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.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
