Forum Moderators: open
Republishers then pay for access to that database of articles. (I suspect this isn't far off of how it's done now). But open to anyone willing to subscribe.
Put a grading system in place for the articles, as to the potential validity of the article, where a 10 is that the article has been validated and is certain fact, a 1 means the articles can't be validated, is speculation, or is opinion.
Then when publishing these articles or derivatives, subscribers have the ability to brand their sites as a 'primary' site. that means they're getting their info right from the journalists. People who republish beyond that are noted as secondary sources of news.
Fact: {discusses facts}
Speculation: {discusses speculative facts}
Opinion: {information that is opinion based. This kind of stuff right now is blended in with facts and presented as facts in most mainstream media sources right now. All those stupid news 'operation centers' and roundtables consisting of talking heads who's only credentials on the subject matter is that they're employed by the media.....slap me I'm starting to rant again).
Can you imagine how the news would read in this format for things like all the current wars going on? Or all the stuff on Sarah Palin and Obama?
Right now I see [strike]dead people[/strike] opinions in the media all the time, presented as factual news or indistinguishable from factual news. And when I see examples of that it makes me discount the entire piece -and their integrity. This format would allow us to judge facts on their own merit, see what's actual speculation or unconfirmed, as well as see other's opinions for what they are.
This could seperate out media outlets fast. Those that prop up garbage stories with opinion then present it as fact (biased) wouldn't do well. Those with actual intelligent opinions could do very well - I certainly don't mind reading opinions because it helps me gain additional insight and interpretation. But it needs to be labelled as that. Heck, strong interpretation of the news on an ongoing basis is a business model on it's own.
Link to photos, video, blogs--all kinds of stuff.
In a nutshell, out-google Google on each page of news. (Oh, and tell Google to go take a flying leap--don't share without $.)
Also, it's a two-way medium in which readers may contribute, which is great for local and hyperlocal journalism-- and a worldwide medium, which is great for expert readers to contribute on niche subjects.
Another big difference from flat paper is the ability to update over time, after publishing, and I think the ability to build out a report over time is an advantage as a medium. It seems like the remake of journalism on the Web would focus on "Truths" as well as "News", quality-building, circling back to past reports to expand, update and cross-and reference, where appropriate, reaching back into history, sideways to complementary subjects, integrating options/tools for the reader to DO something-- write your congressman or order the book from the review, for example-- after the initial burst to publish. This would go a long way to attracting inlinks and establishing the publishing organization as the authority on the report, from the point of view of the Web's gatekeepers. This sort of structuring IS the Web.
Besides initially structuring a journalism site to grow strategically and referentially over time, all the methods of access should be designed for - besides simple browsing (which, apart from content, makes Wikipedia a winner)-- News search, Web search, image search, and geographic search all need details to work. It's access on an inquirer's request from some other site that is the broadcast, and the journalism operation that tends to the details of distribution that will remain going concerns.
Maybe a kind of blog then, with journo-bloggers.
TBH, I think BBC news site has it just about right. If only it could be supported as a web portal in its own right.
But who's the editor? The secret of publishing journalism - not simply creating it - is in the quality control and selection of 'priorities'. In other words, the editor.
How can that be achieved in a way that would not either give in to owner bias or vandalism, the two extremes of online 'open' journalism.
What readers are looking for is a source they can trust. Trust is built on competence, integrity, and caring. Not all readers weigh those three factors the same, nor do individuals weigh them the same all of the time. It's a moving target.
Integrity--doing what you say you are going to do--it one area that needs work that is not getting a lot of attention. Too many news services and other web sites "over sell" what is offered in terms of information. This is especially true in the magazine business, but it's true of newspapers as well. Hype might bring in readers short term, but it hurts long-term trust.
Caring is tough. People get caring confused with bias. Journalism is often about tough love, telling the uncomfortable truths, asking the awkward question. But I believe that most people understand and appreciate it. (I might be wrong on this, however.)
It's a each and every day kind of job. Newspapers have the "brand" in their area. They have earned the trust. But, they need to work on building a better product.
Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved. New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.
Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each. New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial. New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.
[ojr.org...]
New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.
How can the reader tell if he's an honest journo or a liar with an agenda?
Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each. New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Assuming the journo knows. And cares! The 'old rule' allowed the reader to make up their own mind.
The old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial. - The new rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.
Rather misses the point. The old rule was there to stop advertisers influencing the content; the new rule says 'they might - you guess'
While the new rules aren't all bad, I think it's worth considering why the old rules existed, before chucking them out.
At first read, I didn't see it as 'old rules out, new rules in', but 'journos out, bloogers in'
The old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial.
Case in point - the above 'rule' isn't even being followed.
We've got a national level media chain where I am that's gone and bought web properties in completely unrelated industries. One of those niches is in mine. They now have (this is bizarre, but I'm serious) an affiliate type site where they generate leads and sell them - right square in the middle of my niche.
That's all fine...except they don't disclose ownership of the site anywhere. In fact, your led to believe the owner is another entity entirely.
What they do though, is advertise heavily in every single daily and weekly paper they own. All the ads are made to look like a seperate entity - and no mention is made of ownership. Who else has the money to run quarter page ads (used to be full page ads) in daily nationals, right down to quarter page ads in all the local weekly papers, every single day/week, year after year?
I don't get too bent about it since once again, decent internet marketing trumps them anyway - they're not hurting me. But it is another example of the traditional media dropping any pretense of integrity and ignoring clear bias when money's at stake.
And remember my kids blog I mentioned in the supporters section? This same media org spammed him (he's a child) a while ago, asking if he'd like to advertise his 'business' (aka a blog on nerf guns and video games) in their paper. Things get tight, and all of a sudden spamming is a viable advertising media for these organizations.
Sorry. Hit me with a cattle prod, or mention traditional media. Either one produces a similiar reaction in me :).
The whole point about the old rules is that they were intended to safeguard the reader - not the journo.
Perhaps it's a sign of the times that the new rules are designed specifically to make life easier for the journo.
Fine if he's honest. Suppose he isn't?
ALL professional codes of practice should protect the client (in this case, the reader) from the human frailties of the professional. But does the 21st century want professional journalist - or cheap ones?
1. To promote the views and interests of the proprietor (propaganda)
2. To recoup the costs and possibly make a profit by selling advertising (money)
3. To attract eyeballs by writing about current events (marketing)
What's to reinvent?
I take Quadrille's point that to be successful there needs to be quality control, but what constitutes "quality" depends upon the targeted demographic - highbrow journalism must appeal to the educated classes, while at the lower end of the scale it is predominantly scandal and gossip that sells.
There is also special interest niche publishing to attract those who care about a particular subject, but the motives and methods are essentially the same.
There are established "tricks of the trade", of course, and knowing them is what differentiates a journalist from the average blogger - though no journalist worthy of the name writes for free.
An editor is an experienced journalist who knows the business and the needs of the proprietor - including the need to avoid expensive lawsuits (except where the intention is to destroy the reputation of an individual or an organisation, in which case it's all about risk-assessment).
Every survey ever taken places journalists near the bottom of the popularity and trustworthiness scale, roughly equivalent to politicians (but above lawyers, naturally).
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (Phil Space).
...
Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved. New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each. New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial. New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference. Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved. New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.
Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each. New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial. New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.
Quadrille, you said that telling readers how the reporter might be involved assumes the reporter is honest. That has always been the case. Now, however, the new rules allow the reporter to speak up. If fact, the rule says you must. So, if you're a reporter covering the school board and you have a kid in the schools and you're in the PTA...say so if it applies.
You make a good point about the journo knowing what is what. But, under the old rule about being "fair", you had to go talk to party x after you talked to party y to be "fair" and report what they said. And party x would jerk you around because of it. It was sometimes worse than dumb, it could be harmful. But, I would warn reporters--do talk to both parties before you write. Then report what is what, as you see it. This can mean that the reporter has to work harder, however, at telling what is what.
The old rule about ads and edit separate sometimes said, "No, no, no!" if an ad buyer wanted to be next to a certain kind of news story. (Years ago the industry had this problem with Google's contextual ads, if you remember.) Now, we have learned that commercial speech can have value for the reader's education and, so, if Party X want to buy an ad that runs on the news web site each time an article on Party Y appears--we can do that. And it's often ok.
The purpose of journalism has always been:1. To promote the views and interests of the proprietor (propaganda)
2. To recoup the costs and possibly make a profit by selling advertising (money)
3. To attract eyeballs by writing about current events (marketing)
Samizdata, this can happen, but typically it has not been the case. And not because of some high calling. In the past, it was not a sustainable business model.
Now, with more and more channels, what you are seeing is worse than what you outlined--people shoveling arguments they know to be wrong or even harmful, or based on little or no facts, to pander to specific audience to sell products.
But what you describe has nothing to do with journalism as I define it.
[edited by: weeks at 12:23 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2009]
We've got a national level media chain where I am that's gone and bought web properties in completely unrelated industries. One of those niches is in mine. They now have (this is bizarre, but I'm serious) an affiliate type site where they generate leads and sell them - right square in the middle of my niche.That's all fine...except they don't disclose ownership of the site anywhere. In fact, your led to believe the owner is another entity entirely.
What they do though, is advertise heavily in every single daily and weekly paper they own. All the ads are made to look like a seperate entity - and no mention is made of ownership. Who else has the money to run quarter page ads (used to be full page ads) in daily nationals, right down to quarter page ads in all the local weekly papers, every single day/week, year after year?
Wheel, webmasters would be wise to listen to your story. This is the emerging business model many mainline publishers are trying now. It's going to hurt some of the independents.
The good news, however, is that if you have a niche site, you now might find that publishers who at one time wouldn't talk to you about some kind of relationship are now very interested in what you have. And, if you're not a wiz at selling ads and they are, well, now,...
But, be careful. These guys can be tough. Be very, very careful. Some (many?) will take you to lunch and start talking relationships just to pick your brain.
Now the best they can do is have Wolf Blitzer stand in the Situation Room with an interviewee to whom he shows a video/audio clip and asks him/her to comment on it.
They now have (this is bizarre, but I'm serious) an affiliate type site where they generate leads and sell them - right square in the middle of my niche.What they do though, is advertise heavily in every single daily and weekly paper they own... Who else has the money to run quarter page ads (used to be full page ads) in daily nationals, right down to quarter page ads in all the local weekly papers, every single day/week, year after year?
Welcome to the wonderful world of commercial publishing. All of this has been done since the 1950's, and probably before - you've only just noticed?
It seems like you have a dream or idealism of something that cannot exist. 'Honesty' in line with 'objectivity' and 'integrity' do not exist for the populace - they are the perspectives of one individual but are approved or sanctioned by others. On the other side of the coin: my truths are your lies: your objectivity is my disgust - etc, etc.
One country bombs another's villages. The aggressor states casualties are only XX. The other side states that deaths are at XX.
Who arbitrates the 'truth' you seek - and, more commercially, how does this 'pure', 'factual' journalism finance itself?
Syzygy
what you describe has nothing to do with journalism as I define it
No problem weeks, as you probably guessed I was being a little provocative.
But the journalist's next question must be "OK then - how do you define it?".
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" (Samuel Johnson)
...
The old rule about ads and edit separate sometimes said, "No, no, no!" if an ad buyer wanted to be next to a certain kind of news story. (Years ago the industry had this problem with Google's contextual ads, if you remember.) Now, we have learned that commercial speech can have value for the reader's education and, so, if Party X want to buy an ad that runs on the news web site each time an article on Party Y appears--we can do that. And it's often ok.
Sure, they do not necessarily need to be physically separated - though an advertsier can deliberately give the impression they 'own' a story, if not careful.
The point is to keep them separate in that the advertiser does not control the copy - any more than the proprietor should (!).
The journo should never be subjected to 'change this a little, or we'll lose the ad'; or worse, 'add this sentence and we might get a fullpage'.
Of course it happens; but it should only happen on crap papers. These days, most weekend news stories read like press releases.
There never was a perfect world; likely there never will be. But publish and be damned is the best motto for a serious journo, and his editor should protect him from the proprietor afterward!
[edited by: Quadrille at 1:43 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2009]
I take Quadrille's point that to be successful there needs to be quality control, but what constitutes "quality" depends upon the targeted demographic - highbrow journalism must appeal to the educated classes, while at the lower end of the scale it is predominantly scandal and gossip that sells.
...
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (Phil Space).
*Whew* Someone just cut a stinky one. To assert that quality journalism is what "sells" is a hideous proposition, but exposes the problem with the challenge.
1. The survival / evolution of newspapers or their online equivalents
2. The survival / evolution of journalism.
While there is some overlap, they really are quite separate. For example, (1) has ethical issues, while (2) has no business case to worry about (either you can afford quality journos - or you can't).
I don't think we need concern ourselves too much with 'journalism'; the instinct to expose scandal & scam runs deep, and the Internet has shown that there's plenty of folk out there to carry on the 'All The Presidents Men' traditions.
Which leaves a discussion about the economics of newspapers and their online survival. And frankly, that is sorting itself out. Yes, papers will die - eventually, most of them. Some will adapt and survive. But a newspaper is not an artifact to be preserved, set in amber like a primordial insect. It's a living thing, or it's nothing.
Yes, people will lose their jobs; online versions just don't need so many people. But, however difficult that may be for those concerned, is it an argument to preserve the newspaper? No, I'm afraid it isn't
What we are talking about here is how journalism looks now and what it will look like tomorrow. The technology has made the job more difficult in many ways. Once reporters had a team of copyeditors and managers and even typesetters going over their words, making them more polished, more thoughtful. More accurate. Now, it's just one person. And, that person has zero minutes to deadline now.
I love newspapers and books and am quite happy to get my news in paper format with my breakfast. I'd be a happy camper if that doesn't change.
My beef is what goes on as journalism. I don't see it as journalism. I see it as commercialism at it's worst. Bias and money grubbing passed off as 'doing good'.
It's journalism that needs to be fixed more so than the format.
But newspaper sales throughout the western world suggest you are in a minority; sales are sliding all the time, at all levels of newspaper publishing (broadsheet, tabloid, local).
But I do agree about the decline in printed journalism - and that cannot be fixed, because times are so hard that it's all about paring down to the fiscal bone.
Hence advertising is allowed to influence editorial; no proofreading, little sub-editing, weak editors, 'news' replaced by hastily re-written press releases and celeb gossip.
But it's a spiral of decline, that simply cannot reverse, as in amongst it all, the Internet is breeding a generation for whom buying a paper is simply "huh?", as well as recruiting all those older disillusioned readers. Like me.
Sure there's *some* good print journalism, but not much, and it's shrinking and quality print journos are aging. Most political and financial scandals are revealed - and followed up - on the web, some from TV. Very little investigative journalism arises from print these days.
Whatever you do, you'll not ever recruit young readers; I suppose you could pull back a few older readers.
UK's leading 'quality' paper is the Daily Telegraph. It sold 1.6 million per day in 1994; now it's below 900,000 paid-for copies. Their combined rivals have shuffled a little, but, combined, they are selling many fewer than they were in '94, so it's not direct competition.
UK's mid market leader is the Daily Mail; it IS selling more than in 94 - but its rivals have lost as much as they've gained - pretty static sector, over all.
UK's leading tabloid is The Sun; despite a price war, its circulation is much the same as in the early nineties, while its rivals are very significantly down.
The total UK market has shrunk pretty much every year for the past 15, to the point where several titles are at risk.
I couldn't swear to it, but my understanding is that a similar situation pertains in most of Europe and the US.
The Internet is by no means the only factor - but the Internet is picking up the readers.
I'd be happy to discuss Books too, but I suspect that's another thread :)
Suffice it to say that Kindle won't pass the "Heenan Test" - First proposed in 1998, it goes like this - "No device will replace the paperback book until such device is not only easily updateable and rechargeable, but is also capable of being read in the bath." - therefore that revolution is still to come]
[edited by: Quadrille at 1:29 am (utc) on Jan. 18, 2009]
But I do agree about the decline in printed journalism - and that cannot be fixed, because times are so hard that it's all about paring down to the fiscal bone.Hence advertising is allowed to influence editorial; no proofreading, little sub-editing, weak editors, 'news' replaced by hastily re-written press releases and celeb gossip.
But it's a spiral of decline, that simply cannot reverse, as in amongst it all, the Internet is breeding a generation for whom buying a paper is simply "huh?", as well as recruiting all those older disillusioned readers. Like me.
Sure there's *some* good print journalism, but not much, and it's shrinking and quality print journos are aging. Most political and financial scandals are revealed - and followed up - on the web, some from TV. Very little investigative journalism arises from print these days.
Pure hyperbole. When did you last buy or read a copy of TIME, HBR, The Economist, FT, WSJE. Fortean Times, 'Engineering Weekly', Record Collector, or any of the many newspapers and magazines functioning outside of the red-top markets?
When did you compare one of them with its equivalent 10 years ago?
By and large, I don't read red tops. Unless man lands on the moon or something.
I did say there were exceptions; but not many. Granted, some haven't fallen as far as others.
But do you seriously believe that print journalism is not in decline? You really believe it's only the 'red tops' that have slipped?
You haven't noticed that ALL the so-called 'quality' UK papers regular feature celeb tittle-tattle and 'Big Brother' stories on their front pages? ALL of them?
The FT is a joke compared to a few years ago; The economist is a classic example of a magazine that believes its own publicity.
Yes they publish a lot of po-faced stuff that passes for quality. But did they see the merchant banking crisis coming?
Did they spot the biggest Ponzi scam in history?
Did they seriously challenge the status quo in any way?
No. No. No.
This thread is not about reporting last weeks results; a chimpanzee could do that. The Internet certainly can. It's about journalism.
[edited by: Quadrille at 2:10 am (utc) on Jan. 18, 2009]
Thanks to the link to my piece. (Yep, I'm Robert Niles, been on WW for years.)
The gist of my piece was that journalism developed some conventions in an environment that no longer exists: as well-staffed monopolies able to afford sales staffs, as the largest and most important forum within their communities, and in an era where jack-of-all-trades general assignment reporters could credibility write on just about any topic.
My point is that environment no longer exists: The Internet has blown apart local media monopolies, so journalism start-ups (i.e. websites) and established newspapers must compete in a newly vicious economic environment. The world has become too technical and too complex for credible reporting by non-specialists in the covered fields. And as one voice among many in a cluttered media landscape, journalists must "cut to the chase" and identify truth and lies to the best of their abilities when choosing what to report. Sites that throw it all up and letting readers sort it out won't earn much loyalty from busy readers.
Truth remains paramount, as does service. But the old system has been too often gamed by tricky sources whom undertrained journalists have not been able to adequately challenge (see the Iraq War, the housing bubble and gov't wiretapping for some results).
The best thing about competition though is that it allows great journalists, with training, experience and entrepreneurial spirit to break out of the lousy corporate mindset that has ossified the field for decades to build great new websites that will help make the public become informed.
Want to help journalism? Click around. Find new news sources. E-mail 'em, Digg 'em, Twitter 'em to your friends and coworkers. Keep visiting. Patronize their advertisers.
And contribute what you can to good coverage on the Internet. This site provides a great example of how knowledgeable people can share information to cover a beat. Brett's built some great new journalism here. Other publishers are doing the same. Be an active Web reader, and participant, and journalism, as a field, will turn out fine.
Thanks.
Want to help journalism? Click around. Find new news sources. E-mail 'em, Digg 'em, Twitter 'em to your friends and coworkers. Keep visiting. Patronize their advertisers.
That's a good reminder, though when I think about it I usually pass along news because of its novelty or relevance of the topic covered than the quality of coverage. The publisher's reputation for quality does make it the top pick in an initial search result though. In any case I'm not so sure journalism as a field will be fine anytime soon, with the multimodal quake that's now shaking it out (from emergence of the Web, media consolidation and politicization).
It looks like an interesting seminar [ojr.org] you're hosting to generate ideas to help resuscitate jounalism though:
The Knight Digital Media Center in partnership with USC Annenberg School for Communication, the Center for Communication Leadership and the Online Journalism Review is accepting applications for its special News Entrepreneur Boot Camp...
This thread is not about reporting last weeks results; a chimpanzee could do that. The Internet certainly can. It's about journalism.
Going a little askew but along those lines, here's one of my favorite peices of "online journalism" that didn't get picked up by the mainstream as I recall, except perhaps the NY Times and a bunch of blogs: Real Estate Roller Coaster [video.google.com]
Along the lines of the topic, I think the recipe needs to focus on monetization and production efficiency. That's the root of the problem, why journalism is getting watered down and sold out. Even with the creative presentation of fact and implied forecast above, there is little or no return. What if the system that displayed that content were able to geolocate my visit (say, from the location of edge router), look up the matching ads in my location, and display a few for local financial services. That space would become pretty valuable.
For hyperlocal neighborhood news, police blotter and civic reporting, some system that lets an advertiser pick a page, log on and review performance datea, bid on/buy space for a pizza restaurant on that specific page, upload the ad design for review/approval and have it published in minutes would be a useful system.
