Forget the backpack, 'pocket journalism' is coming

December 16, 2006 By Leave a Comment

[Editor's note: We at OJR and USC Annenberg would like to wish you a happy holiday season before we take a break for the next two weeks. In the meantime, we leave you with a piece that might provoke little holiday gift envy, courtesy of our friend Clyde Bentley, an Associate Professor at the Missouri School of Journalism.]

“Backpack” journalism? How old fashioned. My newsroom is in my pocket.

I may have literally picked up the future of journalism while in London this fall. For the past two months I have field-tested a cell phone so sophisticated it defies that name. It’s the forerunner of a new generation of convergence device that could change the way we do our job.

I came to the UK to shepherd a class of Missouri School of Journalism students for four months while they learned how the rest of the world gets its news.

The trip gave me the opportunity to scratch one of my biggest technology itches. When I went to Korea a few years ago, I saw a society that was rapidly moving away from the laptop computer and toward hand-held super cell phones. But between the language barrier and my own awe, I never really figured out why the Koreans could watch video on their phones and I could only check my voice mail.

The answer to my question came from Mark Squires, head of communications for Nokia UK. Rather than give me a technical answer, he reminded me that it’s “Knock-y-ah” and handed me an impressive chunk of aluminum, silicon and glass. It looked something like Spock’s tricorder.

The Vulcan’s machine only worked in three dimensions, however. This N93 is on paper a 3G (Third Generation) cellular telephone. But in fact it shoots high quality still and video photos, displays them for you on a 2.4-inch active matrix screen or connects to a standard television, downloads any Web page you want, produces copy on Microsoft Word, displays your presentations on PowerPoint, keeps your expense account on Excel, opens that e-Book on Adobe Reader, records the mayor’s speech in digital audio, phones Mongolia free on Skype, polishes your shoes and teaches your kids Latin.

Well, maybe not the last two. But it does include a bar code reader if you are ever curious about those thick and thin lines.

I’m not a technologist, but I proudly speak basic Geek. Nevertheless, I was overwhelmed. Maybe hyperwhelmed.

The N93 is Nokia’s latest attempt to pack the whole technology world into a pocket-sized package. It is the big brother of the N90, a lighter and simpler camera-cum-telephone that has made American inroads and which several of my students gleefully tested.

In fact, a super telephone is just a pocket or purse away on any London street. People here can buy 3G telephones at any of the Orange, Carphone Warehouse, O2 or T-mobile shops that occupy every other doorway on High Street. As you watch the world go by from the second deck of a bus, the people around you check their e-mail or text messages, share photos, find a map to a restaurant or listen to music.

Yes, listen to music. The techno world predicted that video messaging would be the killer app for 3G. But the iPod generation discovered the system allowed them to download music or even music videos to play through the phone.

The N93 has a dandy MP3 player as well as an MP4 player for your videos. But I’m old fashioned – I liked the built-in FM radio.

As much as I loved to play with the buttons on the slick little machine, my job was to see if it had a future in the journalism world.

It does. And it will only get better as Nokia, Samsung and the other cellphone wizards improve the concept by making smaller and lighter units

Calling wonder boxes like the N93 a “cell phone” is a misnomer. They are advanced communications devices with telephony thrown in – more like a little laptop that can call home.

We are still installing a 3G network in the United States and it will be some time until it is ubiquitous. Japan and Korea are so far ahead they are looking at 4G and the European cell system upgraded to that level some time ago.

What are we are missing out on with our clunky second generation cell phones? Incredible bandwidth, for one. The 5 Mhz frequency of 3G allows 384 kbps from mobile systems and a blazing 2Mbps from stationary systems. This means mobile video calls are a reality. But it also means that we in the information world can burst tons of data back to the office and even stream video from our phone.

But that’s in the future for most of the U.S. And it’s not why I’m excited by a 4×6-inch device.

Even without the capacity of 3G, the N93 allows journalists to do almost everything they would with a host of other appliances. The phone comes with two cameras. The “ordinary” low-rez camera comes on when you flip open the phone, letting you see your own smiling face until you launch a video call.

But more significant is the 3.5 MP camera with a 3x optical zoom that tops the N93. Both my students and I used the camera to shoot everything from crowds to portraits to landscapes in London. We sent side-by-side test shots back to the Mizzou photojournalism department and found they were as sharp as those from my Canon A520 (usually in my other pocket) and quite usable for print and online reproduction.

It’s the video, however, that astounds. It records and plays at full VGA – 640 x 480 pixels – at 30 frames per second. One UK reviewer said the resolution combined with the optics competes with almost every amateur camcorder on the market. And we are not talking about brief clips here. Pop a miniSD chip into the expansion slot and you can shoot a 90-minute feature.

A journalist with only an N93 can then go to a coffee shop, edit the feature with the included Adobe Premiere software and send it to the office.

Oh, yea. Not having a 3G connection is less of a problem than it sounds. The N93 has built-in Wi-Fi.

Despite all that, I wasn’t ready to go into the field without my trusty PowerBook until I discovered the Microsoft Office suite and the ability to hook to a portable keyboard via Bluetooth or USB 2.0.

I didn’t have a keyboard available in London. But I once had one for my now-retired Palm Pilot. I loved the ability to pull the Palm from one pocket and the folded-but-full-sized keyboard from another and type for hours. The smaller screen is really not bad for text entry and becomes second-nature quickly. Remember, half the world communicates by text-messaging on even smaller screens and 10-key pads.

At this stage in the technology’s development, using a device such as the Nokia N93 is not yet a perfect solution for the journalists. There are many times when a bulky camera, a powerful computer or a sophisticated digital audio unit is needed. The N93 is chunky for a phone (about 6 ounces) but lighter than the combined pieces of equipment it replaces.

Squires said the larger size of business cell phones is less of a problem in Europe than in the U.S. Purchasing cell phones at face value instead of via a calling plan is so common that many people have multiple units. He has a wafer-thin “evening phone” to which he transfers his SIM when the workday is done, similar to a woman who exchanges her shoulder bag for an elegant clutch for an evening at the theater.

But I’d put up with the size. I will whimper when I give my loaner N93 back to Nokia and will have the $699 gadget on my wish list. I’m looking forward to the day I always work from a pocketful of technology.

My dream scenario is walking into a neighborhood in jeans and sweatshirt, an N93 in one pocket and a keyboard in the other. Sans my tell-tale computer bag and camera, I think I could be just one of the boys as I developed my contacts. And when the time came, I could record audio clips of background sounds, take a few photos of the street corner crowd then shoot a video clip of that great old codger. Back at the café, I could type my story, file it to the office and amble into the sunset.

Now that’s new media journalism. And who knows how we will do journalism when Nokea gets to the N203? Beam me up.

Filed Under: Reporting Tagged With: , ,

Governments jailing more Internet journalists

December 8, 2006 By 1 Comment

A new report from the Committee to Project Journalists finds that increasingly, online journalists are being imprisoned for their work, causing an increase in the number of incarcerated journalists for the second straight year. CPJ said that as of December 1, 49 of 134 imprisoned journalists worldwide work via the Internet — the highest number in that category since CPJ began keeping records in 1997. Print journalists remain the largest category of imprisoned journalists; 67 print reporters, editors and photographers are behind bars, CPJ said.

China, Eritrea and Cuba top the list of governments responsible for jailing journalists, but the United States is responsible for incarcerating two journalists without charges, as part of the War on Terror. Bilal Hussein, a free-lance photographer for the Associated Press, has been held by US Security forces since April 12, 2006. Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj was arrested December 15, 2001 by US forces in Afghanistan; he is currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

According to the 2006 Press Freedom Index compiled by another journalists’-rights group, Reporters Without Borders, the United States’ treatment of journalists placed it at 53rd on its press freedom list, tied with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. China, Cuba and Eritrea ranked 163, 165 and 166 on the list, making them the countries with third, fifth and sixth most repressive records in the area of free expression. When the RSF began producing its list five years ago, the US rank was at 17.

Abi Wright, CPJ’s communications director, spoke to OJR about the new study of jailed journalists:

Wright: I think the rise in the number of Internet journalists on our prison list this year is startling, and reflective of trends that we’ve been following since 1997, when we documented the first jailing of an Internet writer. I think there’s two things going on. First of all, there are more people writing and doing journalism online. Secondly, the perennial offenders, China and Cuba , in particular, are just saying an increasing, or ever-present, I should say, intolerance towards reporting and dissent in any form, and online in particular.

OJR: You’ve pointed out that one in three of the journalists now in jail is an Internet blogger, web-based editor, or online reporter, and a large number of these people are not necessarily paid journalists, but citizen journalists?

Wright: Exactly. The nature varies from country to country. In countries like China, access to work as a journalist is very restricted. There’s party membership and all kinds of memberships required and it’s highly regulated and restricted. Writers and citizens have found the Internet to be one way that they can get information and transfer information. In Cuba, which is a slightly different example, a lot of journalists whose work ends up online, they actually telephone or transmit the information through different means, but it ends up being published online because they have no other way of just doing journalism there through official routes. So it’s reflective of the media environments in all of those countries.

OJR: Many of the people you are talking about are being held in secret locations and without charges. How do you get information about what’s happened to them?

Wright: Well, that is another sort of regrettable trend that we have documented, that 20 of the journalists on our imprisoned list this year, or 15 percent, are being held without charge. We have sources in countries like Eritrea, where we are able to verify information about journalists there. But it’s very difficult. We have reports that [several journalists held in Eritrea] may have been killed or may have died since they’ve been in prison. So, it’s challenging to get information about them, but it’s a real priority for us, absolutely. Journalists like [AP] photographer Bilal Hussein, and the cameraman for al-Jazeera, Sami al-Haj, we work closely with news organizations who have had employees detained to get information. And we also appeal directly to the US government about these cases.

OJR: Have international human rights organizations, the Red Cross, the UN or similar organizations been able to get to these people to verify their well-being?

Wright: In the case of Sami al-Haj, I know his lawyer has been in touch. He has a lawyer who is in communications with him. Communication with Bilal Hussein has been more problematic. He’s been held since April. We have called repeatedly on US authorities to make public the information that they allegedly have on these individuals and to either charge them, or release them. Different officials have assured us that they have evidence of some activity that could be seen as criminal, but we just don’t know what that is.

OJR: Leaders of the new Congress that will take office in January have promised new investigations into various aspects of the conduct of the War on Terror. Do you know whether the treatment of journalists will be part of that investigation?

Wright: I don’t know whether the treatment of journalists or international press freedom will be an issue for them, but I can tell you that during the confirmation hearings for [newly-confirmed US Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates, Senator Warner of Virginia specifically asked about journalists’ safety, and mentioned CPJ. So we know that it is on lawmakers’ minds. And we are certainly doing everything we can to make sure that the situation for journalists, especially imprisoned journalists, in countries like China, Cuba, Eritrea, and also of course, those in US custody — that these cases are brought to the attention of lawmakers.

OJR: One case that CPJ has expressed concern about is the murder of Brad Will, an independent journalist who was gunned down October 27 while filming a protest by striking teachers in Oaxaca, Mexico . Some have called for the US to get involved in the investigation. What’s CPJ’s position?

Wright: My understanding is that the most recent development in that case has been very disturbing — the individuals who were arrested and charged with his murder have been set free.

OJR: Right.

Wright: We’ve been very active in Mexico, where there has been a string of murders, especially along the [US-Mexican] border area, where there’s known drug trafficking. We called on Mexico to appoint a special prosecutor for crimes against journalists. Under Pres. Vicente Fox, such a prosecutor was appointed, and I know that there is momentum to bring these crimes to a federal level, which would help expedite the prosecution of these cases. So from CPJ’s standpoint, we are pressuring Mexican authorities to bring those responsible for the murder of Brad Will to justice.

OJR: Any final thoughts that you hope readers will take away from this report.

Wright: I think it reflects a real change in the journalism landscape, when you have the second category of journalists behind bars being online journalists that shows a tremendous growth over the last decade. I think there’s no question. I think there’s no question, especially in Western democracies, but also in these other growing developing countries, that the Internet is a major conduit for information, and it will continue to be so. We will be fighting government attempts to crackdown on this as much as we can.

When the Internet was formed, the idea behind it was that it would be impossible to control and to censor. These governments are challenging that notion. I think it’s important for groups like CPJ and other members of the online community to remain vigilant in publicizing these attacks on journalists.

Filed Under: Reporting Tagged With: , ,

Online newspapers and the 2006 election: bland ambitions?

November 5, 2006 By Leave a Comment

Alexis de Tocqueville once characterized American newspapers as a roadmap for citizens, especially as they come together and meet in the public square:

A newspaper then takes up the notion or the feeling which had occurred simultaneously, but singly, to each of them. All are then immediately guided towards this beacon; and these wandering minds, which had long sought each other in darkness, at lengths meet and unite. (Democracy in America, Book Two, Chapter vi.)

As we wrap up another U.S. election, one may ask: are newspapers, in their modern online versions, still meeting de Tocqueville’s great expectations?

Research from the Pew Internet Project shows that the number of Americans who now turn to the Internet for information about campaigns on a typical day has jumped from 11 million in 2002 (the last mid-term election cycle) to 26 million. Surely, a considerable chunk of this 26 million may be visiting national sites such as CNN, NPR, MSNBC, blogs, and increasingly, YouTube. But as the late Tip O’Neill once said, all politics is local, and most online newspapers can offer their readers a uniquely local focus that sites such as CNN and MSNBC cannot.

To better assess the online newspaper industry and its commitment to providing citizens with information on the election, I decided to conduct an inventory of each daily newspaper website in the country from October 14 through November 3, 2006.

According to the 2006 International Year Book printed by Editor & Publisher, there are 1,452 daily newspapers in the United States. Only those online newspaper sites that were free for readers and had fully functioning websites were included, which ultimately reduced the total number to 1,312 sites.

Criteria

First, I determined if the site had carved out a section of the site and devoted it exclusively to the 2006 election. It had to be a section that was a clearinghouse created specifically for the campaign that a voter would be able to access if he or she wanted news and information just about the election. While virtually all sites integrated news about the election in their general local and national news sections, this alone would not meet the criteria.

Next, I examined the individual components of those sites with special election sections to determine their depth and richness. First, I calculated the number of sites that exhibited multimedia, other than polls. Were there podcasts or video clips of debates, or staff-generated interviews of the different candidates, for instance?

Second, I tallied how many sites offered information specifically on the candidates, and sought to break down the issues for the reader. For example, could visitors read individual profiles of a particular candidate?

Third, I surveyed how many of the sites provided readers with a chance to interact with either reporters or other readers. Were there blogs or forums in which readers could express their own opinions?

And fourth, I determined the number of sites that included details on the logistics of voting: registration information, polling locations, voter-eligibility requirements, and primary results.

Results

I found that the industry’s overall performance can probably best be assessed as uneven. Just 27% of all online newspaper sites offered a separate section for campaign and election news. Digging deeper, a few findings stand out.

First, it may be that the rich are getting richer. Those sites with the largest print circulation, and arguably, the most revenue and resources to allocate for an online election section, were most likely to display one. According to the International Year Book, the average daily circulation of all newspapers in the country is roughly 36,700. Meanwhile, the average daily circulation for those newspapers sites that offered a special election section was more than double that number at 86,500.

Breaking down the numbers by state also shows that those states with the highest concentration of registered voters were more likely than others to have sites with election sections.

Among those states with the highest number of sites that included election sections were Florida (56% of all daily sites displayed an election section), Maine (50%), Maryland (60%), Oregon (59%), North Carolina, (40%), Oregon (59%), South Carolina (40%), Vermont (43%), Virginia (42%), Washington (57%), and Wisconsin (43%). With the exception of Virginia, all of these states had a voter registration percentage equal to or higher than the national average, according to the latest registration data from the U.S. Census Bureau. One might assume that registered voters were already the most engaged citizens while unregistered voters could have most benefited from additional coverage.

On a different note, there was also the possibility that ownership affected the overall number of sites offering an election section. As other research has shown, there is a heavy concentration of ownership among the country’s newspapers. While conducting this study, I noticed that many sites were straight-jacketed by the homogenous online format associated with a particular newspaper owner. Thus, if there was one company that did not offer an election section, all the sites owned by that company did not do so–if they were locked into a general Web structure. The one exception to this trend was Gannett.

The sites fared slightly better when their individual components were measured. Fully sixty percent of all sites with election sections offered in-depth information on the issues and candidates participating in the elections. There were many biographical and professional profiles, and “Q & As” allowed citizens to quickly compare and contrast opposing candidates.

Meanwhile, 56% of all sites with an election section provided readers with the opportunity to interact with stories and other readers. Not only did many sites offer readers the chance to post a comment on a news story or profile, but several sites established campaign-specific blogs for the election.

Next, 54% of the sites with election sections listed information on voting logistics. Perhaps this is the most surprising finding since it involved seemingly so few resources. Many sites simply linked to the local Board of Elections where voters could find their polling place or request an absentee ballot and this was sufficient to meet the criteria for this aspect of the study. Why only a small majority was able to do so baffled me.

And finally, roughly four in 10 included multimedia in their election sections. Since it could very well be that resources were the key factor for online website editors and staff, it is perhaps not surprising that so few sites could offer video, audio, interactive maps, or slideshows for citizens.

Many Americans may be satisfied with the breadth and depth of online coverage of the election. National sites like MSNBC and CNN offer a dizzying array of multimedia and investigative journalism that only a handful of newspaper sites have the personnel and resources to provide. Moreover, there is the 800-lb gorilla–television–that still serves as the overwhelming choice for most Americans when it comes to election news and information. But because newspapers have long been considered the standard bearer of quality and reliable reporting on local politics, particularly as the nature of the web is able to overcome the limits of space that limited print newspapers, it seems rather disappointing that such a small number of sites are able to meet the lofty ambitions set by de Tocqueville over 150 years ago.

Filed Under: Reporting Tagged With:
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »