New York Times reporter Jon Pareles takes a pretty condescending view of big-time names in New Media YouTube and MySpace. In a Sunday story, Pareles criticizes Google and News Corp. for buying the two online sharing sites calling them "a couple of empty vessels." Pareles denigrates MySpace to "an ever-expanding heap of personal ads, random photos, private blathering, demo recordings and camcorder video clips" not worth the $580 million it was bought for and YouTube "a flood of grainy TV excerpts, snarkily edited film clips, homemade video diaries, amateur music videos and shots of people singing along with their stereos" definitely not worth the $1.65 billion.
Not suprisingly, Pareles got slammed by the blogosphere for his point of view. Stacy Kramer wrote a post on paidContent.org "As he explores the cultural meaning, what Pareles skips over is that News Corp.and Google weren’t buying the content as much as the community, the massive traffic and the distribution MySpace.com and YouTube.com provide respectively. That, and the idea that sophisticated online advertising can overcome fragmentation. Of course, that’s our job, not his." I think she's right -- News Corp and Google now have one of the key demographics at their disposal, and that's definitely worth something.
Jeff Jarvis wrote on his media blog BuzzMachine that Pareles, more than anybody, should be celebrating the expanded freedom of expression allowed by these new mediums. "Choice is good, not something to be lamented. Indeed, I find it ironic that a critic, of all people, should be complaining about choice. Choice is precisely what necessitates criticism," he said. Furthermore, he points out that Pareles, being a Big Media hotshot at the New York Times, just doesn't get it. "Pareles makes the common mistake of bringing old-media, mass metrics to the new-media, niche world." From what I've seen, most professional journalists do not understand the value of niche media, but clearly there is since both of these sites are so popular.
While of course traditional journalists feel threatened by user-generated content because it makes their profession a simple pasttime for anyone interested, but Pareles should know better to slam Web users and two of the most important sites online today. Online journalism is the future and Pareles, who probably wants to keep his job at the times, should consider adapting and accepting New Media, in all its forms.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Online media's younger crowd
CNET published the findings of an interesting study done by The Harrison Group Friday. According to the study on 2006 Teen Trends, they found that Americans aged 13 to 18 spend more than 72 hours a week using electronic media (that includes the Internet, cell phones, television, music and video games). They also found that the devices and platforms on which teens use electronic media often overlap.
While I kind of already assumed that technology was big among the generation younger than me, I think it's good to have studies to back it up. It's empirical proof that media companies are going to have to work harder and faster and disseminate its news across multiple platforms to their reader's attention. And this study is also kind of telling us in an indirect way that soon, as my generation and the teens in this study continue to get older, online media is going to replace print and television as the dominant platform and media companies should start preparing for that now.
It just really makes me wonder what news will be like in the future. From my point of view, there are only amazing opportunities for journalism online.
While I kind of already assumed that technology was big among the generation younger than me, I think it's good to have studies to back it up. It's empirical proof that media companies are going to have to work harder and faster and disseminate its news across multiple platforms to their reader's attention. And this study is also kind of telling us in an indirect way that soon, as my generation and the teens in this study continue to get older, online media is going to replace print and television as the dominant platform and media companies should start preparing for that now.
It just really makes me wonder what news will be like in the future. From my point of view, there are only amazing opportunities for journalism online.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
GW Hatchet online proves itself to Web community
Maybe this is a little bit self effacing and biased because I work for the student newspaper here, but I wanted to point out something that shows the importance of online media at a student level. Yesterday, The GW Hatchet broke the news that GW has chosen a new president to replace Trachtenberg when he retires this spring. It was probably the best use and design (and the biggest story for the paper since Trachtenberg announced he was retiring after 18 years as president) of The Hatchet's Web site I've ever seen and was really impressed.
The Hatchet's site shows that it can compete on a professional level with the rest of online news -- it's big headline giving the story prominence, the graphic behind the text, the links to other stories about the presidential search and the photo slide show of Trachtenberg's reign was a completely multimedia approach to the biggest story this semester.
Also, it should recognized that The Hatchet scooped all other media outlets on this story and even today's Washington Post story on the new president selection mentioned that GW's student newspaper was the first to report the story. In an e-mail to the staff last night from Hatchet Editor in Chief Caitlin Carroll, she said, "(GW media relations director) Tracy Schario called me tonight and said congratulations on our reporting job. She also said that she's received calls tonight from some other publications, including the Washington Business Journal, who said they can't believe they got scooped by a student paper...."
I also think it's important to point out that for The Hatchet, having a great Web presence on this story is essential. The student newspaper only prints twice a week (Monday and Thursday) and the story broke Monday afternoon, meaning it won't be in the print version until three days later. I just thought it was worth it to point out that even at GW the advancement of online news is having an effect.
The Hatchet's site shows that it can compete on a professional level with the rest of online news -- it's big headline giving the story prominence, the graphic behind the text, the links to other stories about the presidential search and the photo slide show of Trachtenberg's reign was a completely multimedia approach to the biggest story this semester.
Also, it should recognized that The Hatchet scooped all other media outlets on this story and even today's Washington Post story on the new president selection mentioned that GW's student newspaper was the first to report the story. In an e-mail to the staff last night from Hatchet Editor in Chief Caitlin Carroll, she said, "(GW media relations director) Tracy Schario called me tonight and said congratulations on our reporting job. She also said that she's received calls tonight from some other publications, including the Washington Business Journal, who said they can't believe they got scooped by a student paper...."
I also think it's important to point out that for The Hatchet, having a great Web presence on this story is essential. The student newspaper only prints twice a week (Monday and Thursday) and the story broke Monday afternoon, meaning it won't be in the print version until three days later. I just thought it was worth it to point out that even at GW the advancement of online news is having an effect.
Huffington Post: what other bloggers think?
I've been scouring the net to try and find some passionate, angry reaction typical of the blogosphere to last week's news that the Huffington Post will start hiring reporters and paying them, much like the traditional media does. I automatically thought that the blogosphere would be in an uproar over this - the overall tone of blogs is anti-MSM and they see themselves as more transparent, democratic, etc. But so far all I've found are shockingly positive responses from the head honchos:
Jeff Jarvis, creator of Buzzmachine, a respected blog that covers media developments, sees this as a good step for the blogosphere and says, "It’s the next step for HuffPo and the blogosphere, to add more original reporting as it becomes worthwhile to do so. And it’s the next step for more and more institutional journalists to venture into the future," he wrote. He clearly thinks it's good that more traditional journalists are moving to alternative media, and points to the Washington Post's political editor John Harris and top political correspondent Jim VandeHei moving to jump start the online publication The Capitol Leader. He points out one more important thing: "Note, too, that it will soon be more difficult to tell the difference between old and new, as blogs and reporting and reporters blog. It’s all news." Is this blurring of the line a good thing? Jarvis doesn't explicitly say, but he seems to think so.
In Matthew Ingram's blog, he support's HuffPo's move as well, but doesn't mention what this means for the blogosphere. Ingram seems to think that the HuffPo is transforming traditional journalism, when it seems to me that it's actually the opposite. "In my view, newspapers had better get their running shoes on, because online media like Huffington Post and PaidContent are already halfway down the track," he writes.
The IP Democracy blog poses: "Which raises an interesting question about the difference between blogs staffed by top-notch journalists and newspapers staffed by top-notch journalists. The question is: what’s the distinction between those two? The Huffington Post’s decision to hire “real” journalists only further blurs the boundaries between newspapers and blogs..." but he doesn't answer it, which was what I was looking for.
One of Buzzmachine's commentors from Brooklyn Kitchen has the sort of reaction I expected: "That said, it’s hard for me to believe the hype about how new media will revolutionize the way news is produced and distributed, when it very quickly falls into line with the same-old-shit that we’ve always known. The new editor coming as she does from established media sources, is hardly a HuffPo challenge to old media, it’s more of a capitulation." With this Huffington Post news it does seem that the blogosphere is just following the mainstream, when their goal was to fight against it.
Surprisingly the reaction among most bloggers was to report the news of the Huffington Post jumping ship into traditional journalism, but not delve deeper into it. Maybe they are posing questions and not following up with it because no one really knows the answer. It will be interesting to see how this all works out and if other blogs following in HuffPo's footsteps.
Jeff Jarvis, creator of Buzzmachine, a respected blog that covers media developments, sees this as a good step for the blogosphere and says, "It’s the next step for HuffPo and the blogosphere, to add more original reporting as it becomes worthwhile to do so. And it’s the next step for more and more institutional journalists to venture into the future," he wrote. He clearly thinks it's good that more traditional journalists are moving to alternative media, and points to the Washington Post's political editor John Harris and top political correspondent Jim VandeHei moving to jump start the online publication The Capitol Leader. He points out one more important thing: "Note, too, that it will soon be more difficult to tell the difference between old and new, as blogs and reporting and reporters blog. It’s all news." Is this blurring of the line a good thing? Jarvis doesn't explicitly say, but he seems to think so.
In Matthew Ingram's blog, he support's HuffPo's move as well, but doesn't mention what this means for the blogosphere. Ingram seems to think that the HuffPo is transforming traditional journalism, when it seems to me that it's actually the opposite. "In my view, newspapers had better get their running shoes on, because online media like Huffington Post and PaidContent are already halfway down the track," he writes.
The IP Democracy blog poses: "Which raises an interesting question about the difference between blogs staffed by top-notch journalists and newspapers staffed by top-notch journalists. The question is: what’s the distinction between those two? The Huffington Post’s decision to hire “real” journalists only further blurs the boundaries between newspapers and blogs..." but he doesn't answer it, which was what I was looking for.
One of Buzzmachine's commentors from Brooklyn Kitchen has the sort of reaction I expected: "That said, it’s hard for me to believe the hype about how new media will revolutionize the way news is produced and distributed, when it very quickly falls into line with the same-old-shit that we’ve always known. The new editor coming as she does from established media sources, is hardly a HuffPo challenge to old media, it’s more of a capitulation." With this Huffington Post news it does seem that the blogosphere is just following the mainstream, when their goal was to fight against it.
Surprisingly the reaction among most bloggers was to report the news of the Huffington Post jumping ship into traditional journalism, but not delve deeper into it. Maybe they are posing questions and not following up with it because no one really knows the answer. It will be interesting to see how this all works out and if other blogs following in HuffPo's footsteps.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Blogs turning into mainstream media?
The news that the popular political blog the Huffington Post is going to start doing some of it's own original reporting sort of caught me off guard when I read a story in the New York Times yesterday.
I know blogs are a big deal and that some of them do their own original reporting (they're definitely not afraid to break big stories), but this was different because the Post blog is hiring journalists like any other media organization would to do reporting on the 2008 campaign and Congress this January. Arianna Huffington, who started the blog, said the site hired Melinda Henneberger, a print journalist who worked with Newsweek magazine most recently and was a New York Times reporter before that.
The Post site got a $5 million investment earlier this year and Huffington said that it was always her intention to do original reporting and now she has the funds to do so. “That’s the combination you need online,” she said in the New York Times story adding that her reporters will have deadlines, regular schedules and travel for stories, which is very atypical in the blogosphere. Her reporters will also be paid, also an anomaly for the blogosphere.
So, for all this talk about the blogosphere being "new media" and it's own form of journalism, I think news like this shows that bloggers are going to continue to more more toward the mainstream media.
I know blogs are a big deal and that some of them do their own original reporting (they're definitely not afraid to break big stories), but this was different because the Post blog is hiring journalists like any other media organization would to do reporting on the 2008 campaign and Congress this January. Arianna Huffington, who started the blog, said the site hired Melinda Henneberger, a print journalist who worked with Newsweek magazine most recently and was a New York Times reporter before that.
The Post site got a $5 million investment earlier this year and Huffington said that it was always her intention to do original reporting and now she has the funds to do so. “That’s the combination you need online,” she said in the New York Times story adding that her reporters will have deadlines, regular schedules and travel for stories, which is very atypical in the blogosphere. Her reporters will also be paid, also an anomaly for the blogosphere.
So, for all this talk about the blogosphere being "new media" and it's own form of journalism, I think news like this shows that bloggers are going to continue to more more toward the mainstream media.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Blogging's policing function?
While everyone knows that blogging has become the new popular Web 2.0 thing to do online these days, I heard something this week that made me consider a new possible function of blogs and just how their "citizen journalist" aspect might play out.
I read on Poynter Online this week that last Friday Jackie Danicki, an American blogger and social media consultant living in London, was attacked by two men in a London Underground. But, instead of letting the traditional methods of justice take their course, Danicki turned to her blog in addition to going to the police. Danicki was able to snap a picture of the attacker on her camera cell phone as he yelled at her and later posted it on her blog to get the word out and help the perpetrator be brought in, asking her loyal readers to identify the men and report them to the British Transport Police. While it seems like a logical thing for a woman seeking justice to do, it could potentially mean that technology might have implications for governmental bureaucracies or the justice system in general.
In the Poynter post, blogger Amy Garahan quoted a University of Florida professor who was concerned with this use of technology as well and its societal implications. Mincy McAdams wrote in her blog of the man in Danicki's photo, "Now more than a dozen other bloggers have linked to or reposted the picture of this young person. He might be guilty -- but doesn't Britain have courts to determine that? I live in a country with a long and horrifying and all-too-recent history of lynching. This viral photo manhunt in London scares me down to the marrow of my bones." Garahan agreed and said, "It's a valid concern. Someone who merely resembles the man in the picture could end up in dire straits," she said.
I think this is a concern and something that governments have to take into consideration for the future. If citizen journalists have the opportunity to seek their own justice, will that lead to going over the police's head, which ultimately leads to anarchy? Maybe that's going a little too far, but after all this talk about newspapers having to adapt to Web 2.0 culture to survive as a business, I think that maybe national governments shouldn't be left out of the conversation and should recognize their vulnerabilities because of changing technologies as well.
I read on Poynter Online this week that last Friday Jackie Danicki, an American blogger and social media consultant living in London, was attacked by two men in a London Underground. But, instead of letting the traditional methods of justice take their course, Danicki turned to her blog in addition to going to the police. Danicki was able to snap a picture of the attacker on her camera cell phone as he yelled at her and later posted it on her blog to get the word out and help the perpetrator be brought in, asking her loyal readers to identify the men and report them to the British Transport Police. While it seems like a logical thing for a woman seeking justice to do, it could potentially mean that technology might have implications for governmental bureaucracies or the justice system in general.
In the Poynter post, blogger Amy Garahan quoted a University of Florida professor who was concerned with this use of technology as well and its societal implications. Mincy McAdams wrote in her blog of the man in Danicki's photo, "Now more than a dozen other bloggers have linked to or reposted the picture of this young person. He might be guilty -- but doesn't Britain have courts to determine that? I live in a country with a long and horrifying and all-too-recent history of lynching. This viral photo manhunt in London scares me down to the marrow of my bones." Garahan agreed and said, "It's a valid concern. Someone who merely resembles the man in the picture could end up in dire straits," she said.
I think this is a concern and something that governments have to take into consideration for the future. If citizen journalists have the opportunity to seek their own justice, will that lead to going over the police's head, which ultimately leads to anarchy? Maybe that's going a little too far, but after all this talk about newspapers having to adapt to Web 2.0 culture to survive as a business, I think that maybe national governments shouldn't be left out of the conversation and should recognize their vulnerabilities because of changing technologies as well.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Multimedia journalism
Last week our class visited washingtonpost.com's newsroom in Alexandria and got some great tips from their multimedia editor Tom Kennedy on the future of news. Kennedy said, "Part of the challenge for us is figuring out mechanisms of distribution ... and the ubiquity of content." The Post.com is trying to figure out different platforms to present content so it's the most convenient for the consumer - whether they get their news on their Blackberry, cell phone, radio, Web, print, etc. He even wonders if there is a news platform that can operate in a way like YouTube, which has become such a big hit in the past year. Maybe quick news video hits, he suggests. Being innovative is the name of the game these days, and the washingtonpost.com is one of the leading innovators in the .com news business.
Kennedy pointed to some other news organizations using innovative Internet applications to reach across platforms as good examples. For instance, Atlanta 11 is using their Web site so that readers can search for newscasts according to keywords. Kennedy said, "TV is figuring out how to make value of their newscasts for the Web audience." He is looking for the technology washingtonpost.com can use to get similar results.
As of right now, washingtonpost.com is striving to use the Web as a place where readers can go for original content throughout the day. He said that the Post's site gets high amounts of user hits early in the morning, will crest again between 12 and 2 and then again between 3 and 5 and then another blip in the middle of the night when the international edition goes out. "We are always trying to surf the wave as far as fresh content," Kennedy said, as he and his team try to update the site before these "crests" throughout the day.
I think the Post's strategy is a good one and look forward to seeing how else they can advance the online news industry.
Kennedy pointed to some other news organizations using innovative Internet applications to reach across platforms as good examples. For instance, Atlanta 11 is using their Web site so that readers can search for newscasts according to keywords. Kennedy said, "TV is figuring out how to make value of their newscasts for the Web audience." He is looking for the technology washingtonpost.com can use to get similar results.
As of right now, washingtonpost.com is striving to use the Web as a place where readers can go for original content throughout the day. He said that the Post's site gets high amounts of user hits early in the morning, will crest again between 12 and 2 and then again between 3 and 5 and then another blip in the middle of the night when the international edition goes out. "We are always trying to surf the wave as far as fresh content," Kennedy said, as he and his team try to update the site before these "crests" throughout the day.
I think the Post's strategy is a good one and look forward to seeing how else they can advance the online news industry.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Al-Jazeeera hits the Web in English
Al-Jazeera, the Arab news network famous for broadcasting tapes sent in by Osama bin Laden and one of the few respected news organizations from the Arab world, is coming to the U.S. even though cable companies are trying to keep it in the Middle East.
An article in USA Today says that the Arab network is launching an English version of its network starting tomorrow and is expected to reach a deal with cable companies for news time, but in the meantime, since the cable companies aren't cooperating, Al-Jazeera is doing what any other non-mainstream media does in the U.S. - primarily operating off an English Web site for now.
I think it's interesting that Al-Jazeera is using the Web to promote its product in the U.S. when the cable companies aren't working with them. It just goes to show that in the Internet age, no one's views can be silenced or pushed out. Every one has an outlet.
I'm particularly interested in how this whole thing turns out because Al-Jazeera's U.S. bureau is only a few blocks from GW's campus and they are recruiting interns from the School of Media and Public Affairs (I got an e-mail on the listserv). I initially considered applying for the job because in my mind Al-Jazeera is a prestigious news organization and can give me insight into Middle Eastern culture, but with all the controversy, I think I'm going to hold out. But even so, I'm glad Al-Jazeera has the Web to give its version of the news. The U.S.'s supposed "marketplace of ideas" would be lacking without it. What do you think?
An article in USA Today says that the Arab network is launching an English version of its network starting tomorrow and is expected to reach a deal with cable companies for news time, but in the meantime, since the cable companies aren't cooperating, Al-Jazeera is doing what any other non-mainstream media does in the U.S. - primarily operating off an English Web site for now.
I think it's interesting that Al-Jazeera is using the Web to promote its product in the U.S. when the cable companies aren't working with them. It just goes to show that in the Internet age, no one's views can be silenced or pushed out. Every one has an outlet.
I'm particularly interested in how this whole thing turns out because Al-Jazeera's U.S. bureau is only a few blocks from GW's campus and they are recruiting interns from the School of Media and Public Affairs (I got an e-mail on the listserv). I initially considered applying for the job because in my mind Al-Jazeera is a prestigious news organization and can give me insight into Middle Eastern culture, but with all the controversy, I think I'm going to hold out. But even so, I'm glad Al-Jazeera has the Web to give its version of the news. The U.S.'s supposed "marketplace of ideas" would be lacking without it. What do you think?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
NYT and citizen journalists?
I read in my I WANT MEDIA newsletter yesterday that the prestigious New York Times is adapting to Web 2.0 culture by looking for ways to use content from "non professional journalists" (otherwise known as citizen journalists) on its Web site, particularly using bloggers.
New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told those at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco Tuesday that The Times has been slow in incorporating bloggers and other citizen journalists into its news organization, something other mainstream media has been doing (think BBC or CNN's iReport).
But The Times isn't jumping into anything just yet. Sulzberger said that "finding the right balance isn't easy" and they want to find citizen journalists they can trust (makes sense because The Times is the most prestigious newspaper in the country). I think the fact that The Times is considering allowing outside "journalists" to contribute to its site is indicative of just how big the Internet has become in the media, and how there really is no fighting non-traditional journalism if the mainstream media wants to survive.
New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told those at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco Tuesday that The Times has been slow in incorporating bloggers and other citizen journalists into its news organization, something other mainstream media has been doing (think BBC or CNN's iReport).
But The Times isn't jumping into anything just yet. Sulzberger said that "finding the right balance isn't easy" and they want to find citizen journalists they can trust (makes sense because The Times is the most prestigious newspaper in the country). I think the fact that The Times is considering allowing outside "journalists" to contribute to its site is indicative of just how big the Internet has become in the media, and how there really is no fighting non-traditional journalism if the mainstream media wants to survive.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What online news sites have to offer
In class this evening Ryan Thornburg, managing editor of U.S. News & World Report's USnews.com site came to class to speak about his experience in online news -- he's been at it since before online news was even popular, working also with CQ.com and washingtonpost.com as well as having his own blog in 2002 on Carolina politics -- and he enlightened me about one aspect of mainstream media online sites that I never thought of before. In this information age where there is so much stuff out there and everything is for free -- from blogs to wikis to non-traditional news sites to mainstream news sites -- how can mainstream media attract an audience?
Thornburg said that one way they do still attract an audience is by providing readers "tools" instead of "information." He started off by pointing out that this is what drives people to pay thousands of dollars a year for a subscription to CQ.com's intricate site for information they can surely find for free by scouring the Web. "One thing I think is interesting about CQ is that they don't really sell information," he said. "What they sell are tools. They have to find a justification for people to pay...at CQ it's all in one place, layered on top of each other."
These database features on mainstream media sites are one of the key aspects to getting users, and something I mostly have overlooked. CQ has databases allowing users to search for any bill in the past few Congresses or for any congressman across the country, or get demographic information about any of the 435 congressional districts (unfortunately I can't link to them because you need a subscription to have access).
Washingtonpost.com, where Thornburg worked as national and international editor, has used its site to promote similar feature. The Post's site also has a congressional votes database, profiling members of Congress and letting readers view their voting record. They also have a database on political ads that ran through yesterday's election, as well as tons of special projects where they give in depth coverage on everything from the Jack Abramoff scandal to Sept. 11 to the Iraq war to Watergate. I agree with Thornburg that it's these distinctions and in depth coverage that keeps mainstream media on top in the online world and the first source of information for many Americans still. It's this quality type of reporting that other non-traditional online news sources lack.
**Something off topic** Well not really, because I mentioned Watergate in that last paragraph. Anyway, Thornburg also told an incredibly interesting story about his version of the day the story broke that Deep Throat's identity was W. Mark Felt. "We got scooped man. It hurt," he said. "It hurts when you get scooped on a story that you should own."
He was at washingtonpost.com at the time and had to run downtown to their print office to interview Bob Woodward on camera. Thornburg said Woodward was adamant about not letting the video go on the Web until his story was in print the next day. He embargoed the video even though the AP had stories on it and Newsweek had its own story on it. "He did not want the story to be told out of his control in any way."
Interesting that personal pride would come in the way of helping your own news organization get the story first OR at least help make up for it with quicker, more accurate and better coverage than the competition. Remember, that Woodward is one of The Post's top editors. It's just surprising to me.
Thornburg said that one way they do still attract an audience is by providing readers "tools" instead of "information." He started off by pointing out that this is what drives people to pay thousands of dollars a year for a subscription to CQ.com's intricate site for information they can surely find for free by scouring the Web. "One thing I think is interesting about CQ is that they don't really sell information," he said. "What they sell are tools. They have to find a justification for people to pay...at CQ it's all in one place, layered on top of each other."
These database features on mainstream media sites are one of the key aspects to getting users, and something I mostly have overlooked. CQ has databases allowing users to search for any bill in the past few Congresses or for any congressman across the country, or get demographic information about any of the 435 congressional districts (unfortunately I can't link to them because you need a subscription to have access).
Washingtonpost.com, where Thornburg worked as national and international editor, has used its site to promote similar feature. The Post's site also has a congressional votes database, profiling members of Congress and letting readers view their voting record. They also have a database on political ads that ran through yesterday's election, as well as tons of special projects where they give in depth coverage on everything from the Jack Abramoff scandal to Sept. 11 to the Iraq war to Watergate. I agree with Thornburg that it's these distinctions and in depth coverage that keeps mainstream media on top in the online world and the first source of information for many Americans still. It's this quality type of reporting that other non-traditional online news sources lack.
**Something off topic** Well not really, because I mentioned Watergate in that last paragraph. Anyway, Thornburg also told an incredibly interesting story about his version of the day the story broke that Deep Throat's identity was W. Mark Felt. "We got scooped man. It hurt," he said. "It hurts when you get scooped on a story that you should own."
He was at washingtonpost.com at the time and had to run downtown to their print office to interview Bob Woodward on camera. Thornburg said Woodward was adamant about not letting the video go on the Web until his story was in print the next day. He embargoed the video even though the AP had stories on it and Newsweek had its own story on it. "He did not want the story to be told out of his control in any way."
Interesting that personal pride would come in the way of helping your own news organization get the story first OR at least help make up for it with quicker, more accurate and better coverage than the competition. Remember, that Woodward is one of The Post's top editors. It's just surprising to me.
Election Night in an online newsroom
Last night I spent about eight hours in the washingtonpost.com newsroom from about 6 p.m. until 2 a.m. helping them with midterm election coverage. I didn't know what to expect when my boss asked me to work last week on Election Night, but I was definitely excited to see how a newsroom functioned on such an important night. I imagined yelling and screaming and running around the newsroom, but to my surprise Election Night was ironically calm.
The night started out really slow. It was my job to watch AP's vote count page and determine who won all of the House races and how many party switches there were. Once the Democrats gained a seat I would tell my boss who would post a +1 on our Web site graphic. Nothing was happening at first -- AP was calling races that were mostly safe seats and it wasn't until about 8:30 that I actually saw a switch.
While things did speed up, the newsroom wasn't as crazy as I had expected. There was no yelling and people were doing their assigned jobs. There was the occasional outburst when CNN would call a race that the AP hadn't called yet and we had to decide if we should call it or not, but that was the extent of the drama.
I thought about how working in an online newsroom probably compares to a traditional newsroom on Election Night. In many ways, the online newsroom's role might be more important. We had to make sure our graphic of how many seats Democrats were gaining in the House and the Senate was correct because that's the first thing that people see when they come to the site.
While writing the breaking news stories for the site is important (and maybe that's where the newsroom yelling and screaming comes in that I envisioned) making sure our polling was correct and our graphics were accurate and our ticker running across the top of the site that was calling races was correct, was the most important thing the Washington Post was doing at that point. That's why people come to the site on Election Night. To help them keep track of who's winning and who's losing.
I think, overall, this shows how important online journalism has become. Last night the competition wasn't between the print organizations, it was between their Web sites, and who had the most up-to-date results, who was displaying it the simplest for readers and who was the most accurate. Don't you think?
The night started out really slow. It was my job to watch AP's vote count page and determine who won all of the House races and how many party switches there were. Once the Democrats gained a seat I would tell my boss who would post a +1 on our Web site graphic. Nothing was happening at first -- AP was calling races that were mostly safe seats and it wasn't until about 8:30 that I actually saw a switch.
While things did speed up, the newsroom wasn't as crazy as I had expected. There was no yelling and people were doing their assigned jobs. There was the occasional outburst when CNN would call a race that the AP hadn't called yet and we had to decide if we should call it or not, but that was the extent of the drama.
I thought about how working in an online newsroom probably compares to a traditional newsroom on Election Night. In many ways, the online newsroom's role might be more important. We had to make sure our graphic of how many seats Democrats were gaining in the House and the Senate was correct because that's the first thing that people see when they come to the site.
While writing the breaking news stories for the site is important (and maybe that's where the newsroom yelling and screaming comes in that I envisioned) making sure our polling was correct and our graphics were accurate and our ticker running across the top of the site that was calling races was correct, was the most important thing the Washington Post was doing at that point. That's why people come to the site on Election Night. To help them keep track of who's winning and who's losing.
I think, overall, this shows how important online journalism has become. Last night the competition wasn't between the print organizations, it was between their Web sites, and who had the most up-to-date results, who was displaying it the simplest for readers and who was the most accurate. Don't you think?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Google moving into radio?
It's not very surprising, but Google is in the news again. This time it isn't about YouTube - it's about moving into radio. Reuters has an interesting story on the wire today about how Google starting hiring tons of new radio people and Google plans to launch Google Audio Ads by the end of the year, letting advertisers sign up for targeted radio ads the same way AdWords works for Web search ads. They're doing the same thing with the print edition of newspapers.
It's interesting because Google just bought YouTube and is expanding itself on the Web (did you see that you can now personalize your Google homepage to put different features on it to make it more user-friendly?) but it's also looking for sources of revenue and expansion offline. Google is trying to push its way into the traditional media. It's already a staple of online news, but what will Google's involvement in traditional media mean? Will it help all types of media converge a little easier? Or will their gamble on traditional media fall through? My bet is that Google knows what they are doing and will be as successful offline as online. I guess only time will tell...
It's interesting because Google just bought YouTube and is expanding itself on the Web (did you see that you can now personalize your Google homepage to put different features on it to make it more user-friendly?) but it's also looking for sources of revenue and expansion offline. Google is trying to push its way into the traditional media. It's already a staple of online news, but what will Google's involvement in traditional media mean? Will it help all types of media converge a little easier? Or will their gamble on traditional media fall through? My bet is that Google knows what they are doing and will be as successful offline as online. I guess only time will tell...
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Online news and politics with Dee Dee Myers
After the International Women's Media Foundation's "Courage in Journalism" panel discussion last Wednesday me and some classmates got some one-on-one time with MSNBC political commentator Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton's former press secretary, and she had some interesting things to say about online news.
Myers said that when looking at the connection between politics and online news, media technology is definitely changing things and "it's taking awhile for us to get used to it." She said that because of the 24-hour news cycle when something big politically happens, politicians are having trouble in figuring out how to respond to them. "It happens every day," she said. "When people are responding it come out dribble, dribble, dribble over time."
She points to the congressional page scandal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and the congressional leadership's response. "Republican House leaders were pressured to respond quickly and they had to say they didn't know, which contradicts the original statement."
So in a way, Myers thinks that blogging and online news can be damaging politically. For me, I've always thought about the immediacy of news now that there's the Internet as a good thing, because I'm a journalist and am glad I can help get information to people faster. But it's interesting to hear another perspective on the effects of advanced technology.
Myers said that she's too old to be Web 2.0-savvy and that she doesn't really use blogs yet but sometimes she has to post on them for MSNBC. She said that she's skeptical of blogs because she's used to going to print versions of media first and is unsure if blogs have the same accountability level as traditional media. "People go online and they'll say anything," she said. "What's the value of that? It can be very damaging if you say something that's untrue and it turns out people have read it." What do you think about Myers comments on online news?
Myers said that when looking at the connection between politics and online news, media technology is definitely changing things and "it's taking awhile for us to get used to it." She said that because of the 24-hour news cycle when something big politically happens, politicians are having trouble in figuring out how to respond to them. "It happens every day," she said. "When people are responding it come out dribble, dribble, dribble over time."
She points to the congressional page scandal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and the congressional leadership's response. "Republican House leaders were pressured to respond quickly and they had to say they didn't know, which contradicts the original statement."
So in a way, Myers thinks that blogging and online news can be damaging politically. For me, I've always thought about the immediacy of news now that there's the Internet as a good thing, because I'm a journalist and am glad I can help get information to people faster. But it's interesting to hear another perspective on the effects of advanced technology.
Myers said that she's too old to be Web 2.0-savvy and that she doesn't really use blogs yet but sometimes she has to post on them for MSNBC. She said that she's skeptical of blogs because she's used to going to print versions of media first and is unsure if blogs have the same accountability level as traditional media. "People go online and they'll say anything," she said. "What's the value of that? It can be very damaging if you say something that's untrue and it turns out people have read it." What do you think about Myers comments on online news?
Hear from some amazing women...
I know - I'm a bad blogger and I should have written about the the International Women's Media Foundation's "Courage in Journalism" panel discussion last Wednesday night after I went to them but it's midterm madness in the college world but now that I have the chance I do want to let everyone in on what the event was like!
The evening actually started out with a pretty big let-down: the IWMF announced that Jill Carroll wouldn't be attending the panel discussion. Jane Ransom, the organization's executive director, told me and a few classmates after the event that Carroll is still too traumatized to openly speak about her kidnapping yet and that she's trying to readjust to being home. Maybe one day later on I will get to hear her story, but the other three women at the event were so fascinating that it definitely made up for it.
My favorite honoree was Elena Poniatowska Amor - she was clad in traditional Mexican garb and was very candid when people asked her questions. The best line of the night was when she discussed how being a journalist is a lesson in modesty when she said, "I heard you have a wonderful journalist on the comedy channel and it's John Stewart and Colbert. To have a sense of humor and to make fun of things - especially Bush - is a healthy thing." I'm not sure if I agree that Stewart and Colbert are journalists, but to hear her put the spotlight on them when discussing modesty was hilarious.
May Chidiac, a broadcast journalist for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, is probably the most courageous journalist of the bunch - her car was bombed because some people didn't like what she was saying about the Syrian government's intervention in Lebanon and she lost a leg and hand - but she's still on the air. "I think it was a miracle that I escaped. I was meant to be killed," she told us during the panel discussion. She said that this has happened before to journalists in her country and most of them have died. The reason Chidiac didn't shy away from the press after her attack? "I wanted to be the voice of those who are silenced, killed by the 2005 Syrian regime. I wanted to defend my country. If nobody does, Lebanon would be transformed like all Arab countries." If that's not courageous I don't know what is.
And Gao Yu, who was imprisoned in China for releasing government secrets, was able to give some great insight into freedom of the press there (even though her translator was having trouble getting the message across). Yu said that while China is trying to make it appear that they are loosening up their hold on civil rights and is sending groups of Chinese to America to learn about their media market, progress really isn't being made: "They came here to learn about press freedom and the independent spirit of the American media but they continue to let the media be the voice of the party," she said. She also said that these groups who visit America still deplore the country's civil rights policies. "When they saw the explosion of the Twin Towers, they applauded. They were deported by the U.S. government because of that."
Meeting and hearing from these women was inspiring, particularly because I hope one day to be as brave a journalist as they are. Let me know if you have any comments on what these amazing women journalists said the other night.
The evening actually started out with a pretty big let-down: the IWMF announced that Jill Carroll wouldn't be attending the panel discussion. Jane Ransom, the organization's executive director, told me and a few classmates after the event that Carroll is still too traumatized to openly speak about her kidnapping yet and that she's trying to readjust to being home. Maybe one day later on I will get to hear her story, but the other three women at the event were so fascinating that it definitely made up for it.
My favorite honoree was Elena Poniatowska Amor - she was clad in traditional Mexican garb and was very candid when people asked her questions. The best line of the night was when she discussed how being a journalist is a lesson in modesty when she said, "I heard you have a wonderful journalist on the comedy channel and it's John Stewart and Colbert. To have a sense of humor and to make fun of things - especially Bush - is a healthy thing." I'm not sure if I agree that Stewart and Colbert are journalists, but to hear her put the spotlight on them when discussing modesty was hilarious.
May Chidiac, a broadcast journalist for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, is probably the most courageous journalist of the bunch - her car was bombed because some people didn't like what she was saying about the Syrian government's intervention in Lebanon and she lost a leg and hand - but she's still on the air. "I think it was a miracle that I escaped. I was meant to be killed," she told us during the panel discussion. She said that this has happened before to journalists in her country and most of them have died. The reason Chidiac didn't shy away from the press after her attack? "I wanted to be the voice of those who are silenced, killed by the 2005 Syrian regime. I wanted to defend my country. If nobody does, Lebanon would be transformed like all Arab countries." If that's not courageous I don't know what is.
And Gao Yu, who was imprisoned in China for releasing government secrets, was able to give some great insight into freedom of the press there (even though her translator was having trouble getting the message across). Yu said that while China is trying to make it appear that they are loosening up their hold on civil rights and is sending groups of Chinese to America to learn about their media market, progress really isn't being made: "They came here to learn about press freedom and the independent spirit of the American media but they continue to let the media be the voice of the party," she said. She also said that these groups who visit America still deplore the country's civil rights policies. "When they saw the explosion of the Twin Towers, they applauded. They were deported by the U.S. government because of that."
Meeting and hearing from these women was inspiring, particularly because I hope one day to be as brave a journalist as they are. Let me know if you have any comments on what these amazing women journalists said the other night.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Courageous journalists?
As part of my online news class I will be attending the International Women's Media Foundation's "Courage in Journalism" panel discussion tomorrow night and I am interested to hear what these courageous journalists, who have had different enduring experiences all to get the story, have to say about their careers. Hopefully, I will gain some insight into what it's like to be an international reporter and what types of situations you come across that you wouldn't in the United States.
Just for background -- the "Courage in Journalism" awards are meant to recognize women journalists who have shown extraordinary strength of character and integrity while reporting the news under dangerous or difficult circumstances. They are meant to honor women whose contribution to journalism might influence future generations of the craft. Four women were honored this year, and I'm curious to hear what they have to say and have a few questions for them as well.
The first award recipient is Jill Carroll, the 28-year-old freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor who made headlines earlier this year for being abducted by Iraqi insurgents and held in captivity for 82 days. The things I would want to ask her are:
Just for background -- the "Courage in Journalism" awards are meant to recognize women journalists who have shown extraordinary strength of character and integrity while reporting the news under dangerous or difficult circumstances. They are meant to honor women whose contribution to journalism might influence future generations of the craft. Four women were honored this year, and I'm curious to hear what they have to say and have a few questions for them as well.
The first award recipient is Jill Carroll, the 28-year-old freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor who made headlines earlier this year for being abducted by Iraqi insurgents and held in captivity for 82 days. The things I would want to ask her are:
- What went through your mind when this was happening? Were you scared? What do you think was their purpose behind the kidnapping (which was never explicitly explained in media reports)?
- Did you think you were going to make it out of that situation alive? Did you ever have doubts?
- What did they do to you in those 82 days? What did you learn about the Iraqis in that period?
- Has this experience changed you as a journalist? Do you think it will affect any future stories you write?
- Do you plan on continuing to be an international reporter in contentious regions like Iraq and take such risks again? Would you say this type of reporting is worth it?
- Did you ever fear for your safety while being a reporter in Lebanon before the accident? Are journalists in that country ever targeted or unjustly attacked? What are the rules about freedome of the press there?
- What was going through your mind after the accident? Who did you think was responsible initially?
- Would you accept the possibility of being hurt as one of the trade offs in being an international reporter in contentious regions?
- How do you think international reporting in contentious regions will change in the future? Should future journalists fear that similar situations could happen to them?
- What factors did you consider before writing a story using this "leaked" information? Why did you conclude that it was important to print them?
- Were you aware of the possible repercussions of doing that? What were your ultimate goals in printing this, knowing China's restrictive media stance.
- How does the media in China compare to the United States? Without a first amendment-type law how can newspapers circumvent state control in that country?
- Having been a reporter there, do you think China every will become a democracy and promote a free press? Why or why not?
- How did writing in French newspapers compare to those in Mexico? Did your journalistic standards carry across the borders? What was different?
- Having helped create these literary outlets in Mexico, what do you see in the future of journalism and literature in terms of utilizing the Web as an outlet?
- Since you have so many accomplishments, what would you say is the most important of them to you personally and why?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Google buys YouTube
Maybe I am becoming a real blogger because the minute I read about Google's $1.65 billion purchase of YouTube, the first thing I wanted to do was write about it on my blog (meaning I would have to make two posts this week). Maybe it's because we spend so much time in class talking about Google - we read an entire book on it - and YouTube - which comes up in conversation every week - but mostly because I feel like this is something that was predicted in class. Someone was going to buy YouTube and help solve it's problems, and I'm not surprised it's Google - they are, after all, taking over the world like that video we watched in class suggested.
It's interesting to see what different media have to say about Google's purchasing YouTube because I haven't made up my mind of what I think about this yet. CNNMoney says that this acquisition may mean big things for the media world and that other search companies that lag behind Google are going to have to make changes to keep up (perhaps Yahoo! will buy Facebook like the rumors say). Meanwhile, The Washington Post's technology section calls Google's purchase "a gamble" and points out how at this point YouTube is unprofitable and it's ludicrous how much money Google spent on this deal, especially because of all of the copyright infringement issues and the fickleness of users (the article points to MySpace.com shifting from teenagers to people in their thirties after Facebook got hot). USA Today's story talks about Web 2.0 and how Google buying YouTube illustrates a trend in modern media - it's becoming less out of reach and more personalized. And the New York Times' take was skeptical as well, saying this looks like the dot-com bubble of the 90s, but will it work, or crash like a lot of dot-com businesses did then.
While I'm no expert I can only see good things for Google and YouTube's partnership - Google will be able to enhance its services to include one of the most popular video databases and YouTube can get a hand with it's copyright issues because Google already has deals with most of the music industries and other entertainment groups, and has the clout to work things out with them. This buyout also gives YouTube legitimacy, in my eyes. "If Google's getting involved, this must be one hell of a site," is what came to my mind after the news broke today. Also, I can expect YouTube to be a part of online journalism much like Google is a part of journalism research. I'm not sure how everyone else feels - the media is certainly skeptical - but I see this as a good thing. What do you think?
It's interesting to see what different media have to say about Google's purchasing YouTube because I haven't made up my mind of what I think about this yet. CNNMoney says that this acquisition may mean big things for the media world and that other search companies that lag behind Google are going to have to make changes to keep up (perhaps Yahoo! will buy Facebook like the rumors say). Meanwhile, The Washington Post's technology section calls Google's purchase "a gamble" and points out how at this point YouTube is unprofitable and it's ludicrous how much money Google spent on this deal, especially because of all of the copyright infringement issues and the fickleness of users (the article points to MySpace.com shifting from teenagers to people in their thirties after Facebook got hot). USA Today's story talks about Web 2.0 and how Google buying YouTube illustrates a trend in modern media - it's becoming less out of reach and more personalized. And the New York Times' take was skeptical as well, saying this looks like the dot-com bubble of the 90s, but will it work, or crash like a lot of dot-com businesses did then.
While I'm no expert I can only see good things for Google and YouTube's partnership - Google will be able to enhance its services to include one of the most popular video databases and YouTube can get a hand with it's copyright issues because Google already has deals with most of the music industries and other entertainment groups, and has the clout to work things out with them. This buyout also gives YouTube legitimacy, in my eyes. "If Google's getting involved, this must be one hell of a site," is what came to my mind after the news broke today. Also, I can expect YouTube to be a part of online journalism much like Google is a part of journalism research. I'm not sure how everyone else feels - the media is certainly skeptical - but I see this as a good thing. What do you think?
Up close and personal with BBC's deputy editor
I've always known about BBC and occasionally read something of their site but with all of the media competition in the U.S. - from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN, BBC was one of my last stops for news. But when Deputy Editor Paul Brannon made a presentation in class last week, it made me think a lot about the success of BBC, especially in Europe and what it has that American media is lacking - and to me it seems like the biggest thing in that category is user-generated content.
In his presentation, Brannon spent a lot of time talking about and giving examples of user generated content on BBC's site and I find it fascinating - every day people are submitting content for BBC to share with the rest of Britain, Europe and really the world. The only parallel I could think of in American media is freelancing, where people who are not employed distinctly by a media organization market their work to different media for a fee, but even that doesn't really compare.
From what Brannon said, user-generated content became a huge part of BBC content after the London bombings last summer - they even have a whole division in charge of it for God's sake. People in the city were using camera phones and video recorders or digital cameras to record what was happening among the chaos and BBC was able to get firsthand footage out of it. Brannon said on that day, BBC received 20,000 e-mails, 1,000 images and 3,000 texts from readers who wanted to either share their experiences with BBC or let them know what was going on. BBC reporters couldn't be in the subways filming the aftermath of the bombings, but the victims who had camera phones could - and that makes for powerful video. The fact that BBC took content from the average European and used it to convey the stories on the bombings, to me is outrageous. And since then, user generated content - which doesn't really equate to freelance on the one front that these people are not getting paid for BBC to use their stuff - has filled BBC's pages and broadcasts.
This concept is not all good. As Brannon pointed out, one of the main problems with accepting user-generated content is the frauds you will inevitably receive. Brannon showed us several photo shopped pictures or stolen art people tried to pass off as their own. Of course, you have to be careful but it shouldn't stop BBC from doing it.
I think this decision by BBC to accept user-generated content shows their embrace of Web 2.0 culture - something American media has yet to do to this extent. By allowing this, BBC is making their site more interactive for users and probably gaining a bigger following because readers can be directly involved in news gathering. It's something to connect them to BBC instead of some other media. I also think, since the site is already well-respected throughout Europe, this decision can only be seen positively. BBC is not too prestigious to share their role with the public - in fact, they encourage the public to join in. I think American media is still a little too pretentious and not trusting enough to concede a portion of their news gathering jobs to the average person and that's unfortunate. User-generated content seems like a great way to keep readers involved in media in an information age where newspapers aren't even necessary to get the news anymore. Maybe a direct connection with readers is what we need to save traditional journalism - and maybe that's why blogs have become such a successful media tool. What do you think?
In his presentation, Brannon spent a lot of time talking about and giving examples of user generated content on BBC's site and I find it fascinating - every day people are submitting content for BBC to share with the rest of Britain, Europe and really the world. The only parallel I could think of in American media is freelancing, where people who are not employed distinctly by a media organization market their work to different media for a fee, but even that doesn't really compare.
From what Brannon said, user-generated content became a huge part of BBC content after the London bombings last summer - they even have a whole division in charge of it for God's sake. People in the city were using camera phones and video recorders or digital cameras to record what was happening among the chaos and BBC was able to get firsthand footage out of it. Brannon said on that day, BBC received 20,000 e-mails, 1,000 images and 3,000 texts from readers who wanted to either share their experiences with BBC or let them know what was going on. BBC reporters couldn't be in the subways filming the aftermath of the bombings, but the victims who had camera phones could - and that makes for powerful video. The fact that BBC took content from the average European and used it to convey the stories on the bombings, to me is outrageous. And since then, user generated content - which doesn't really equate to freelance on the one front that these people are not getting paid for BBC to use their stuff - has filled BBC's pages and broadcasts.
This concept is not all good. As Brannon pointed out, one of the main problems with accepting user-generated content is the frauds you will inevitably receive. Brannon showed us several photo shopped pictures or stolen art people tried to pass off as their own. Of course, you have to be careful but it shouldn't stop BBC from doing it.
I think this decision by BBC to accept user-generated content shows their embrace of Web 2.0 culture - something American media has yet to do to this extent. By allowing this, BBC is making their site more interactive for users and probably gaining a bigger following because readers can be directly involved in news gathering. It's something to connect them to BBC instead of some other media. I also think, since the site is already well-respected throughout Europe, this decision can only be seen positively. BBC is not too prestigious to share their role with the public - in fact, they encourage the public to join in. I think American media is still a little too pretentious and not trusting enough to concede a portion of their news gathering jobs to the average person and that's unfortunate. User-generated content seems like a great way to keep readers involved in media in an information age where newspapers aren't even necessary to get the news anymore. Maybe a direct connection with readers is what we need to save traditional journalism - and maybe that's why blogs have become such a successful media tool. What do you think?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Battle Over YouTube
While I know we have talked a lot about YouTube in class and its financial and copyright issues, it wasn't until I read an analytical article in this week's Newsweek called "The Battle Over YouTube" that I fully understood the web of issues that surrounded the video-sharing site.
The Newsweek article explained to me that there are a lot of factors involved in YouTube's future -- Warner Music has struck a deal with the site's founders that by the end of the year the label will be able to yank any unauthorized songs or video clips off the site if the company doesn't like the way they are used or if Warner doesn't own all of the copyright to it. The two companies will then share any revenue YouTube gets from ads placed alongside Warner material. But even though YouTube has cracked this deal, it's still going to have legal, business and competition trouble.
The legal trouble will come from the other major music companies, including Universal, whose CEO said to investors last month that "copyright infringers" like YouTube and MySpace "owe us tens of millions of dollars." A lawsuit is pending.
The business trouble will come from trying to keep up with the costs of its success. YouTube streams 100 million videos a day over the Web and Internet experts estimate that costs more than $2 million a month. YouTube's advertising is starting to expand beyond the banner ad on the homepage, but many advertisers are turned off by crass or unappealing video content and don't want to go inside the site's pages to post their ad. So how is YouTube going to keep the revenue running? While the Warner and YouTube deal says the two will split ad revenue, an executive at a music company said in the Newsweek article that the terms of the deal don't make sense because "YouTube has no ad revenue to split."
Finally, competition to YouTube is cropping up everywhere - notably from Yahoo, Google, MySpace and Microsoft, which are creating their own user-generated video service.
I think the most interesting part of the article, though, is how some critics of YouTube draw parallels between the site and Napster's peak in the '90s. I remember when Napster first emerged on the Internet. I was in middle school, I think, and I thought it was the coolest thing I've ever seen to be able to download songs I've heard on the radio for free on my computer without having to go out and buy or burn the CD. Napster, much like YouTube, exploded as a popular peer-sharing site and was popular for awhile until the record industry shut it down. Some are pointing to a similar demise in YouTube's future, and I tend to agree.
YouTube's success doesn't seem able to sustain itself for the long run because of all these factors - the stresses on legality, business operations and competition - but also because it's one of those "too good to be true" sites. Like Napster, YouTube will one day have to charge for its video downloads, and then, Web surfers won't want to use it anymore. They will go to the competition. The music companies will prevail and copyright infringement accusations will overwhelm YouTube. And then, some company like Apple will come along, take YouTube's idea of letting users post videos and then charge others to download them and it will become the most popular thing that the software company has done yet. I may sound pessimistic, but Napster and YouTube have too many similarities that I can't see YouTube going a different course.
While searching the Web I came across Blog Maverick's site that addresses this very subject. He says:
"This so reminds me of the early days of Napster. They were the first to tell you it wasn't illegal. They didn't host anything but an index to link to all the illegal downloaders. YouTube doesn't upload anything illegal and will take down whatever you ask them to. Sounds legit right?"
Doesn't sound legit to me, but if you have any other insights on how YouTube can transcend this grim road ahead, let me know...
The Newsweek article explained to me that there are a lot of factors involved in YouTube's future -- Warner Music has struck a deal with the site's founders that by the end of the year the label will be able to yank any unauthorized songs or video clips off the site if the company doesn't like the way they are used or if Warner doesn't own all of the copyright to it. The two companies will then share any revenue YouTube gets from ads placed alongside Warner material. But even though YouTube has cracked this deal, it's still going to have legal, business and competition trouble.
The legal trouble will come from the other major music companies, including Universal, whose CEO said to investors last month that "copyright infringers" like YouTube and MySpace "owe us tens of millions of dollars." A lawsuit is pending.
The business trouble will come from trying to keep up with the costs of its success. YouTube streams 100 million videos a day over the Web and Internet experts estimate that costs more than $2 million a month. YouTube's advertising is starting to expand beyond the banner ad on the homepage, but many advertisers are turned off by crass or unappealing video content and don't want to go inside the site's pages to post their ad. So how is YouTube going to keep the revenue running? While the Warner and YouTube deal says the two will split ad revenue, an executive at a music company said in the Newsweek article that the terms of the deal don't make sense because "YouTube has no ad revenue to split."
Finally, competition to YouTube is cropping up everywhere - notably from Yahoo, Google, MySpace and Microsoft, which are creating their own user-generated video service.
I think the most interesting part of the article, though, is how some critics of YouTube draw parallels between the site and Napster's peak in the '90s. I remember when Napster first emerged on the Internet. I was in middle school, I think, and I thought it was the coolest thing I've ever seen to be able to download songs I've heard on the radio for free on my computer without having to go out and buy or burn the CD. Napster, much like YouTube, exploded as a popular peer-sharing site and was popular for awhile until the record industry shut it down. Some are pointing to a similar demise in YouTube's future, and I tend to agree.
YouTube's success doesn't seem able to sustain itself for the long run because of all these factors - the stresses on legality, business operations and competition - but also because it's one of those "too good to be true" sites. Like Napster, YouTube will one day have to charge for its video downloads, and then, Web surfers won't want to use it anymore. They will go to the competition. The music companies will prevail and copyright infringement accusations will overwhelm YouTube. And then, some company like Apple will come along, take YouTube's idea of letting users post videos and then charge others to download them and it will become the most popular thing that the software company has done yet. I may sound pessimistic, but Napster and YouTube have too many similarities that I can't see YouTube going a different course.
While searching the Web I came across Blog Maverick's site that addresses this very subject. He says:
"This so reminds me of the early days of Napster. They were the first to tell you it wasn't illegal. They didn't host anything but an index to link to all the illegal downloaders. YouTube doesn't upload anything illegal and will take down whatever you ask them to. Sounds legit right?"
Doesn't sound legit to me, but if you have any other insights on how YouTube can transcend this grim road ahead, let me know...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
An example of newsroom convergence
From what I've seen and heard, these days newspaper offices are concentrating on satisfying one concept: convergence. I really didn't know what this meant until I interned at USA Today this past summer. At the first staff meeting I sat in the person leading it kept mentioning the "convergence" the newspaper was trying to undergo (it had moved the offices of the .com section of the paper to the third floor with the rest of editorial). I found it interesting that before that, the Internet division and the print division of the paper were run so separately - I thought they were one in the same. But editors made it clear that this was an ongoing effort and a hard one at that, which sparked my interest because everyone keeps telling me that the future of journalism is online, and I hope to be a part of the future of journalism.
This past week at my internship at washingtonpost.com I've been reading a new feature that really hits the convergence concept on the head. I work in the politics section and since the midterm elections are right around the corner editors at both the print and online components of The Post are trying to find innovative ways to get as much information to readers as possible.
Last week the politics section launched the Ohio River Ramble, a new interactive feature where one reporter from the .com half of The Post - Chris Cillizza who blogs constantly about politics on the Web site - and one reporter from the print side - national political reporter Jim Vandehei - hit the road together to report on nine congressional districts in the Midwest in nine days. deputy multimedia editor Chet Rhodes is also thrown into this mix, making this project truly unique and interactive.
The way it works is that both of the reporters on the campaign trail drop their traditional roles and work together to produce a convergent product. Cillizza is writing stories for print in The Post, while Vandehei is blogging away on the Web site all over Cillizza's typical domain and Rhodes shoots video to enhance the multimedia effect of the project. To me, this is a great example for the online journalism world to take note because I haven't seen much of this before.
And, I find it particularly fascinating because the .com newsroom for The Post isn't just on a separate floor like it was for USA Today - it's in a different city. The print component of The Post is located in downtown D.C. while the .com offices are in Arlington. So you can see how it is interesting these two entirely separate entities were able to produce this product. It also excites me because I see it as a glimpse into what my future could be like as a reporter. I won't only be responsible for writing good copy, I will need to take into consideration the blogging factor for the story, the video and anything else to take my stories to the multimedia extreme. Maybe I'm just an online news virgin and don't know enough about it, but I was impressed...what do you think?
This past week at my internship at washingtonpost.com I've been reading a new feature that really hits the convergence concept on the head. I work in the politics section and since the midterm elections are right around the corner editors at both the print and online components of The Post are trying to find innovative ways to get as much information to readers as possible.
Last week the politics section launched the Ohio River Ramble, a new interactive feature where one reporter from the .com half of The Post - Chris Cillizza who blogs constantly about politics on the Web site - and one reporter from the print side - national political reporter Jim Vandehei - hit the road together to report on nine congressional districts in the Midwest in nine days. deputy multimedia editor Chet Rhodes is also thrown into this mix, making this project truly unique and interactive.
The way it works is that both of the reporters on the campaign trail drop their traditional roles and work together to produce a convergent product. Cillizza is writing stories for print in The Post, while Vandehei is blogging away on the Web site all over Cillizza's typical domain and Rhodes shoots video to enhance the multimedia effect of the project. To me, this is a great example for the online journalism world to take note because I haven't seen much of this before.
And, I find it particularly fascinating because the .com newsroom for The Post isn't just on a separate floor like it was for USA Today - it's in a different city. The print component of The Post is located in downtown D.C. while the .com offices are in Arlington. So you can see how it is interesting these two entirely separate entities were able to produce this product. It also excites me because I see it as a glimpse into what my future could be like as a reporter. I won't only be responsible for writing good copy, I will need to take into consideration the blogging factor for the story, the video and anything else to take my stories to the multimedia extreme. Maybe I'm just an online news virgin and don't know enough about it, but I was impressed...what do you think?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Oversized ads are getting on my nerves...
I don't know if this is a relatively new phenomenon in the world of media advertising or not, but about ten times this week alone I've already ran into annoying advertisements preventing me from reading my news at online sites.
These "in your face" ads first started to bother me while I was at work, where I am constantly clicking on media sites. I work at washingtonpost.com as an intern in their politics section every morning and one of my responsibilities is to update the Web site either by text linking, writing for their campaign 2006 page, or just reading the news. But every time I clicked on a link an annoying full screen ad would pop up and not let me close it until it finished flashing or spinning or whatever it was doing.
Even my boss was annoyed while he was clicking away and said to me, "I guess they pay the bills." And that's very true - advertisers do want to be in your face to get your attention and have the ability to do so and a good amount of exposure on news sites where you have a specific demographic checking in each day, but I'm still not sold on if this is a good idea or not. At least in print, or even online before they started popping up in my face, I had the choice of whether or not I wanted to look at an ad and I was able to let things I was interested in looking at catch my eye instead of having it thrust in front of me.
And at first I just thought it was washingtonpost.com that was letting their advertising take over their site, but then the same thing happened to me again later that afternoon when I was browsing around USAToday.com. A large ad popped up with a bullfrog on a lily pad and I don't even know it was for, but I knew that I wasn't interested.
I don't know if it's just me, but these ads don't do anything for me. They don't make me want to sign up for a Citibank credit card or purchase a new ipod. They are more an annoyance than an eye catcher and I can't wait to click and close them out.
But one interesting thing that comes to mind when I see these ads is last class when we went to archive.org and looked at the way back machine to see newspaper sites from the '90s or even early 2000s when ads were nothing more than immobile, boring looking boxes on the screen. While it's interesting to see how far media advertising has come - from when they were small icons on the 1998 Los Angeles Times Web site to today when they are multimedia, full-colored, large ads, it makes me wonder if advertising on media Web sites has gone too far? Are our news sites primarily news sources or are they just about the ads? What do you think...
These "in your face" ads first started to bother me while I was at work, where I am constantly clicking on media sites. I work at washingtonpost.com as an intern in their politics section every morning and one of my responsibilities is to update the Web site either by text linking, writing for their campaign 2006 page, or just reading the news. But every time I clicked on a link an annoying full screen ad would pop up and not let me close it until it finished flashing or spinning or whatever it was doing.
Even my boss was annoyed while he was clicking away and said to me, "I guess they pay the bills." And that's very true - advertisers do want to be in your face to get your attention and have the ability to do so and a good amount of exposure on news sites where you have a specific demographic checking in each day, but I'm still not sold on if this is a good idea or not. At least in print, or even online before they started popping up in my face, I had the choice of whether or not I wanted to look at an ad and I was able to let things I was interested in looking at catch my eye instead of having it thrust in front of me.
And at first I just thought it was washingtonpost.com that was letting their advertising take over their site, but then the same thing happened to me again later that afternoon when I was browsing around USAToday.com. A large ad popped up with a bullfrog on a lily pad and I don't even know it was for, but I knew that I wasn't interested.
I don't know if it's just me, but these ads don't do anything for me. They don't make me want to sign up for a Citibank credit card or purchase a new ipod. They are more an annoyance than an eye catcher and I can't wait to click and close them out.
But one interesting thing that comes to mind when I see these ads is last class when we went to archive.org and looked at the way back machine to see newspaper sites from the '90s or even early 2000s when ads were nothing more than immobile, boring looking boxes on the screen. While it's interesting to see how far media advertising has come - from when they were small icons on the 1998 Los Angeles Times Web site to today when they are multimedia, full-colored, large ads, it makes me wonder if advertising on media Web sites has gone too far? Are our news sites primarily news sources or are they just about the ads? What do you think...
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
A way to get around copyright?
Before this blog was even up and running I had problems with copyright law. Professor King said on our first night in class that we each had to create our own blog so we could discuss online media issues and all I thought about was the visuals I wanted my blog to have. Nice colors, pretty fonts and lots of complementing photos. Blogging about Katie Couric? Nice, I could put a cute picture of her from usatoday.com to go alongside my post. But wait - is there a copyright on that photo? Am I legally allowed to use it on my blog? Doesn't everyone just steal everything off the Internet anyway? What's the big deal?
I've run into this before - I work for the student newspaper The GW Hatchet and last year for the Student Association elections one of the candidates copied one of the photos of him from the paper and used it for his flyers around campus. He ended up violating copyright law and had to pay us a pretty hefty fee for using it. After that I realized how serious copyright violations could be. This kid had to pay hundreds of dollars because he didn't take it seriously, or maybe he didn't even know about it.
But it's all about getting the credit that is due. In my mind, copyright became serious for people in my generation after file sharing systems like Napster and people who downloaded from them started getting sued for downloading free music from the Internet and therefore hurting the artist's profits. Copyright is everywhere in the U.S. - from movies to music to news stories to photos and what if you want to watch, listen, read or look at any of these? You have to pay the price. No wonder someone started a non-profit to make things easier on both the originator and the person who wants to use their work.
Creative Commons is a great compromise for people in my generation that have grown up using computers. We want to download everything and don't expect to have to pay. Creative Commons has found a compromise, which is exactly what we need. According to their Web site, the organization allows copyrigh holders to grant some of their rights to the public while keeping others through a variety of licensing schemes. Creative Commons saw that there was a demand for sharing online files without cost and sought to eliminate the problem. I think it's a great solution. What do you think?
I've run into this before - I work for the student newspaper The GW Hatchet and last year for the Student Association elections one of the candidates copied one of the photos of him from the paper and used it for his flyers around campus. He ended up violating copyright law and had to pay us a pretty hefty fee for using it. After that I realized how serious copyright violations could be. This kid had to pay hundreds of dollars because he didn't take it seriously, or maybe he didn't even know about it.
But it's all about getting the credit that is due. In my mind, copyright became serious for people in my generation after file sharing systems like Napster and people who downloaded from them started getting sued for downloading free music from the Internet and therefore hurting the artist's profits. Copyright is everywhere in the U.S. - from movies to music to news stories to photos and what if you want to watch, listen, read or look at any of these? You have to pay the price. No wonder someone started a non-profit to make things easier on both the originator and the person who wants to use their work.
Creative Commons is a great compromise for people in my generation that have grown up using computers. We want to download everything and don't expect to have to pay. Creative Commons has found a compromise, which is exactly what we need. According to their Web site, the organization allows copyrigh holders to grant some of their rights to the public while keeping others through a variety of licensing schemes. Creative Commons saw that there was a demand for sharing online files without cost and sought to eliminate the problem. I think it's a great solution. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
