OJR: The Online Journalism Review
February 7, 2012
By Robert Niles
No comments | 
Archive Link
Inherent within the whole "truth vigilante" meme lies a tough question for many journalists:
"What if I don't feel qualified to decide who's telling the truth?"
If you've ever asked yourself that question, give yourself a well-earned point for honesty. The best journalists remain ever skeptical, not just of their data and sources, but of their own biases, roles and decision-making in reporting a story. But even as journalists challenge themselves, they must be able to meet those challenges.
Stenography isn't journalism. "He said, she said" isn't journalism. Throwing your reporting at the page and hoping that the reader figures it all out isn't journalism. Journalism demands judgment - decisions whether a story is newsworthy, and judgments about the truth of information included within that story.
So, yeah, if you're going to do this job effectively, you've got to be able to tell who's telling the truth - and have the confidence in that decision to make it public in your reports.
Why is this even an issue? Why would journalists be working on beats where they didn't have the deep knowledge and experience they'd need to be able to make consistent calls on the truthfulness of the information they collect?
As usual, the answer is "money."
Continue reading...
More about: ethics, management, reporting
Comments (0) • 
Email to a friend
February 3, 2012
By Robert Niles
No comments | Archive Link
How can you increase your website's traffic by looking at your current website readership data?
The answer to that question might seem obvious, but I warn you that too many news publishers approach this question from the wrong direction - and could be hurting their businesses as a result.
The obvious answer to the website traffic question appears to be... to look at what's getting the most page views on your site, and to write more articles like those.
Don't do that.
Why? Chasing traffic by trying to duplicate your most successful content ultimately narrows the focus of your website, as you try to focus on specific topics, features and tone that's drawn visitors in the past, to the exclusion of other stories and styles. It leaves you (or your staff) feeling cynical, coming to believe that your coverage is being driving by chasing traffic instead of chasing the news. Trying to duplicate past success is reactive instead of proactive - and over the long run that too often leads to a dispirited staff producing formulaic, sterile, mechanical work that runs the risk of turning off readers and advertisers.
So how can traffic data help you to create a more popular website?
Instead of looking at what's attracting eyeballs, flip your analysis around. Focus not on what's working, but what isn't.
Continue reading...
More about: management, reporting, website design
Comments (0) • Email to a friend
January 31, 2012
By Robert Niles
1 comment | Archive Link
Newspapers and book publishers could learn some valuable lessons from one another. Unfortunately, it appears that the book industry's going to make the same costly mistakes as the newspaper industry did, instead.
I thought again that as I read the New York Times' story about Barnes & Noble from last weekend, The Bookstore's Last Stand. The Times wrote of the publishing industry's hope that Barnes & Noble will be able to stand up to the challenge from Amazon.com, preserving a major retailer where their companies' products are king.
Like many struggling businesses, book publishers are cutting costs and trimming work forces. Yes, electronic books are booming, sometimes profitably, but not many publishers want e-books to dominate print books. Amazon’s chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, wants to cut out the middleman — that is, traditional publishers — by publishing e-books directly.Which is why Barnes & Noble, once viewed as the brutal capitalist of the book trade, now seems so crucial to that industry’s future. Sure, you can buy bestsellers at Walmart and potboilers at the supermarket. But in many locales, Barnes & Noble is the only retailer offering a wide selection of books. If something were to happen to Barnes & Noble, if it were merely to scale back its ambitions, Amazon could become even more powerful and — well, the very thought makes publishers queasy.
If Barnes & Noble's future is tied to that of the print book publishing houses, then Barnes & Noble is as doomed as Borders, Crown Books and the other brick-and-mortar booksellers that have proceeded it into oblivion.
The Nook alone will not save Barnes & Noble's business because the change that is roiling the publishing business today - whether it be for books or for newspapers - is not simply a transition from printed media to digital. It's a transition from a marketplace where information was controlled by a few gatekeepers to one where anyone may offer their content to a mass audience.
This isn't about eBooks versus printed books. It's about a book industry where supply is controlled by a few publishing houses or one where supply is opened to all who wish to publish something.
In short, it's not the medium; it's the market. If your business model is based upon controlling access to the information marketplace, you're doomed. If your business model is based instead upon enabling and expanding access to the market, you have a chance of succeeding. And that is what has the book industry scared.
Continue reading...
More about: ebooks, entrepreneurial journalism, management, revenue
Comments (1) • Email to a friend
January 27, 2012
By Steve Fox
3 comments | Archive Link
A couple of weeks ago I was at a hockey game with my son. During the game, as I absentmindedly checked emails on my phone, I saw a Twitter note from an alumni of the UMass program saying "Look at what this person is saying about you!" Without thinking, I clicked on the link....and instantly kicked myself for doing so, as the link spawned a Twitter spam, sending the virus to hundreds of my Twitter followers. It was the first time for me, but definitely reminded me about the power of social media. I heard from friends, colleagues and students about the spam, and ended up apologizing more than once for not following my own advice to students: Think Before You Click!
The social media dustup surrounding the early and inaccurate reports of Joe Paterno's death once again brought to the forefront how the rapid nature of social media can lead to bad journalism. It was deja vu all over again: A year ago NPR mistakenly reported that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had died after being shot in the head.
Why do journalists keep botching the facts on Twitter?
I posed a question along these lines on the Social Journalism Educators group on Facebook and received some of the requisite "it's not Twitter's fault;" and Twitter is "only" an amplification device. As much as I love most of what Matthew Ingram writes, his post on the Paterno screw-up being another example of "news as a process" worries me. Defenders of the social media realm rarely seem to want to get at why these massive ethical lapses continue to occur on Twitter. And I just won't buy the idea that "this is the way it is" or "letting everyone know you made a mistake is great for transparent journalism."
Don't get me wrong, I love the many benefits of social media and I teach about its journalistic value. But I also feel that we all need to begin practicing "safe social media" practices to protect us all.
After the Giffords debacle, Alicia Shepard, the former ombudsman for NPR, wrote a column about the need for journalists to re-learn the lesson of checking sources. And she counters the shrugs inherent in many comments from social media defenders by reminding us all why it's important to get it right, even if it's not first: "...To report a death, incorrectly, is a serious, serious error and may have caused untold grief and pain for many who know Giffords." Journalism is about process but the process is to get the correct information out, not to throw spaghetti against the wall, see what sticks and sort it all out later.
So, what to do?
Continue reading...
More about: ethics, reporting, social media
Comments (3) • Email to a friend
January 25, 2012
By Robert Niles
2 comments | Archive Link
So, is Apple's new iBooks Author the solution for journalists looking for a simpler way to get into the eBooks market?Nope, not even close.
Oh…kay, so is Apple's new iBooks Author at least another option for writers looking to pick up some extra money writing eBooks?
Sure.
Apple released its new eBook production tool last week, coupled with an upgrade to its iBooks app. Apple's trying to get into the textbook market, positioning its iPad as an electronic textbook reader. But to do that, Apple needs an ongoing supply of eBook textbooks. The company's signed deals with some textbook publishers, but it's also offering the iBooks Author tool to encourage more people to create texts, as well.
The iBooks Author app's gotten plenty of attention since its release for its user license restriction that any book created with it can only be sold through the iBookstore. No Amazon. No Barnes and Noble. While iBooks Author can export files as a PDF, it won't generate the ePub file needed for best results in publishing eBooks through those and other online vendors.
That alone disqualifies the iBooks Author app as a serious option for any journalist looking for a single eBook creation solution. Better to continue creating an HTML file using your favorite editor, then running that file through Calibre to generate your ePub, which you can submit to Amazon, BN.com... and the iBookstore. The iBooks Author app also requires that you be running Mac OS Lion - it won't download to Macs running Snow Leopard or earlier versions of the Mac OS. And if you're using Windows? Fuggedaboutit.
But if you do have Lion, creating a book through iBooks Author and selling it exclusively through Apple is better than not making or selling eBooks at all.
Continue reading...
More about: ebooks, entrepreneurial journalism
Comments (2) • Email to a friend
RSS Feed
