Free Web-based production tools help students invigorate online news projects

What can online journalism students create with no budget and no programming skills?

That’s what I set out to find with my J309 class at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism this spring. The class is Annenberg’s “Introduction to Online Publishing,” a required capstone course in our undergraduate core curriculum and students’ first (and only) required course in online journalism.

This is the first year for the course and I wanted the students to leave the semester with an individual final project that showcased what they’d learned in both this course and the core curriculum. Along the way, I provided a brief history of Internet media and an overview of ethical and economic issues surrounding online publishing. The heart of the class was their individual blogs (linked in the blogroll), where I assigned weekly writing and reporting exercises.

Ultimately, I hoped that at least a few of the students would develop a love for online publishing, while the others would at least recognize how they
could create interactive and multimedia news projects with little technical effort.

To that end, I challenged students to find free online tools that would support such work. Below, I list the tools my students used this semester, followed by links to their final projects. (I did teach students basic HTML hardcoding skills, as well.)

Of course, online journalists can create far more engaging work with custom-programmed Flash movies, purpose-built content management systems and smart modification of a variety of open source development tools. But that is work for the advanced online journalism student. For these undergraduates, I did not want potentially intimidating development tools to squash what I hoped would be an emerging passion for working online.

And to further encourage that, I turned students loose to choose whatever topic they wished in reporting their final projects. Predictably, I got several food- and sports-related websites. But I don’t mind. Passion developed in personal web publishing projects can help inspire students to enliven more serious reporting projects in the future.

Tools

None of the following tools required programming skill to implement; all provided point-and-click user interfaces. And the price was right for a student budget, as all the following tools are free.

Blogger.com
Google’s blogging tool remains one of the Web’s more popular. Students used Blogger for their weekly class blogging assignments, and several used the tool to publish their final projects as well.

Google Maps
Google Maps weren’t on our radar until late in the semester, when Google introduced a customizing tool that allows users to create multipoint maps with user-supplied links and photos for each map point. Previously, one needed to use often-clunky third-part tools, or Google’s API to create such maps. With the new tool, however, tech novices can publish sophisticated custom maps with minimal effort. (Now, if only they could be embedded in a remote webpage….)

Google Pages
Google Pages allows users to publish flat webpages, using a selection of templates. Users can control the HTML within the template design, but do not have the flexibility that they would with hardcoding the page from scratch. As with many Google projects, Google Pages are in beta, and students encountered frequent connectivity problems when updating pages. Still, this proved to be a convenient alternative for students who were looking for Dreamweaver-like production environment, but who didn’t want to make the trek to a campus computer lab or buy their own software.

Jimdo.com
Lying somewhere between Google Pages and WordPress, Jimdo is another free, hosted webpage tool that allows users to create websites that break from the traditional blog format.

mixmonsta.com
Mixmonsta enables users to create embedded audio and video mash-ups through a relatively simple Web-based interface.

ProBoards
This is a handy, free, hosted online discussion board tool, which allowed one student to create a question-and-answer board for her project site, without having to install or manage a PHP or Perl application.

Slide.com
Slide’s been the go-to source for crafting Flash frat-party photo slideshows for MySpace pages. But there’s no reason why a journalism student couldn’t use the Slide tool for a news project. No, you don’t get the craftmanship of a custom Flash movie, but you can put these shows together in less than five minutes, and with zippo tech expertise needed.

Webshots.com
Webshots has long offered free photo hosting, but now also offers a Flash slideshow feature, like Slide.com. Some students preferred Webshot’s Flash app, saying that it looked more professional than Slide.com’s.

WordPress.com
WordPress seems like the king of blogging software at this point. But my students opted for the hosted WordPress.com platform, rather than take on the more technically challenging task of managing their own WordPress installation.

YouTube
There’s no easier way to put video on a blog than YouTube. All my students have used YouTube in the past, as viewers, and were pleasantly surprised to find how simply they could employ YouTube as publishers.

The Sites

ATLA Music
Helza Irizarry

Irizarry, and Atlanta resident, employed a variety of audio and video tools, along with WordPress, to create an online guide to the collision of Southern- and West Coast-flavored hip hop.

The BBQ Fanatic’s Guide to Texas-Style Ribs in L.A.
Megan Seely

Food blogs proved popular among my students, who embraced the chance to take care of meals and homework at the same time. Seely tried several cuisines before settling on her online homage to L.A.’s best B-rated BBQ dives.

Best Jazz in L.A.
Elsa Bertet

Bertet used still and video photography in her attempt to capture the viewing experience at a selection of clubs popular with USC students.

The Conquest of South Central
Carley Dryden

Dryden set out to investigate Conquest Housing, the largest private landlord for USC students living off-campus. She recorded many students’ horror stories with Conquest, the talked with university and real estate experts to provide perspective.

Down with Downtown
Kyle Cabodi

More USC students are living in downtown L.A., a mile or so up the road from USC’s campus. That, along with new commercial and entertainment development, are helping support revive residential development in the city’s historic core. Cabodi shot several photo galleries of downtown development and conducted interviews with developers and residents for his project.

L.A. Dinner and a Movie
Lindsey Kaiser

This project blended a smart mash-up of Blogger with custom Google Maps to provide a venue-based guide to good restaurants located near popular Los Angeles movie theaters.

The O.C. Source
Cindy Santos

Santos, an Orange County resident, said she wanted to create for Orange County what LAObserved publisher Kevin Roderick has done for Los Angeles.

Ride Hard
Sandra Altamirano

Altamirano documented her and her friends’ obsession with motorcycling on this blog, which used first-person accounts, interviews and, rather graphic, photo galleries.

Rotting Off the Vine
Geoff Rynex

Chicago Cubs fan Rynex used Jimdo and Blogger to reflect on his favorite baseball team, from 2,000 miles away, while providing links to other virtual gathering places for away-from-the-friendly-confines Cubs fans.

Ventura County Burger Shacks
Leland Ornelaz

Ornelaz ate is way across L.A. County’s northwest neighbor, eschewing chains for historic hamburger stands, which he photographed and reviewed for this blog.

Wine 101
Calli Fisher

Fisher turned 21 during the semester and celebrated by creating a site where students like her could learn to become knowledgeable wine drinkers.

Students and instructors from other universities are welcomed to describe their online journalism projects on OJR. E-mail editor Robert Niles — rniles [at] usc.edu — for more information.

Multimedia storytelling: when is it worth it?

One of the greatest opportunities of multimedia journalism is the ability to make different design choices. Although most online organizations present digital derivatives of their “parent” products – newspaper sites present columns of text, radio sites feature audio files, and TV sites provide video – we are seeing an increase in the number of sites embracing all design options. Radio sites are complementing their audio with photos and/or text, newspaper sites are presenting video and audio slide shows along with their text, and TV stations are supplementing their video pieces with text stories.

Increasingly, news organizations are challenging themselves and their staffs with stepping outside of their format expertise and trying to produce news packages that take full advantage of the array of media formats available. Online news sites are trying to integrate different media types into the story package – creating rich multimedia experiences for their audience. Exploration in the use of Flash helps designers create a common interface that transitions easily from graphics, to video to photos to audio without interrupting the user.

Creating these rich media experiences is a commitment of time and specialized talent that news organizations cannot – and should not – afford for every story. This is the biggest challenge for news designers: Given all the design options now available, how does one evaluate effort over return? When does an integrated, interactive story work best in terms of users’ enjoyment and/or comprehension? When is it warranted to help with understanding of the topic? Bottom line, when is it worth it?

In this column we will find and report on the beginning efforts to research and evaluate story design effects on news audiences. In this month’s column we discuss the findings for the first project of our research consortium – DiSEL – the Digital Story Effects Lab.

Comparing Static / Passive Text and Dynamic / Active Multimedia Stories

DiSEL study: Overview

In 2002, working with a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, we attempted to “catalog” the areas where design decisions could be made when crafting stories online. These “Elements of Digital Storytelling” (www.inms.umn.edu/elements) looked at a variety of attributes of digital stories.

In our first DiSEL study, we looked at two of these attributes, both related to “action.” We wanted to compare the impact on user attitude and experience between different approaches to content and user action.

Stories can be designed with either static content (the material just sits there, there is no movement) or dynamic content (the material moves.) In terms of how the user must engage with the content, stories can be designed to be passive (once the user has clicked to the page they can sit back, there is no action to take) or active (the content is designed so that the user must engage with it in order to fully experience the full set through selection of options or clicking to see the next portion.) Dynamic / active content is the type that is typically crafted using Flash. There is motion and choice. Static / passive content describes HTML coded, there is no motion and what you see is all you get.

We found perfect pieces to test these two presentation styles in the BBC’s material on health effects of recreational drugs. They had created two packages – the static, encyclopedia-type page display here and the dynamic interactive package here.


The integrated, interactive piece about recreational drug use creates a scenario where users give various drug combinations to a dancing clubber and witness the effects on his body.

The encyclopedic-type presentation lists various drugs, describes their effects with text and an image.

In addition, we decided to see if the motivation for going to the site would change the user’s perception, attitude, and information retention.

In late 2005 we collected data from 63 subjects (the target audience for this content was young adults so we tested 18-29 year olds), using four different testing conditions, resulting in a total count of 15 subjects tested under each condition. (Three of participants had unusable data.)

The conditions were:

  • Condition one: Users who viewed the dynamic / active Flash site and were told they had received the link from a professor telling them to explore it to complete a research paper. This was the “information” motivation scenario.
  • Condition two: Users who viewed the Flash site and were told a friend e-mailed them the link as something interesting to check out. This was the “entertainment” motivation scenario.
  • Condition three: Users who viewed the static / passive HTML site with the “information” motivation.
  • Condition four: Users who viewed the HTML site with the “entertainment” motivation.

These conditions allowed insight into the effectiveness of each form based on what the users’ motives were in seeing the presentation, and also allowed for enough subjects to generate statistically reliable results in some areas.

Research participants filled in a pre-exposure survey intended to gauge their overall use of the Internet, their preference for certain styles of presentation, the use of news sites, and their attitude toward drugs. Then their movements around the page they were sent to were “eye-tracked”. A post-exposure survey provided feedback on their attitudes toward the experience and the news organization that presented it, the ease of navigation, and their retention and recall of information presented.

The challenge in this type of research is determining what it is you want to test. There is a variety of hoped for outcomes when a news organization creates and presents an online news package. Which is most important? Effective presentation of information as seen in greater retention and recall of facts? Stickiness as seen in length of time spent with the content and greater depth of examination of the material? Brand enhancement as seen in reported enjoyment or appreciation of the organization presenting the information? With this study, we tried to get at the impacts of the presentation form on a variety of these areas.

DiSEL study: Findings

This comparative study showed that for the two sites tested:

Interactive presentations work best when you want users to…

  • spend more time with the presentation;
  • describe the experience as “enjoyable;”
  • recall more of the information;
  • recall your brand;
  • feel entertained.

Static presentation work best when you want users to…

  • “click to” all the of the presentation’s materials;
  • perceive the site navigation as easy.

Either form is equally effective if you want to…

  • increase the likelihood a user would return to the site.

In terms of the motivation for going to the site, there were some interesting differences in people’s responses to the two presentations.

If users are seeking information…

  • They will spend an average of two minutes longer on the site than if they are looking to be entertained;
  • They will have greater recall and comprehension of the information than those seeking entertainment.

Motivation did not matter in terms of…

  • How enjoyable a user found the site.

DiSEL study: So what?

This research shows that the choices made in presenting information will have significantly different impacts on the audience. No one presentation form is going to be the most effective by all measures that you have in your newsroom for determining successful design. What the research does seem to reveal is that the highly interactive content results in more time spent online with the material and a greater level of reported “enjoyment.” In addition (and counter to some other studies which show a negative impact) the Flash version seemed to help people recall the information being presented. So, if your goal in presenting a story – particularly one that has potential for a long “shelf-life” – is to entertain, inform, and keep people online longer, then investing in a creative, interactive presentation could be well worth the effort.

Supporting Research

A portion of Poynter’s Eyetrack III study tested similar situations. In this study, two distinct story designs were considered. With the help of NYTimes.com, text versions of two news stories were edited to 3-5 minute reads. Then, existing multimedia presentations were condensed to 3-5 minute experiences.


The text version of the story “Dangerous Business” that was used for the study

The multimedia version ofo the story “Dangerous Business” that was used for the study.

The text version Al Hirschfeld’s obituary that was used for the study.

The multimedia version Al Hirschfeld’s obituary that was used for the study.

Half of the test participants (approximately 25 people) experienced one of the stories in text and the other in multimedia. The other half experienced the opposite formats. (All participants saw a control article beforehand.)
After they read or viewed the stories, participants were given the same recall quizzes.

Eyetrack III: Findings

This study shows that:

Interactive presentations work best when you want users to…

  • recall unfamiliar terms and processes/procedures more effectively.

In one test story an animated graphic showed how cast iron pipes are made – an essential component to understanding the overall story content. Those who received this graphic had better recall of the terms and processes involved than those who received the same information in text form.

Static text works best when you want users to… correctly recall specific factual information, such as information about names and places.

It was found that with both stories, individuals had better recall of the names of people involved and the locations of specific story events if they read the text version.

How this research can help: the checklists

Common threads from findings in this work can help guide multimedia editors and designers to make more effective decisions. Here are lists of questions that can help. (Also available in a printable PDF.)

Should we present this story as an interactive?

Before undertaking any large story project be sure to ask:

  • Who is the target audience for this story?
  • What do we hope to accomplish in telling this story to them?

Then use this decision-tool to see which approach to storytelling is best supported by the research in these studies:

  1. Does the story concern elaborate or unfamiliar processes / procedures?
    • Yes – 1 point
    • No – no points
  2. Is the level of interest in the topic high enough that people would be willing to figure out story navigation?
    • Yes – 1 point
    • No – no points
  3. Does the story have value beyond the first few weeks? Is it likely to be a topic in the news again?
    • Yes – 1 point
    • No – no points
  4. Is entertaining the audience more important than simply informing?
    • Yes – 1 point
    • No – no points
  5. Is it important that the audience be able to recall specific facts from the story?
    • Yes – no points
    • No – 1 point
  6. If the story is told in separate components, it is essential that all the components be viewed by the audience?
    • Yes – no points
    • No – 1 point
  7. Do you hope the audience recalls where they saw the information?
    • Yes – 1 point
    • No – no points

If you get five or more points, then you should strongly consider an interactive story approach.

Coming in March: Journalism-applicable results from the Nielsen/Norman Group’s first eyetracking study.

Coming in April: An interview with Poynter Eyetrack ‘07’s researchers.

Coming in May: DiSEL research results about:

  • the design and placement of “Breaking News” and supplemental links
  • how people move through different slide show designs.

Building a perfect storm of journalism and multimedia

While in a masters program in photojournalism at the University of Missouri in the early 90s, Brian Storm started a company called MediaStorm. He envisioned producing photojournalism projects that would be published on CD-ROMs, the hot technology at the time. But he dropped the idea after graduation and went on to hold several high-profile positions in the New Media world, including director of multimedia at MSNBC.com and vice president of News, Multimedia & Assignment Services for Corbis, a digital media agency founded and owned by Bill Gates.

But since Nov. 16, 2005, New York city-based MediaStorm has gathered force in its second coming as a multimedia journalism website, winning accolades and awards. OJR spoke to Brian Storm about how his boutique media company continues to crank out high-quality journalism.

OJR: What was the impetus for taking a fresh look at MediaStorm in 2005?

Storm: I looked at the landscape and I remembered vividly in 2000 when broadband penetration at home was 10 percent. But by 2005 or 2004, we actually hit 50 percent of the online households where broadband enabled, and that’s a sea change. You remember surfing with dial up. That was a different experience. Now it’s always connected. Broadband gives you real video speed.

The other thing that I was noticing was the desire for video advertising. Madison Avenue now was looking at the Web saying “Pre-roll video ads are a big deal,” to the tune of $275 million business in ’05 looking to go to $640 million in ’07, looking to triple in ’09 to $1.5 billion. I think those estimates are low. I think it is going to grow faster and bigger than that.

The other thing I noticed was there was a supply problem. Everybody was saying, “look there is demand to place these video ads but there is no content to place it against.” There was no inventory. And if you look at circulation going down and fragmented television programming, and about viewers moving to the Web, now all of a sudden you have Madison Avenue wanting to place $25 dollar CPM video ads in front of content. This is a huge financial opportunity that just didn’t exist a couple of years ago.

The other thing that has happened is what I call the democracy of production. So you think about things like this magic box that we are sitting next to. This is a Mac with 3 terabyte hard drive in it. I mean, it comes with a seatbelt. It’s a multimedia powerhouse machine. This is like a Hollywood production facility that we are sitting in front of in my apartment. And it’s not that expensive. Final Cut Pro is 1,200 bucks. And it’s like a Avid system that used to cost $250,000. HD video camera used to be $70,000. Now they are $5,000. I own a HD video camera, man.

So that’s the democracy of production–that’s a revolution in my mind.

So I wanted to get back to my publishing roots, frankly. I had seen a lot of great projects and I felt like I had developed a model for financing and producing and creating them. And I felt completely empowered because of production tools because the way the medium has matured.

It was just the right time to do it… to start this thing again.

OJR: You said you had developed a model for financing. How are you financially staying alive in the middle of Manhattan with four employees and putting out publication that is really about socially aware journalism?

Storm: How do you do that? You cash in on your relationships and you go build really high-end stuff for big name brands.

The Los Angeles Times hired us to produce a Gail Fisher project. It’s called “Blighted Homeland” it’s about Navajo living in Monument Valley where they’ve been doing all this uranium mining and so the people you know have been affected adversely because of that the mining. We’ve produced this project for the LA Times.

OJR: So their photographer collected the audio you worked with them to produce this?

Storm: Exactly, Gail actually came to New York stayed in our guest room–we have a guest room exactly for that reason. And Pam Chen produced this project. And I do the oversight.

Early on, MSNBC.com hired me to produce video projects for a magazine called “Take 3″ which was targeted at baby boomers. There was the story about “The Vanishing Americana” about the “Milk Man” and it was laden with sexual innuendos; it was really funny.

And then we did a piece called “The Sandwich Generation” which is also now on our site but we first produced it for MSNBC. It was at the level at which I want MediaStorm projects to be so it was also on MediaStorm.

Plus we do a lot of consulting. It’s standard interactive Web stuff but most companies don’t have teams that can produce that for them.

The other thing we are doing is that we really are acting as a multimedia agency. And I am really excited about this element.

There is the technology that we deployed for them so we work as both a consultant and a production arm. We help them tell the story but we also help them get up to speed with doing video.

OJR: Tell me about the auction model you tried out for selling a project last year?

Storm: I sent an e-mail out to 25 key clients inviting them to participate in a private auction to license the exclusive right to premier “Iraqi Kurdistan.” So the premier was auctioned off eBay-like. So what happened is I actually had ability for people to write their name, and publication, their e-mail address, their bid amount, and they’d hit send, and that would come to my cell phone in my e-mail and I would say yes, approve it. So we now have a template for doing digital auctioning of editorial content where we are allowing the client to drive the price up. I mean, I could have said $10,000. I could have guessed what that that’s what it was worth. It was far better to let the industry sort of decide. You know I mean that’s the key issue. Producing great content and trying to get it to the right publication and you get paid an appropriate fee to do it. I mean that to me seems to be the Holy Grail of trying to do these kinds of stories.

OJR: With the ability to route your content to TiVo over cable, you are poised to be a broadcast company…

Storm: In my mind we already are a broadcast company. We have this unique place on the web right now that we can do pretty much anything we want to do. I can publish any story I want. I know the next nine projects that we are going to produce for MediaStorm. I am sitting on 200 stories right now. Thirty of which I would love to produce for this site.

OJR: Your roots are of a photo editor… how do you see the Web’s impact on photojournalism?

Storm: So with this idea of a photojournalist going in and taking a picture but also doing audio reporting, we can give our subject a voice and I think that that is such a critical element. That changes the equation.

Most of us as photographers, we got into this because we didn’t want to write. We love journalism but we wanted to tell the story through photography. And because we are not necessarily great writers, the thing that’s so beautiful about sound is that we don’t have to write the story we can let the subject write it for us. And it’s just refreshing to hear the subject of a story tell you their story as opposed to some beautiful television person telling you… standing in front of the situation saying this is what you should be seeing and what you should be thinking. I don’t feel we need that.

I always describe it as documentary photojournalism meets National Public Radio. It’s like a combination of the fly on the wall of “This American Life” and the story telling approach they take meeting the sort of fly on the wall hands off approach that we take as a documentary photographers.

OJR: What does that say about just journalism in general? There is no more division of labor… the photographers, the print reporters, the radio reporters, the television reporters…. You have to be good at multiple things?

Storm: That’s the trend but for economic reasons and that bums me out. It shouldn’t be an economic decision.

What we should be doing in journalism is figuring out the very best way to tell a story. There’s division of labor on a breaking news story, where you’ve got people doing multiple things to try to meet the deadline. That’s one form of news.

The stories I work on are long term. The difference is that these photographers are authors. Only Olivier Jobard was on the story with “Kingsley’s Crossing.” He spent six months of his life on that story. Now if we would have had the resources to send a crew on that story, I think it would have changed the intimacy of it.

So I think there is a fine line between our just redoing this because it is just flat out cheaper to not send a sound guy.

OJR: Right, so you’ve been in this field for about 14 years. What’s really surprised you with MediaStorm about audience feedback? Enthusiasm for this kind of work?

Storm: Honestly it’s not surprised me that the “audience” has responded, because this medium is completely different from television, for example. The television has a signal that they send out there and they have to homogenize it frankly, because what they are trying to do with that one signal is trying to get as many people to watch it. So therefore they get stories on Britney Spears’ belly button because that’s going to give you more numbers.

The Web is completely different. I can have thousands of stories on my website and its exact opposite mentality which is I want to do a story about AIDS that will stand the test of time because those sort of affinity groups will find it and promote it. You will find people promoting “Bloodline” off their blog or off a foundation site or charities. They want advocacy work to be able to get people to be inspired and act and give.

There are a lot of interesting things about the way the audience is different. About 70 different countries hit our website. How do they find us? It’s all word of mouth. We don’t do any marketing. It is all viral conversation and its exact opposite of broadcast. When we launched on November 16, 2005, maybe 500 people watched our project that day. Today there are thousands of people watching those same projects who have never seen it before right so the whole time-shifting capability is really critical to this medium.

I wouldn’t say things have surprised me I think what they have really done is to encourage me to believe what I always believed about people: that they really do care and they do really want quality stories. I think mainstream journalism isn’t always set up to deliver that. They’ve got to feed the beast. They’ve got to shoot for numbers. The biggest problem with big journalism right now is answering to shareholders, instead of to their readers. They are trying to drive a profit margin at twenty seven percent instead of saying let’s invest in journalism and you know satisfy and gain readership. They are answering to the wrong matrix in my mind.

I hope this is just one example of the kind of company that is going to say that it’s time to take journalism back. I know I’m not going to make a pot of money with MediaStorm. I’m not going to. I’m just continuing to do stories that I believe in.

You know that’s that whole living a rich lifestyle thing. You know making money is a necessary evil to stay in business but it’s not our focus. It’s not like any of us got into journalism to make tons of money. We got into journalism because of the experiences—the rich lifestyle.

OJR: Nicholas Kristof, a columnist at the New York Times, recently invited readers to “tell the story” using the material he has gathered with his producer Naka Nathaniel on a trip to Darfur. What are your thoughts on audience participation-–helping with the process of production?

Storm: Well that to me, honestly, sounds like a gimmick–and that’s what that is. But if that gimmick gets more people to care about, and learn about, and understand what’s going on in Darfur, I’m for it.

I think citizen journalism is incredibly exciting because we need to engage the audience. We just do and getting them to tell their own stories or to comment on a story. I think that’s super important and valuable. I think we as professional journalists have to contemplate what that means. Breaking news is really not for us any more because there are going to be tons of people on the scene. We need to be the people who come in with our rich journalism skills and do the definitive story… the story of record if you will.

You can see more MediaStorm projects at http://mediastorm.org. Brian Storm can be reached at brian [at] mediastorm.org.