a "feed."
Click on the "Home" link on the Google Reader page, to display the info you asked the reader to search for.
Please be prepared to show me your Google Reader home page at the start of next week's class! This will count toward your class participation/blogging grade.
Welcome to the Blog!
Class, we'll be using this blog throughout the semester to chat about headlines, photos, blogs and other new-media topics.
Please feel free to start a discussion on subjects pertinent to class, as well as respond to questions I post.
Please feel free to start a discussion on subjects pertinent to class, as well as respond to questions I post.
7.12.2007
Washington Post Visit
I was shocked at the style and design of the Washingtonpost.com newsroom. Everything looked so neat and in its proper place; it looked nothing like a television newsroom. The employees all seemed young and the place was so quiet. It felt like a luxury library. I was also surprised by the number of people being trained to do some sort of multimedia in addition to print stories. Everyone says journalists need to be multifaceted, and the Post.com seems to be on the right path. I just wonder how much on-camera these print reporters will eventually do. John Kelley is a funny guy but he has an annoying voice and doesn't look that great on television. Does he deserve all of that air time in addition to writing for the paper? It will be interesting to see how far the Post.com takes its video component.
Washington Post visit
Today's visit was a huge eye opener for me in the sense that I need to learn more skills and hone all my abilities to compete in this field. It is a broadcast vs. print battle and I am not sure there is a winner in the end. This visit made me more intersted in learning about broadcast practices and skills because it appears that that is the future but at the same time, he insisted that the key to any job, journalism or not, is strong writing skills.
I thought it was funny when he was talking about social networking and its advancements in changing the face of jounalism. I was thinking about our ethics discussion and whether it is appropriate, as a journalist, to go into chatrooms to find and meet people for possible stories. It got me thinking about finding people by social networking because even if you are not friends with someone on facebook or myspace, you are bound to know someone who knows them or a way to find them. These "friends" we have are our connection to everyone else on the internet and it is scary to think about how easy it is to find someone, it is just as easy for a reporter to find you or to create a story idea based on your conversations with friends, pictures and details. Reporters are always looking for hot new ideas!
I thought it was funny when he was talking about social networking and its advancements in changing the face of jounalism. I was thinking about our ethics discussion and whether it is appropriate, as a journalist, to go into chatrooms to find and meet people for possible stories. It got me thinking about finding people by social networking because even if you are not friends with someone on facebook or myspace, you are bound to know someone who knows them or a way to find them. These "friends" we have are our connection to everyone else on the internet and it is scary to think about how easy it is to find someone, it is just as easy for a reporter to find you or to create a story idea based on your conversations with friends, pictures and details. Reporters are always looking for hot new ideas!
7.11.2007
washingtonpost.com visit
I regularly visit washingtonpost.com. In fact, I read it more than the paper, which often heads straight to the recycle bin. Yet, even as a broadcast student, I had never clicked on the video links before. I was fascinated by the video links he showed us, especially the Tier 2 and Tier 3 types of video. I had never really considered working for the online side of a newspaper outlet before because I figured all their video would be just interviews and adding some B-roll with a cheap video camera. I was impressed by the editing suite and the documentaries on the site, and today's visit has opened up a new avenue for my job search.
Another thing I had never thought about before is that sports reporters don't work in the mornings. I guess I figured that with tennis, golf, the Tour du France, etc. that sports would be a daytime job as well. I knew today would be slow for the sports department, as there are no major professional sports games to cover (the third of three straight days a year that this exists because of the All-Star Game).
I would be interested to see how the Post continues to develop its site to get viewers to visit more pages on the site. I think the toolbar at the top has a lot of potential to be better developed and more efficient for viewers. I think the City Guide could be more prominently displayed, as well. I know in the past, the archives of the Going Out Gurus blog has been difficult to navigate, and I hope that can be improved.
Another thing I had never thought about before is that sports reporters don't work in the mornings. I guess I figured that with tennis, golf, the Tour du France, etc. that sports would be a daytime job as well. I knew today would be slow for the sports department, as there are no major professional sports games to cover (the third of three straight days a year that this exists because of the All-Star Game).
I would be interested to see how the Post continues to develop its site to get viewers to visit more pages on the site. I think the toolbar at the top has a lot of potential to be better developed and more efficient for viewers. I think the City Guide could be more prominently displayed, as well. I know in the past, the archives of the Going Out Gurus blog has been difficult to navigate, and I hope that can be improved.
washingtonpost.com trip
What I took away from today's trip to the washingtonpost.com office was a greater realization that today's reporters need to be competent in several media. When I chose to major in journalism three years ago, it never occurred to me that I'd be doing anything beyond writing and editing.
But in my classes here I have heard several times that a print reporter has to be more than just a print reporter. Today's trip reinforced that.
One specific point Chet Rhodes mentioned was that print reporters need to feel comfortable talking about their stories intelligently in front of a camera. I had thought about this recently, but in a slightly different light. I regularly listen to Washington Post Radio, and I often hear reporters being interviewed about the stories they write. So I figured that reporters working for the paper were also expected to be able to give a good radio interview.
But there's more to it than that. A "real" reporter needs to be able to write, edit, photograph, talk about his story on the radio, take audio and video clips, and talk about the story in front of a camera. And don't forget those Web skills.
But in my classes here I have heard several times that a print reporter has to be more than just a print reporter. Today's trip reinforced that.
One specific point Chet Rhodes mentioned was that print reporters need to feel comfortable talking about their stories intelligently in front of a camera. I had thought about this recently, but in a slightly different light. I regularly listen to Washington Post Radio, and I often hear reporters being interviewed about the stories they write. So I figured that reporters working for the paper were also expected to be able to give a good radio interview.
But there's more to it than that. A "real" reporter needs to be able to write, edit, photograph, talk about his story on the radio, take audio and video clips, and talk about the story in front of a camera. And don't forget those Web skills.
washingtonpost.com trip
Brian Katkin
6/11/07
Harvey
Washingtonpost.com is the first online journalism newsroom that I have ever visited. I thought it looked fairly similar to other newsrooms. Before I arrived, I was expecting it to be a little different in that I was expecting it to be significantly smaller with fewer employees.
When Chet was talking to us in the conference room, one thing in particular stuck with me. I thought it was particularly interesting when he said that the way to succeed in the journalism industry is not to continue staying one-dimensional with the journalism tract you’re on now, but to learn something else. For instance, if you’re doing print journalism, start trying to learn aspects of broadcast journalism and vice versa.
With regards to the Web site, I thought it was interesting that Chet pointed out where on the page users are more likely to click. I would imagine it’s a little bothersome to video journalists, like Travis Fox, when well-done video packages (i.e. the Darfur video package) are in places on the page where users are unlikely to click. I also thought it was interesting that washingtonpost.com has so many different types of video players; I would have thought that it would be easier to simply decide upon one and make that the uniform video player throughout the Web site.
6/11/07
Harvey
Washingtonpost.com is the first online journalism newsroom that I have ever visited. I thought it looked fairly similar to other newsrooms. Before I arrived, I was expecting it to be a little different in that I was expecting it to be significantly smaller with fewer employees.
When Chet was talking to us in the conference room, one thing in particular stuck with me. I thought it was particularly interesting when he said that the way to succeed in the journalism industry is not to continue staying one-dimensional with the journalism tract you’re on now, but to learn something else. For instance, if you’re doing print journalism, start trying to learn aspects of broadcast journalism and vice versa.
With regards to the Web site, I thought it was interesting that Chet pointed out where on the page users are more likely to click. I would imagine it’s a little bothersome to video journalists, like Travis Fox, when well-done video packages (i.e. the Darfur video package) are in places on the page where users are unlikely to click. I also thought it was interesting that washingtonpost.com has so many different types of video players; I would have thought that it would be easier to simply decide upon one and make that the uniform video player throughout the Web site.
Post Visit
I could not believe how many people worked at washingtonpost.com. It truly was amazing they had upwards of 200 people employed there. This added to the fact that they had very little original content seemed very odd.
Also to be a bit trivial, the starting salaries were also extremely high. Danny and I were talking about this and think it is most likely due to the fact that it is a tech job, which are still increasing in demand and salary.
Visiting the offices and seeing that they really do a lot more than just writing made online a very attractive option if broadcasting is not the correct path for me.
Also to be a bit trivial, the starting salaries were also extremely high. Danny and I were talking about this and think it is most likely due to the fact that it is a tech job, which are still increasing in demand and salary.
Visiting the offices and seeing that they really do a lot more than just writing made online a very attractive option if broadcasting is not the correct path for me.
Washingtonpost.com Field Trip Reflections
I enjoyed today's tour of washingtonpost.com's newsroom; it was surely not what I expected or imagined it would be. I thought it would be an archaic and monotonous office-setting with traditional cubicles with the chaos and commotion that's stereotypically associated with newsrooms, such as phones ringing off the hook, reporters shouting to one another across the newsroom, editors running around frantically to publish the next story, etc. Instead, the office was quite tranquil, modernized and well-designed to meet the needs for the 21st century.
I was quite surprised to see the broadcast (radio and television) elements and aspects of Washingtonpost.com. I was even more surprised and even a little anxious when Chet informed us of how not only the print, but also the broadcast industry is declining, more rapidly than what I initially thought, and that everything is truly converging unto the Web.
I would have to firmly agree with Chet and say that Washingtonpost.com has too much going on in their main page, which can be very inundating and distracting to visitors who may be easily turned off by just the overwhelming amount of information. For me personally, it's way too cluttered for me to denote what's important, especially on the bottom portion of the home page. One specific ad that annoys me each time I go to Washingtonpost.com is the main page advertisement that automatically enlarges to the size of your computer screen and doesn't go away fast enough. I believe that the broadcast features and elements (photos, videos and audio) are working quite well on the site with the traditional text; it just needs more publicity and awareness in order to attract visitors to the site.
Though, all in all, I had an enjoyable experience at the Washingtonpost.com office.
I was quite surprised to see the broadcast (radio and television) elements and aspects of Washingtonpost.com. I was even more surprised and even a little anxious when Chet informed us of how not only the print, but also the broadcast industry is declining, more rapidly than what I initially thought, and that everything is truly converging unto the Web.
I would have to firmly agree with Chet and say that Washingtonpost.com has too much going on in their main page, which can be very inundating and distracting to visitors who may be easily turned off by just the overwhelming amount of information. For me personally, it's way too cluttered for me to denote what's important, especially on the bottom portion of the home page. One specific ad that annoys me each time I go to Washingtonpost.com is the main page advertisement that automatically enlarges to the size of your computer screen and doesn't go away fast enough. I believe that the broadcast features and elements (photos, videos and audio) are working quite well on the site with the traditional text; it just needs more publicity and awareness in order to attract visitors to the site.
Though, all in all, I had an enjoyable experience at the Washingtonpost.com office.
Washingtonpost.com
While I regularly go to check my news at www.washingtonpost.com, I am sometimes distracted by the large advertisements on the page. For example, today's home page has a huge rectangular ad for Covidien, which takes up at least one third of the page. I know that advertisements are crucial for an online site to keep functioning, but I think they should be placed elsewhere on the page. You don't see large ads taking up large portions of the front page of the hard copy, so why have it on the online copy? I also dislike how the site puts the "Most Viewed" articles section at the top. I don't think that this is very important information and would fit better at the bottom of the page.
One of my favorite part's of Washingtonpost.com is the city guide. I think this attracts more than just the average person interested in reading the daily news. I also love how easy this site is to navigate. It is very easy to find what you are looking for-whether it be sports, cooking, fashion, archives, etc.
One of my favorite part's of Washingtonpost.com is the city guide. I think this attracts more than just the average person interested in reading the daily news. I also love how easy this site is to navigate. It is very easy to find what you are looking for-whether it be sports, cooking, fashion, archives, etc.
washingtonpost.com field trip
I learned a lot from today's field trip to washingtonpost.com. I use the site almost daily, but I was surprised when Chet showed us the new video application at the bottom of the home page. I don't recall seeing it and I know for sure that I haven't used it yet. I thought it was interesting that it does matter where these sorts of things are placed; some site users may never get to it if they don't scroll down!
I thought it was interesting when Chet talked about how the site uses three different ways to present video clips and how that was not a good thing because it confuses users. I know for me, I'm really impatient so when I try to watch clips and they take forever to load or I can't work the program, then I don't even bother to try. I think it's important that washingtonpost.com works together to find the best and most efficient way to stream their video clips.
I was also surprised at the laid-back and quiet environment of the whole office. When I think of newsrooms, I think of phones ringing non-stop, reporters running around, sounds of television news and messy papers everywhere. I guess since Chet said the main tasks they do at this specific office are produce blogs and media clips, the environment is less chaotic then the main office for The Washington Post would be.
I thought it was interesting when Chet talked about how the site uses three different ways to present video clips and how that was not a good thing because it confuses users. I know for me, I'm really impatient so when I try to watch clips and they take forever to load or I can't work the program, then I don't even bother to try. I think it's important that washingtonpost.com works together to find the best and most efficient way to stream their video clips.
I was also surprised at the laid-back and quiet environment of the whole office. When I think of newsrooms, I think of phones ringing non-stop, reporters running around, sounds of television news and messy papers everywhere. I guess since Chet said the main tasks they do at this specific office are produce blogs and media clips, the environment is less chaotic then the main office for The Washington Post would be.
7.05.2007
Comment on "Citizens' media gets richer"
Something in one of this week's readings, "Citizens' media gets richer" by OJR's J.D. Lasica, struck me as particularly interesting.
Lasica quotes Michael Tippett, founder of NowPublic.com: "The big news organizations always say, we have journalism school grads and Pulitzer Prize winners and people trained in the craft. Fair enough, but you have two people on the story, and we already may have 20 or 50. What happens when we have 2,000 people covering that story? There will come a point where they can't compete," he says.
(To read Lasica's complete story: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/090805lasica/index.cfm.)
Is it true that two professional, experienced reporters can't compete with 2,000 citizen journalists? If so, why is there a need for staff reporters at all? News organizations could rely entirely on the public for content.
I would argue that even 2,000 citizen journalists are not necessarily better than two veteran reporters. While I believe in the importance of citizen journalism as part of the news--I agree with Lasica that it adds "emotional depth and first-hand experience"--it cannot be the only source of news.
Yes, there are many "regular people" who write and photograph beautifully, and I hope the public continues to benefit from their talent. But I think it would be going too far to say that a small number of Pulitzer Prize winners cannot compete with dozens, even hundreds, of "regulars."
I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this.
Lasica quotes Michael Tippett, founder of NowPublic.com: "The big news organizations always say, we have journalism school grads and Pulitzer Prize winners and people trained in the craft. Fair enough, but you have two people on the story, and we already may have 20 or 50. What happens when we have 2,000 people covering that story? There will come a point where they can't compete," he says.
(To read Lasica's complete story: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/090805lasica/index.cfm.)
Is it true that two professional, experienced reporters can't compete with 2,000 citizen journalists? If so, why is there a need for staff reporters at all? News organizations could rely entirely on the public for content.
I would argue that even 2,000 citizen journalists are not necessarily better than two veteran reporters. While I believe in the importance of citizen journalism as part of the news--I agree with Lasica that it adds "emotional depth and first-hand experience"--it cannot be the only source of news.
Yes, there are many "regular people" who write and photograph beautifully, and I hope the public continues to benefit from their talent. But I think it would be going too far to say that a small number of Pulitzer Prize winners cannot compete with dozens, even hundreds, of "regulars."
I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this.
Blogs you like...
Class, here are some of the blogs that I didn't list that you told me you liked -- along with your comments and suggestions for improvement:
From Annie:
http://perezhilton.com/
1) This blog consists of news updates on celebrity behavior.
2) The content of the blog is entertaining yet trashy. It feeds on the celebrity-driven pop culture. The site is easy to navigate. With links to pages and celebrity knowledge quizzes, there is tons of visitor interaction. The site doesn’t have any archives and only keeps records for the past couple of days.
3) I would visit the site merely because I, too, am celebrity obsessed. I don’t really care what the blogger says, but I am interested in the pictures.
4) I would eliminate the amount of commentary on the blog. The pictures and headlines are the interesting factors -- not what a nobody person has to say.
From Danny:
http://zeitgeist.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/29/249575.aspx
1. My blog of choice, at the moment, is maintained by MSNBC’s Willie Geist, a producer/on-air co-host/jack of all trades for the cable network. He describes his blog as such:
“Willie Geist has maintained since 1996 that the Internet, like the automobile and the television before it, is a fad. He gets his information from microfiche at the public library and communicates with friends through the good old-fashioned United States Postal Service, thank you very much.”
The site is decidedly tongue-in-cheek, but it is a great place to read about network news and other goings-on the media business. It is an opinion blog.
2. The content is good. Geist is funny and usually keeps his posts fresh. It is easy to move around and find archived posts. Also, the site is big on user comments. Basically the entire main page scrolls with comments (after Geist’s post, of course). Fans of Geist have an easy way to access or comment on his page. Interaction on this blog seems high.
3. I would look at this site again. I watch Geist with Tucker Carlson all the time. He is witty and bitingly sarcastic. I like going to his blog for more of the same.
4. The site could have comments on a separate page. I would rather see more of his posts on the front page. I really do not care to see 100 people comment on one post. For instance, his latest entry refers to MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski refusing the read the Paris Hilton story as the lead for a morning newscast. There are dozens of people who wrote to the blog saying roughly the same things (congratulating Brzezinski on taking a stand). I don’t need to see that. Show me other, even slightly older, blog posts instead.
From Aliza:
Frozen Tropics (http://frozentropics.blogspot.com)
“Frozen Tropics” is a blog about the Trinidad and H Street NE areas of Washington, D.C.
It is a news roundup, and occasionally an opinion/commentary blog.
The author, Inked, links to articles written about the area; posts press releases from politicians, developers and upcoming events; takes photographs of things she sees in the area and muses on changes in the area. The content is sometimes nothing more than links, but sometimes it is long.
The blog is the source of information on my neighborhood. It is easy to navigate, with archives on the right-hand navigation bar, as well as links to news organizations, local businesses, politicians who serve the area and more.
Readers interact with the blog through comments, and inked responds to many of the comments. Readers often also interact with each other through the comments. Inked also provides many links for readers to click on.
I read this blog often because of the news it provides. Inked also linked to one or two articles I wrote last summer on the area, and we have a mutual friend.
One way for the blog to be improved is to disallow anonymous commenters because there are often multiple commenters, and keeping track of who said what can get confusing. Another way to improve the blog would be for Inked to take on more writers so that the blog could be updated more frequently.
From Aditya:
The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
This blog aggregates the posts from several contributors and categorizes them under ‘Politics,’ ‘Business,’ ‘Entertainment,’ etc.
Most of the posts are commentaries. Small excerpts or summaries accompany the links to the opinion pieces. Many of the articles are on Huffington’s Web site, others are external links. The contributors come from very different backgrounds, and some may be more credible than others. The blog provides links to short biographies of each contributor.
Huffington’s blog seems to encourage interactivity since it allows users to instantaneously post comments to articles. The blog does not seem to have an archive of its own, but allows users to search it quite easily.
Huffington Post is a good place to look for left-of-center commentary and analysis, but seems to have little use otherwise.
More to come...
From Annie:
http://perezhilton.com/
1) This blog consists of news updates on celebrity behavior.
2) The content of the blog is entertaining yet trashy. It feeds on the celebrity-driven pop culture. The site is easy to navigate. With links to pages and celebrity knowledge quizzes, there is tons of visitor interaction. The site doesn’t have any archives and only keeps records for the past couple of days.
3) I would visit the site merely because I, too, am celebrity obsessed. I don’t really care what the blogger says, but I am interested in the pictures.
4) I would eliminate the amount of commentary on the blog. The pictures and headlines are the interesting factors -- not what a nobody person has to say.
From Danny:
http://zeitgeist.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/29/249575.aspx
1. My blog of choice, at the moment, is maintained by MSNBC’s Willie Geist, a producer/on-air co-host/jack of all trades for the cable network. He describes his blog as such:
“Willie Geist has maintained since 1996 that the Internet, like the automobile and the television before it, is a fad. He gets his information from microfiche at the public library and communicates with friends through the good old-fashioned United States Postal Service, thank you very much.”
The site is decidedly tongue-in-cheek, but it is a great place to read about network news and other goings-on the media business. It is an opinion blog.
2. The content is good. Geist is funny and usually keeps his posts fresh. It is easy to move around and find archived posts. Also, the site is big on user comments. Basically the entire main page scrolls with comments (after Geist’s post, of course). Fans of Geist have an easy way to access or comment on his page. Interaction on this blog seems high.
3. I would look at this site again. I watch Geist with Tucker Carlson all the time. He is witty and bitingly sarcastic. I like going to his blog for more of the same.
4. The site could have comments on a separate page. I would rather see more of his posts on the front page. I really do not care to see 100 people comment on one post. For instance, his latest entry refers to MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski refusing the read the Paris Hilton story as the lead for a morning newscast. There are dozens of people who wrote to the blog saying roughly the same things (congratulating Brzezinski on taking a stand). I don’t need to see that. Show me other, even slightly older, blog posts instead.
From Aliza:
Frozen Tropics (http://frozentropics.blogspot.com)
“Frozen Tropics” is a blog about the Trinidad and H Street NE areas of Washington, D.C.
It is a news roundup, and occasionally an opinion/commentary blog.
The author, Inked, links to articles written about the area; posts press releases from politicians, developers and upcoming events; takes photographs of things she sees in the area and muses on changes in the area. The content is sometimes nothing more than links, but sometimes it is long.
The blog is the source of information on my neighborhood. It is easy to navigate, with archives on the right-hand navigation bar, as well as links to news organizations, local businesses, politicians who serve the area and more.
Readers interact with the blog through comments, and inked responds to many of the comments. Readers often also interact with each other through the comments. Inked also provides many links for readers to click on.
I read this blog often because of the news it provides. Inked also linked to one or two articles I wrote last summer on the area, and we have a mutual friend.
One way for the blog to be improved is to disallow anonymous commenters because there are often multiple commenters, and keeping track of who said what can get confusing. Another way to improve the blog would be for Inked to take on more writers so that the blog could be updated more frequently.
From Aditya:
The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
This blog aggregates the posts from several contributors and categorizes them under ‘Politics,’ ‘Business,’ ‘Entertainment,’ etc.
Most of the posts are commentaries. Small excerpts or summaries accompany the links to the opinion pieces. Many of the articles are on Huffington’s Web site, others are external links. The contributors come from very different backgrounds, and some may be more credible than others. The blog provides links to short biographies of each contributor.
Huffington’s blog seems to encourage interactivity since it allows users to instantaneously post comments to articles. The blog does not seem to have an archive of its own, but allows users to search it quite easily.
Huffington Post is a good place to look for left-of-center commentary and analysis, but seems to have little use otherwise.
More to come...
7.03.2007
Blogging Assignment
Class, this assignment is to be done independently. Please turn it in by e-mail to me by 11:10 a.m. on Thursday, July 5. Happy holiday!
Directions: Quickly check out the following eight Web logs.
Go back and take more time with two of them, plus any other blog of your choosing. (Check out http://www.technorati.com/ for listings of blogs if you don’t already have a favorite.)
For each of those three that you analyze, BRIEFLY answer the following:
1. Is this a reported blog, an opinion/commentary blog, an author’s journal, a news roundup, or something else entirely?
2. How good is the content? How easy is it to navigate and find archival entries? How well does it encourage reader interaction?
3. Would you look at this site again if you didn’t have to?
4. How could it be improved?
Please type up your answers and e-mail them to me.
Here are eight sites to start your review with:
http://www.wonkette.com/
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
http://www.buzzmachine.com/
http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/SoxBlog/
http://www.newmediamusings.com/
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45
http://jbshyu.typepad.com/
Directions: Quickly check out the following eight Web logs.
Go back and take more time with two of them, plus any other blog of your choosing. (Check out http://www.technorati.com/ for listings of blogs if you don’t already have a favorite.)
For each of those three that you analyze, BRIEFLY answer the following:
1. Is this a reported blog, an opinion/commentary blog, an author’s journal, a news roundup, or something else entirely?
2. How good is the content? How easy is it to navigate and find archival entries? How well does it encourage reader interaction?
3. Would you look at this site again if you didn’t have to?
4. How could it be improved?
Please type up your answers and e-mail them to me.
Here are eight sites to start your review with:
http://www.wonkette.com/
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
http://www.buzzmachine.com/
http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/SoxBlog/
http://www.newmediamusings.com/
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45
http://jbshyu.typepad.com/
The Power of Blogging
Here's an article in the Post yesterday demonstrating the increasing influence of blogs on the mainstream:
Calling in Pros to Refine Your Google Image
One thing to consider is that Webmasters can manipulate search engine algorithms to have their sites come up as one of the first listings. So, no matter what companies like ReputationDefender.com could do, there will always be malicious coders who will ruin any attempts that you fork over thousands of dollars for to improve your online prestige. What's even more funny is that people found a market in making people look good on the Web. My take on the situation: you can't make people like you.
Here's a good read on how search engines work
And here's a Wired.com article about search engine manipulation
Calling in Pros to Refine Your Google Image
One thing to consider is that Webmasters can manipulate search engine algorithms to have their sites come up as one of the first listings. So, no matter what companies like ReputationDefender.com could do, there will always be malicious coders who will ruin any attempts that you fork over thousands of dollars for to improve your online prestige. What's even more funny is that people found a market in making people look good on the Web. My take on the situation: you can't make people like you.
Here's a good read on how search engines work
And here's a Wired.com article about search engine manipulation
6.30.2007
In Case You Missed It,...
MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski had just about enough of the Paris Hilton story when she refused to lead her news report with Paris Hilton post-prison updates. On "Morning Joe" with co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, Brzezinski tried to torch the script with a lighter, crumpled it into a ball and finally sent it through a paper shredder. I appreciate what she did, as I, too, am completely sick of Paris Hilton and the coverage her prison sentence garnered. Brzezinski stood up to her network on the air and refused to grant the Hilton story numero uno coverage. It really became a big deal because Joe and Willie made fun of Mika for refusing to read the script. Still, few journalists of her level would have the guts to do that.
Also, I was clicking around my television Saturday morning and turned to NBC's HD channel. I thought I would just see an HD version of the "Today" show, but instead some groggy-eyed producer put the studio feed on the air, so I watched an anchorwoman practicing her script and talking to producers about pronunciations and camera angles. I have never seen the network news make a blunder like that. After watching the anchor stumble through the copy three times, it kind of took away from actually hearing it live. Some things viewers are just not supposed to see...
Also, I was clicking around my television Saturday morning and turned to NBC's HD channel. I thought I would just see an HD version of the "Today" show, but instead some groggy-eyed producer put the studio feed on the air, so I watched an anchorwoman practicing her script and talking to producers about pronunciations and camera angles. I have never seen the network news make a blunder like that. After watching the anchor stumble through the copy three times, it kind of took away from actually hearing it live. Some things viewers are just not supposed to see...
6.28.2007
Bad Headline:
"China officials live without air-cons for a day"
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPEK15661420070613?feedType=RSS
I didn't like this headline because of the "air-cons". This article talks about how the Chinese government cut off air conditioning for some government employees to save a little bit of energy. When I first saw the headline, for some reason, I thought of that Nicolas Cage movie, "Con Air". I honestly thought the article was about some Chinese military exercise. To me, the headling is a little misleading. Instead of using air-cons, I think that just using "AC" would have been acceptable or maybe even "cool air".
Good Headline:
"Will iPhone rock music industry?"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/06/27/iphone.mobile.music.ap/index.html
This headline is simple, catchy and a pretty good example of using the SVO structure for a headline but this one is in the form of a question. I like how they used "rock" to ambiguously imply that people who buy the iPhone will bolster the iTunes industry but that the music industry as a whole will suffer because Apple doesn't allow customers to download music directly to the phones.
"China officials live without air-cons for a day"
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPEK15661420070613?feedType=RSS
I didn't like this headline because of the "air-cons". This article talks about how the Chinese government cut off air conditioning for some government employees to save a little bit of energy. When I first saw the headline, for some reason, I thought of that Nicolas Cage movie, "Con Air". I honestly thought the article was about some Chinese military exercise. To me, the headling is a little misleading. Instead of using air-cons, I think that just using "AC" would have been acceptable or maybe even "cool air".
Good Headline:
"Will iPhone rock music industry?"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/06/27/iphone.mobile.music.ap/index.html
This headline is simple, catchy and a pretty good example of using the SVO structure for a headline but this one is in the form of a question. I like how they used "rock" to ambiguously imply that people who buy the iPhone will bolster the iTunes industry but that the music industry as a whole will suffer because Apple doesn't allow customers to download music directly to the phones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
