The Huffington Post (“HuffPo”) is a news and opinion Web site founded in May 2005 that offers coverage of politics, media, business, entertainment, living, style and green. Its co-founders, Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer and Jonah Peretti, have admitted to starting the site as a counter to the conservative Drudge Report. Huffington even acknowledged the Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report as a source of inspiration.
“We could not have existed without Drudge,” Huffington told the Washington Post in 2007. “Drudge habituated people to going online for their news.”
After examining the Huffington Post, it is clear why the site does so well. It is extremely user-friendly, with tabs categorizing news articles by topic and region. Bloggers are a separate category, and side columns highlight the most popular articles and blogs for the readers. While advertisements are noticeable, they do not interrupt stories’ text and are clearly identifiable. The photographs on the page vary in size, orientation and content. Some are rather boring photos of speeches, but some people can argue that these help readers identify prominent figures on the site and draw more traffic to the site with their big names and image results for search engines. By enabling readers to follow the site through Twitter, Yahoo, Buzz, BlackBerry, Google, iPhone, e-mail and RSS feeds, the Huffington Post succeeds in covering all its bases.
The links at the bottom of the home page provide hyperlinks to other news sources, such as the Associated Press and BBC Web sites, and also lists blogs and columnists. Basically, the site does everything possible to saturate the reader with content. Because space is unlimited online, it’s OK for the Huffington Post to post things several times all over the site. The links provided are also a hint to where the site gets a lot of the articles. I don’t think Huffington would link to rival sites—the Drudge Report is not linked.
The Huffington Post had 8.9 million unique visitors in February 2009. In the last five years, the HuffPo has received literally millions in investments.
In August 2006, SoftBank Capital invested $5 million in the site, which had grown in popularity in only a year, to help expand it. Plans included hiring more staff to update the site 24 hours a day, hiring in-house reporters, and a multimedia team to do video reports.
In November 2008, The Huffington Post completed a $15 million fundraising from investors. The money will finance expansion including more journalism and the provision of local news.
In 2009 the HuffPo announced that it received $25 million in funding from Oak Investment Parts, a California-based venture capital firm. Huffington said the money will be used to invest in the company's technology and infrastructure, increase its in-house advertising capabilities and continue to expand its content. Local versions and a new investigative journalism initiative were part of the investment plan.
In the past, the site benefitted from Huffington’s personal connections with celebrities and partnerships with People, Rolling Stone and TMZ.com, which according to Huffington, represents a new era for mainstream media that share content with competitors.
New sections of the HuffPo I found:
OffTheBus is a citizen-powered online news organization that is a collaboration between New York University and Jay Rosen’s NewAssignment.Net.
FundRace is a section that tracks contributions to the presidential campaigns and includes a mapping feature that shows contributions broken down by city, neighborhood and block.
In my research on the site, two recent launchings act as testament to the always-updating aspect of the Internet. Whatever is in print is old the second it’s printed.
In February, Huffington said she’s been on college campuses across the nation making appearances and going on tours with her daughter, which made her miss the vitality of college life. The new college section aggregates content from more than 60 college papers. Check out an Alligator article titled "Demanding Justice for Shot Grad Student" on the HuffPo here.
The Huffington Post has spent the past few years expanding beyond its initial political focus. This week the site went back to its roots by launching the HuffPost Hill -- a daily e-mail newsletter. The founders said HuffPost Hill will blend news and opinion with Washington, D.C., gossip. Huffington Post chief White House correspondent Sam Stein and senior Washington correspondent Dan Froomkin are a few of the contributors, but political reporting is not the only focus; HuffPost Hill will follow celebrity and politician sightings in the capital and will feature tips on various fundraisers and TV appearances by political experts.
According to HuffPo senior congressional correspondent Ryan Grim, the e-newsletter should serve as a platform for smaller news items that would otherwise be left on the cutting room floor.
Media Bistro has a couple quotes from the founders and contributors to HuffPo Hill.
Below is an interview I had with Leah Finnegan, a staffer for the Huffington Post’s new college section:
How did you get a position at the Huffington Post?
My friend sent me a Craiglist post advertising it.
What do your duties include?
Every day, I update the college page multiple times. I link to stories, condense multiple stories into one post, talk to college editors, create slideshows, brainstorm and have lots of meetings with my boss.
How active are the site’s founders in day-to-day proceedings?
Fairly active. I get e-mails from Arianna (Huffington) on a regular basis about stories, ideas etc.
Does the HuffPo hold budget meetings for the day’s front page like a print paper?
No
How do you get traffic? How do you market the site?
Search Engine Optimization, Twitter, Facebook, in-house coordination
What kind of technology do you use?
The Huffington Post is super Google-savvy and knows how to read search engines so that HuffPost content goes to as massive an audience as possible.
Do you pay a lot of attention to Search Engine Optimization, especially for headlines?
Yes. Keywords
What is the revenue model for the HuffPo? Advertising only?
Mostly, I think. Not quite sure.
Do you sell your own ads? Or do you use an ad network?
We have our own ad staff.
Who do you think are your main competitors?
Yahoo, The Daily Beast, AOL, New York Times, Wash Post, Drudge Report, Gawker
How big of a staff do you have? Are your writers paid? Are you paid?
I am paid. There are about 100 people on staff. I work with one senior editor and one intern, who is unpaid.
How do you handle comments and contributed content? Do you review them before publication? How do you prevent inappropriate things from being posted?
We have comment moderators scattered across the country who monitor comment content. If I'm posting a sensitive story, I can opt to impose automatic moderation. A team of blog editors maintains quality control over that area.
What about citizen journalism?
Citizen journalism is a healthy component of HuffPost College -- we have correspondents on several campuses who regularly write us original stories that always do pretty well on our page.
How often do you update?
6 to 7 times per day, posting multiple stories at a time.
Have you looked at aggregating local blogs and other kinds of content rather than producing it all yourselves?
We aggregate content from more than 60 college papers daily.
Do you intend to do anything in print ever?
In my own career? Maybe. At HuffPost? No.
What would you tell someone looking for a job or internship at the Huffington Post?
This is what we post on our Web site for college section internships:
The Huffington Post recently launched a new vertical called HuffPost College and has an opening for a unpaid internship. Ideally, the candidate is a current student or recent college graduate who has worked for his/her school paper and is familiar with the in's-and-out's of collegiate news. Although this internship will continue into summer, the ideal candidate will be able to start ASAP. The best candidates will be meticulous, well-organized and is passionate about news.
Primary responsibilities include:
- Establishing contacts with writers, editors and advisers of numerous college news sites
- Forging and maintaining relationships with leaders at college newspapers
- Correspondence and other communication, including editorial and technical problem-solving, with blog contributors
- Editing and publishing content from student journalists around the country
- Assisting in long-term strategy-building and goal-setting for HuffPost College
Experience with Photoshop, Movable Type or similar blogging platform, basic HTML preferred.
This is a great opportunity to start something new at a leading news site.
Send resume and very brief statement of interest to huffpostcollege@gmail.com with "HuffPost - College" in subject line.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Journalism Education Conference
After reading the journalist panel's arguments, I agree that social media is having a great effect on my generation's way of gathering news, but they will never replace newswire journalism. Citizen journalists and word of mouth are very helpful sources for story ideas, but journalists cannot rely on the public to do a thorough job of reporting. Bloggers will not be reprimanded if their information is false or if they don't update regularly.
I also agreed that while news specialization has some benefits, its better to have journalists who can relate to a broad range of topics and can "connect the dots" for the average reader. People are naturally drawn to topics based on their experiences, so editors can rely on someone who is very politically active to cover local government, while someone who enjoys reading about medical findings can write the health beat, etc. Journalists who are trained in a variety of skills and who are informed about lots of topics are more valuable than a specialized journalist because they can tackle anything pops up in the newsroom.
Charlies Beckett said one major problem is the vast amount of duplicated work that journalists are encouraged to produce that is "formulaic, irrelevant and can be found elsewhere." I agree that with the Internet, there are too many other sources of information that the public goes to before reading the paper. I love that search engines offers the "news" filter for searches, but most times Wikipedia is the top source for information, instead of news sites. Journalists need to figure out a way to make their credible stories appear higher on search engine results (using Search Engine Optimization is one way to do this).
I don't agree with John Nichols claims that the Internet is just another platform for media, and that there is no difference between free and pay journalism. Advertising will sustain journalism, just like it sustained newspapers and broadcasts in the past and is sustaining Facebook now.I do agree that information cannot be caged, which is why we are having the problem's we're having today. There is no way to stop unchecked information from spreading online. People will believe anything, and young people are questioning information presented to them less and less. I hope that his claim that paid journalists will not exist in eight years is wrong, as well. Journalism as we recognize it today may disappear, but the public won't let it completely disappear. Someone will be a journalist for a living in the future. If journalists disappear, who is going to tell them what happened in their city (state, country, the world) today?
I also agreed that while news specialization has some benefits, its better to have journalists who can relate to a broad range of topics and can "connect the dots" for the average reader. People are naturally drawn to topics based on their experiences, so editors can rely on someone who is very politically active to cover local government, while someone who enjoys reading about medical findings can write the health beat, etc. Journalists who are trained in a variety of skills and who are informed about lots of topics are more valuable than a specialized journalist because they can tackle anything pops up in the newsroom.
Charlies Beckett said one major problem is the vast amount of duplicated work that journalists are encouraged to produce that is "formulaic, irrelevant and can be found elsewhere." I agree that with the Internet, there are too many other sources of information that the public goes to before reading the paper. I love that search engines offers the "news" filter for searches, but most times Wikipedia is the top source for information, instead of news sites. Journalists need to figure out a way to make their credible stories appear higher on search engine results (using Search Engine Optimization is one way to do this).
I don't agree with John Nichols claims that the Internet is just another platform for media, and that there is no difference between free and pay journalism. Advertising will sustain journalism, just like it sustained newspapers and broadcasts in the past and is sustaining Facebook now.I do agree that information cannot be caged, which is why we are having the problem's we're having today. There is no way to stop unchecked information from spreading online. People will believe anything, and young people are questioning information presented to them less and less. I hope that his claim that paid journalists will not exist in eight years is wrong, as well. Journalism as we recognize it today may disappear, but the public won't let it completely disappear. Someone will be a journalist for a living in the future. If journalists disappear, who is going to tell them what happened in their city (state, country, the world) today?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
"Supermedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World"
After reading the assigned articles and Charlie Beckett’s “SuperMedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World,” the solution to revamping journalism for this generation is through harnessing user-generated content. The fervor in which college and high school students text-message, Tweet and log in to Facebook daily is phenomenal. Facebook statuses can inspire news stories- the trouble is linking the citizen journalist to a publication and finding a way to pay for it and turn a profit. Community forums and blogs provide feedback from people who don’t insist on being paid, so it will be cheap for newspapers to hire these volunteer writers. Beckett was right in writing that readers can be divided into four groups: traditional writers of letters to the editor; the ones who take it to the next level with heavy-duty blogging; the virtually passive people who want packaged news delivered to them; and the social users who will consume news and want to provide content and interaction with the news flow.
According to Beckett, Networked Journalism has three benefits for engaging the “former audience”: it brings the audience back to the process, it brings content to the process and it brings moral and political value to the process. Marketing and research is wasted on targeting hard-to-reach audiences, when there’s a whole blogosphere of eager citizen journalists just waiting to contribute. However, sifting through these postings and story ideas requires staff. Not everyone’s contribution will be useful, but hopefully every post will play a part in the online conversation. Even the bad ideas can generate content that may turn into something useful. Message boards are a great medium for this. Staffers at an online paper can skim through message boards and see which comments are receiving the most hits, instead of having a freelance editor sifting through e-mails of proposed stories.
It is impossible to ignore the biggest concern with user-generated content. No publication wants to rely on amateurs who know nothing about media literacy. However, by recognizing members of the public as part of the publication, newspapers can promote writer accountability. Writers will want to do a better job if they are forced to claim ownership of what they write (and live under the same media laws). For example, when Wikipedia first came out, maybe people, especially college professors, questioned its accuracy. Example after example popped up of facts that were wrong and things that made it onto the site that were completely irrelevant. But now, more college professors are saying Wikipedia is a great starting point for research. Yes, mistakes are made, but the same is true when newspapers mess up and run a correction, so it should not stop amateurs from contributing what they know. The more brains working toward the same effort, the better.
Although embracing amateur writers as part of a publication may help, nothing is for sure. Several sources in Beckett’s book argue that old media were the gatekeepers of facts, and they cannot ignore the fact that some people like to make things up to gain attention. The recent Balloon Boy incident is a perfect example of amateur reporters looking for fame, rather than the truth. Despite all signs that the little boy was not inside the balloon, the video, shot by amateur reporters, spread to news channels across the nation and alerted the nation. It is sad that the officials involved, who were trying to do their job and save a life, were actually spoofed on national television by a greedy family.
I think the biggest reason for the Balloon Boy incident was that every news channel couldn’t be physically there to cover the story, and they didn’t want to be the only channel not covering the story, so they fell for it. However, this reflects a change in media. Newspapers cannot expect to do all the reporting by themselves. The world is too global, their staff is too small and budget cuts have hit them hard. This is why it is important to collaborate with other publications. Some Web sites, especially online-only sites, link to other papers’ coverage of stories, instead of wasting resources to cover the event itself. Although this lessens competition between publications, I think it is a great idea. It’s simply a modified version of the Associated Press. Because production costs are falling (because online media and citizen journalists are cheap), competition is increasing and profits are threatened. Newspapers need to do less to do more now. If they remain stubborn and try to do everything on their own, their demise will come even faster.
Collaboration between the public and media is even harder in the Editorial sections. There will always be a reader who thinks they know more than a columnist, and will let the columnist know. This used to be done through anonymous letters to the editor, but now blogging allows the “constructive” criticism to be posted directly under the column. A code of conduct needs to be set for the public, as well as the journalists, and it is the editors’ job to moderate all content without limiting freedom of speech. All opinions are valid, as long as they are expressed in a respectful manner and attempt to contribute to the conversation. Arrogance plays a huge part in the criticisms, and part of Networked Journalists’ new feats is dealing with how up close and personal the public can get to them online.
The public can use search engines like Google to hone in on the articles they want to discuss and criticize, which is both good and bad. Google has become a super force to be reckoned with, and while I agree with Beckett that Google News is a wonderful source of news, I feel the same way about how the search engine returns results. The top results on Google are not the sites searched for the most by the public, but rather are the Web site that pay Google the most. This pricing structure limits access to markets and denies the public choice and information. However, without the revenue from Google’s sponsors, the search engine that millions of people use daily, would struggle to exist. It is a necessary hurdle for journalists.
Overall, I think Beckett offered some really optimistic suggestions for solving journalism's current problems. However, I feel he left out how most of these things will be paid for and actually put into actions. He idealized the situation.
Also, it was sad to see how many grammatical errors the book contained. I think this is very ironic, because it reflects the lack of resources authors have nowadays for even simple things like editing copy.
According to Beckett, Networked Journalism has three benefits for engaging the “former audience”: it brings the audience back to the process, it brings content to the process and it brings moral and political value to the process. Marketing and research is wasted on targeting hard-to-reach audiences, when there’s a whole blogosphere of eager citizen journalists just waiting to contribute. However, sifting through these postings and story ideas requires staff. Not everyone’s contribution will be useful, but hopefully every post will play a part in the online conversation. Even the bad ideas can generate content that may turn into something useful. Message boards are a great medium for this. Staffers at an online paper can skim through message boards and see which comments are receiving the most hits, instead of having a freelance editor sifting through e-mails of proposed stories.
It is impossible to ignore the biggest concern with user-generated content. No publication wants to rely on amateurs who know nothing about media literacy. However, by recognizing members of the public as part of the publication, newspapers can promote writer accountability. Writers will want to do a better job if they are forced to claim ownership of what they write (and live under the same media laws). For example, when Wikipedia first came out, maybe people, especially college professors, questioned its accuracy. Example after example popped up of facts that were wrong and things that made it onto the site that were completely irrelevant. But now, more college professors are saying Wikipedia is a great starting point for research. Yes, mistakes are made, but the same is true when newspapers mess up and run a correction, so it should not stop amateurs from contributing what they know. The more brains working toward the same effort, the better.
Although embracing amateur writers as part of a publication may help, nothing is for sure. Several sources in Beckett’s book argue that old media were the gatekeepers of facts, and they cannot ignore the fact that some people like to make things up to gain attention. The recent Balloon Boy incident is a perfect example of amateur reporters looking for fame, rather than the truth. Despite all signs that the little boy was not inside the balloon, the video, shot by amateur reporters, spread to news channels across the nation and alerted the nation. It is sad that the officials involved, who were trying to do their job and save a life, were actually spoofed on national television by a greedy family.
I think the biggest reason for the Balloon Boy incident was that every news channel couldn’t be physically there to cover the story, and they didn’t want to be the only channel not covering the story, so they fell for it. However, this reflects a change in media. Newspapers cannot expect to do all the reporting by themselves. The world is too global, their staff is too small and budget cuts have hit them hard. This is why it is important to collaborate with other publications. Some Web sites, especially online-only sites, link to other papers’ coverage of stories, instead of wasting resources to cover the event itself. Although this lessens competition between publications, I think it is a great idea. It’s simply a modified version of the Associated Press. Because production costs are falling (because online media and citizen journalists are cheap), competition is increasing and profits are threatened. Newspapers need to do less to do more now. If they remain stubborn and try to do everything on their own, their demise will come even faster.
Collaboration between the public and media is even harder in the Editorial sections. There will always be a reader who thinks they know more than a columnist, and will let the columnist know. This used to be done through anonymous letters to the editor, but now blogging allows the “constructive” criticism to be posted directly under the column. A code of conduct needs to be set for the public, as well as the journalists, and it is the editors’ job to moderate all content without limiting freedom of speech. All opinions are valid, as long as they are expressed in a respectful manner and attempt to contribute to the conversation. Arrogance plays a huge part in the criticisms, and part of Networked Journalists’ new feats is dealing with how up close and personal the public can get to them online.
The public can use search engines like Google to hone in on the articles they want to discuss and criticize, which is both good and bad. Google has become a super force to be reckoned with, and while I agree with Beckett that Google News is a wonderful source of news, I feel the same way about how the search engine returns results. The top results on Google are not the sites searched for the most by the public, but rather are the Web site that pay Google the most. This pricing structure limits access to markets and denies the public choice and information. However, without the revenue from Google’s sponsors, the search engine that millions of people use daily, would struggle to exist. It is a necessary hurdle for journalists.
Overall, I think Beckett offered some really optimistic suggestions for solving journalism's current problems. However, I feel he left out how most of these things will be paid for and actually put into actions. He idealized the situation.
Also, it was sad to see how many grammatical errors the book contained. I think this is very ironic, because it reflects the lack of resources authors have nowadays for even simple things like editing copy.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Week 13 Blog
After reading the article "With information galore, we need news judgment," I completely agree with the author. A reader's most valuable asset is his or her attention, so journalists should do anything possible to catch it. This can mean changing online headlines to have better Search Engine Optimization, or by making sites user-friendly by giving readers the information they want to know--and fast. Infographics and easy-to-read charts help condense important information for Web browsers who are used to doing things as fast as a click of their mouse.
I also agreed with the point that newspapers cannot be afraid of change because otherwise they will fall behind everyone else. I see this at the paper I work at:
Because the board of directors are hesitating to update the layout for fear of losing loyal readers, we aren't gaining any new ones. The paper is trapped in the '70s, and advertisers are moving elsewhere to reach the young college demographic for their ads-- mainly online.
The Daily Dish's chart of the day was a graph shows a parabola on a graph with "information" on the x-axis and "confusing" on the y-axis. A little information and too much information means lots of confusion. It is a journalist's job to give the readers information in moderation. Too much can overwhelm and and too little can leave them asking asking questions-- and make them leave your publication for another publication's answers.
The articles "Thanks to technology, we may be entering a golden age of journalism" and "New age journalism" say everything I've said to critics and cynics of me being a journalism major in this day and age. Yes, newspapers have closed. Yes, journalists have lost their jobs. Yes, papers have cut costs in every way possible. But jobs are still out there. There is still a need for hard news in a world of fluff and stuff. People do care about current events. They do want to know what's happening in their neighborhood-- their city-- their state-- their nation and even internationally. I'm relying on my professors at the University of Florida to give me an advantage in the job market. The more new skills they can introduce me to, the better. The second article really focused on the salacious aspect of media these days. It doesn't surprise me that TV producers and photographers get the story, and then the facts. The balloon boy is a perfect example of this. However, journalists can't do this. It's not OK to post the story online and edit for fact errors later. Post what you know ASAP and add more as you go.
I thought the search return for "free newspapers" was fascinating. Online papers opens up a whole new can of worms. My generation is used to accessing sites for free and is used to just "Googling" for information. I won't pay to read an article online? Why should I? I can get most stories from TV, which I already pay for. It's sad to see the worth of each article to a consumer. The entire paper costs between 75 cents and $1.50. Divide it by the number of stories inside, and you got your answer to how much readers will pay-- hardly anything. Online newspapers get all their money from advertisements, not subscribers, so if they make their paper one that readers run to for answers, like The New York Times has done, then they will last. If they add user-friendly neighborhood message boards, they will find a loyal fan base.
I also agreed with the point that newspapers cannot be afraid of change because otherwise they will fall behind everyone else. I see this at the paper I work at:
Because the board of directors are hesitating to update the layout for fear of losing loyal readers, we aren't gaining any new ones. The paper is trapped in the '70s, and advertisers are moving elsewhere to reach the young college demographic for their ads-- mainly online.
The Daily Dish's chart of the day was a graph shows a parabola on a graph with "information" on the x-axis and "confusing" on the y-axis. A little information and too much information means lots of confusion. It is a journalist's job to give the readers information in moderation. Too much can overwhelm and and too little can leave them asking asking questions-- and make them leave your publication for another publication's answers.
The articles "Thanks to technology, we may be entering a golden age of journalism" and "New age journalism" say everything I've said to critics and cynics of me being a journalism major in this day and age. Yes, newspapers have closed. Yes, journalists have lost their jobs. Yes, papers have cut costs in every way possible. But jobs are still out there. There is still a need for hard news in a world of fluff and stuff. People do care about current events. They do want to know what's happening in their neighborhood-- their city-- their state-- their nation and even internationally. I'm relying on my professors at the University of Florida to give me an advantage in the job market. The more new skills they can introduce me to, the better. The second article really focused on the salacious aspect of media these days. It doesn't surprise me that TV producers and photographers get the story, and then the facts. The balloon boy is a perfect example of this. However, journalists can't do this. It's not OK to post the story online and edit for fact errors later. Post what you know ASAP and add more as you go.
I thought the search return for "free newspapers" was fascinating. Online papers opens up a whole new can of worms. My generation is used to accessing sites for free and is used to just "Googling" for information. I won't pay to read an article online? Why should I? I can get most stories from TV, which I already pay for. It's sad to see the worth of each article to a consumer. The entire paper costs between 75 cents and $1.50. Divide it by the number of stories inside, and you got your answer to how much readers will pay-- hardly anything. Online newspapers get all their money from advertisements, not subscribers, so if they make their paper one that readers run to for answers, like The New York Times has done, then they will last. If they add user-friendly neighborhood message boards, they will find a loyal fan base.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Wordled Speeches
I really think Wordle is a useful tool for finding the crucial points of a story. Wordle simply generates a "word cloud" from submitted text and highlights the most used words. After using Wordle on a story about public records revealing student government criminal charges at my college, it was clear to see the repeat offenses and offenders. It's a great tool to hone in on key words for headlines, too, because sometimes stories lack focus and you think the story is about one thing, but it really turns into something else.
I also used Wordle to examine my blog, and I'm happy to see that journalism, media, citizens, people and story jump out. The only thing I don't like about the word generator is that it doesn't recognize phrases-- for example "citizen journalism" gets broken up into CITIZEN and JOURNALISM.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Palin Speech
In this post, I'll attempt to answer the following questions in response to Vanity Fair's editing of Sarah Palin's resignation speech:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907
1. What are the problematics of speeches vis-a-vis the reporter and the editor?
2. What does this say about the role/importance of editors/editing in general?
3. What things (plural) have the editor done with this speech.
4. Has the editor made it better. If so, how? If not, why not?
The speech is absolutely terrible, and the amount of editing coloring the pages is a reflection of that. While the editor's red marks make the speech so much better by eliminating awkward wording and bad grammar, I think the green marks by the research editor were more important. Palin had several fact errors, exaggerations and misleading statements that reduce her speech to uneducated rambling. Her confusion of Andrew Johnson with Abraham Lincoln reveals her lack of knowledge of Alaska's history, which she attempted to use to connect with her constituents. Her claims that ethics inquiries wasted Americans' tax dollars were misleading because all the inquiries were made by Alaskan residents and agencies, and the state shelled out $200,000 to investigate, not $2 million. She does not explain how this money was taken away from education and police/highway funds either.
She says that she knows people are going to question her timing of her resignation, but then does not elaborate on how she has made the right decision by resigning now.
The role and importance of editing can be seen throughout this examples. The media play a huge role in keeping an eye on politicians' claims and lets the public know when they are skewing the truth. Simple editing can make the message that much clearer and more concise, which in turn reaches the reader better. Without editing, Palin seems like a complete idiot. After editing, she seems like she actually had some reason why she was elected governor.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907
1. What are the problematics of speeches vis-a-vis the reporter and the editor?
2. What does this say about the role/importance of editors/editing in general?
3. What things (plural) have the editor done with this speech.
4. Has the editor made it better. If so, how? If not, why not?
The speech is absolutely terrible, and the amount of editing coloring the pages is a reflection of that. While the editor's red marks make the speech so much better by eliminating awkward wording and bad grammar, I think the green marks by the research editor were more important. Palin had several fact errors, exaggerations and misleading statements that reduce her speech to uneducated rambling. Her confusion of Andrew Johnson with Abraham Lincoln reveals her lack of knowledge of Alaska's history, which she attempted to use to connect with her constituents. Her claims that ethics inquiries wasted Americans' tax dollars were misleading because all the inquiries were made by Alaskan residents and agencies, and the state shelled out $200,000 to investigate, not $2 million. She does not explain how this money was taken away from education and police/highway funds either.
She says that she knows people are going to question her timing of her resignation, but then does not elaborate on how she has made the right decision by resigning now.
The role and importance of editing can be seen throughout this examples. The media play a huge role in keeping an eye on politicians' claims and lets the public know when they are skewing the truth. Simple editing can make the message that much clearer and more concise, which in turn reaches the reader better. Without editing, Palin seems like a complete idiot. After editing, she seems like she actually had some reason why she was elected governor.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Neighborhood Blogs / Hyperlocal / Citizen Journalism / Citizen Media
Who you know can make all the difference for breaking news. The more eyes and ears you have working for you, the better the sources and the better your end result-- your story-- will be. I think the greatest testament to citizen journalism for my generation is how quickly word of mouth travels through Facebook and Twitter. Most times I find out that a celebrity has died or that a tragedy has happened through people's updated statuses and Tweets. Although at times having more than 1,000 "friends" on Facebook can seem ridiculous, I realize that Facebook isn't what Myspace used to be: a place for friends. It honestly is a new networking tool and a great source for stories and tips.
Being hyper-local is not easy. Gaining a local audience is key to surviving in the new social media world. Anything your staff can do to gain page views needs to be done. Advertisements for local businesses can help, but creating a niche Web site can really increase your reach. A lot of newspapers have launched their separate online niche sites completely run by citizen journalists. The more views each blog receives, the more money the writer is paid. A perfect example of this is that The Independent Florida Alligator, my college's paper, recently became part of The Huffington Post's college branch. The college section really narrows the demographic of the readers, and can make advertising certain age-specific products way more effective. The Chicago Tribune Chicagonow and The Miami Herald's five communities Web sites are examples of bigger newspapers increasing their readership in a cheap way during budget-cut times.
After reading a lot of the reviews for WikiCity, I have to say that I think it is a great idea. The site only gets out what the locals put in, but in small towns, locals will talk and blog because they don't have their own newspaper or news channel. Yes, there is always the concern that, like Wikipedia, people who blog can be wrong, but other citizen journalists can update and correct their mistakes as well. The site is different because it starts like a phone book, listing local businesses, but it can grow into a source of news about everything in town.
When relying on citizen journalists for content, it is a good idea to make sure they know a little about the ABC's of journalism. Start by teaching the basic, like fact-checking all proper nouns in a story and being consistent with tenses. Workshops can help train new writers. Positive reinforcement and constructive criticism will help your writers stick with you and improve. If they enjoy writing, they will remain in contact, and you will have one more reporter listening for news.
According to a map from the Knight Citizens News Network, there are more than 800 different citizen media sites in the nation. Why is this surprising to me? Because building hyperlocal pages , particularly for the smallest newspapers, can be costly, time-consuming and sometimes impossible given technological limitations of staffs. I know at my paper, it's hard enough to attract student writers who are supposedly looking for clips for their portfolio and want writing experience. But even with the need for writing experience, some students' time is precious and they have other commitments. The same holds true for working adults. But I think the coolest part of citizen journalism is that despite having families to raise and jobs to work at, so many parents and adults have time to blog for their sites. They WANT to. It keeps them informed and also helps the neighborhood out at the same time.
Another aspect of citizen journalism is the community's bloggers become watchdogs, just like news reporters are supposed to be. Julie Faneslow's example of how a community helped eliminate a heroin/meth problem parallels a current story at my paper. On March 2, a graduate student/ teacher's assistant/ international student was shot by university police, after being Tasered and bean-bagged. Because the case is under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the State Attorney's Office, reporters haven't been given much information. Fortunately, concerned citizens from the community have posted on every story about this incident and have come forward to the newsroom with tips. From family friends to coworkers and neighbors, the variety of sources has greatly assisted writers, and it was all made possible by feedback on our Web site.
Being hyper-local is not easy. Gaining a local audience is key to surviving in the new social media world. Anything your staff can do to gain page views needs to be done. Advertisements for local businesses can help, but creating a niche Web site can really increase your reach. A lot of newspapers have launched their separate online niche sites completely run by citizen journalists. The more views each blog receives, the more money the writer is paid. A perfect example of this is that The Independent Florida Alligator, my college's paper, recently became part of The Huffington Post's college branch. The college section really narrows the demographic of the readers, and can make advertising certain age-specific products way more effective. The Chicago Tribune Chicagonow and The Miami Herald's five communities Web sites are examples of bigger newspapers increasing their readership in a cheap way during budget-cut times.
After reading a lot of the reviews for WikiCity, I have to say that I think it is a great idea. The site only gets out what the locals put in, but in small towns, locals will talk and blog because they don't have their own newspaper or news channel. Yes, there is always the concern that, like Wikipedia, people who blog can be wrong, but other citizen journalists can update and correct their mistakes as well. The site is different because it starts like a phone book, listing local businesses, but it can grow into a source of news about everything in town.
When relying on citizen journalists for content, it is a good idea to make sure they know a little about the ABC's of journalism. Start by teaching the basic, like fact-checking all proper nouns in a story and being consistent with tenses. Workshops can help train new writers. Positive reinforcement and constructive criticism will help your writers stick with you and improve. If they enjoy writing, they will remain in contact, and you will have one more reporter listening for news.
According to a map from the Knight Citizens News Network, there are more than 800 different citizen media sites in the nation. Why is this surprising to me? Because building hyperlocal pages , particularly for the smallest newspapers, can be costly, time-consuming and sometimes impossible given technological limitations of staffs. I know at my paper, it's hard enough to attract student writers who are supposedly looking for clips for their portfolio and want writing experience. But even with the need for writing experience, some students' time is precious and they have other commitments. The same holds true for working adults. But I think the coolest part of citizen journalism is that despite having families to raise and jobs to work at, so many parents and adults have time to blog for their sites. They WANT to. It keeps them informed and also helps the neighborhood out at the same time.
Another aspect of citizen journalism is the community's bloggers become watchdogs, just like news reporters are supposed to be. Julie Faneslow's example of how a community helped eliminate a heroin/meth problem parallels a current story at my paper. On March 2, a graduate student/ teacher's assistant/ international student was shot by university police, after being Tasered and bean-bagged. Because the case is under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the State Attorney's Office, reporters haven't been given much information. Fortunately, concerned citizens from the community have posted on every story about this incident and have come forward to the newsroom with tips. From family friends to coworkers and neighbors, the variety of sources has greatly assisted writers, and it was all made possible by feedback on our Web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)