Ken Sands, online publisher at Spokane Review: Automation is key to everything we do. (has 2 web developers) We attempt to automate everything.
Amy Webb of Dragonfire (dfire.com) an award-winning non-profit online newsmagazine affiliated with Drexel University. (1.2 million unique users):
Does multimedia on every big issue. Uses pre-made Flash templates to automate - indeed, she handed out discs with several of them.Image cubesMaster of the winds, Journals of medicinel
Ron Parsons, of Yahoo! News:
Automation is the basis and the strength of Yahoo. Most automated functions are informed by human editors. Also takes note of the wisdom of crowds.But automation does not replace editors. Yahoo news began as almost completely automated. That only takes you so far. It now allows for feeds from dozens of partners, conent flows into appropriate templates and categories. can be automatically published and updated.
Automatically updating slideslows. Automatically generates several sizes of thumbnails of thousands of photos a day. New photos can be edited and added in real time, don't need photo editors to resize images.
It was open source software they tweaked (!) Extractions of stories is based on metadata, slugs, even headlines or lede. Tools sit on top of a system and allow add-ons, editors can modify as need be. RSS feeds automatically create a robust product, automated alerts for stale feeds, bad servers or bad XML alert editors to problems.Engaged enginners. Tools are critical to success of today's newsroom. Need to have lightweight flexible tools (but) editors still rule.
Adrian Holovaty, brilliant database builder, built Chicagocrime.org, the Washington Post's Congressional votes database, and Faces of the Fallen: (first two require NO maintenance unless the databases they pull the information from are changed, Otherwise they just run on their own)Tragedy in journalism is not declining circ, revenue, bias etc, (see his powerpoint presentation here, he whomped through the intro slides to effectively establish the backdrop for his remarks) but rather that we collect all this info an throw it out. Instead of narratives, we should record data in a neat organized way that has consistent meaning to a computer program.
Newspapers have huge infrastructures for collecting information, verifying it and publishing it. But they haven't leveraged the data.
Craig's List and Wikipedia just provided the great frameworks ready for data, users provide it. Newspapers have great data desperate for a framework. If data is automated, then you can automate stuff.
At Lawrence.com, they put everything into a database. Bars and drink specials, what restaurants are open late, local bands, their songs, their gigs, what other bands the musicians play in and what their songs and gigs are, cross referenced to the nightclubs and the specials and all that. So, if you are hungry late at night and want to know what restaurants are open right now, the site can readily tell you.
For Chicagocrime.org, every block in the city has it's own RSS feed pulled from Chicago PD website.
"I spend no time on it. It took 40 hours to make."
Congressional votes database updates six times a day, RSS feed set up for every member of Congress. No time maintaining it. There is an initial cost but no ongoing costs. "the key difference between local journalism and Google (is Google has organized, structured data)."
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Staffing and structure panel
The moderator, Neil Chase, has a job like mine, he was recently named the continuous news editor at the NY Times. He led two media panelists: Rob Curley, the wunderkind who put Lawrence.com on the map and had been working for the Washpost.com for three days at the time of the panel; Patrick Steigman of ESPN; and a consultant who is a change expert who I frankly got really nothing out of. (she said people can be resistant to change so you have to keep pushing them to change and then the change will happen and everyone will be OK with it.)
I was hoping for a discussion of staffing structures, instead it was more of a discussion about how Naples did a fabulous project, how ESPN works and about change in general. "Change is an organic process." (see above).
Curley, who is always fun to listen to, like his partner in crime Adrian Holovaty, said:"Own breaking news at the local level." Go hyperlocal.Database driven coverage creates additional value for material you collect. (more on this later from Adrian.)
"If we could have figured out in Naples how to beam content to your ass we would have done so."
"Extend the reach of your organization." Through online.
He was mostly talking about the excellent package Naples did on real estate costs, which they corroborated with a custom-built searchable online database of real estate transactions in the area. They hadn't intended to make it live, that is, to update it, but users demanded it. Reporters found subjects willing to talk about how much they make, how they afford -- or can't afford -- housing in Naples, did videos and stories. Also did lots of behind the scenes podcasts in which reporters did not opine but just talked about what they had found out through their reporting. Videos were documentary style, not like the nightly news.
"It was never about migration to print. If they (print) get it, great."The online staff played an active role in producing content for the newspaper. Worked because they had strong support from executive editor (also their print and online sides were never under separate management.)He said the Scripps Co., which owns lots of TV stations in addition to newspapers, was willing to pay for TV training, but urged them instead to learn on their own so it wouldn't be too polished and slick.
My colleague Ron James noted how professional the graphics looked. Rob said they hired an able graphics guy to make the logos, which swirl like they were on Fox news, partly to hide the rougher edges.They spent $200,000 to create a TV studio. Their TV colleagues were smirking that they'd never be able to do it on such a small budget but they did things on the cheap.
How did they encourage people to contribute to online? (this is important for us) "We treated even baby steps with cheers." Made huge fuss over little things for positive reinforcement "It's OK to launch products for internal reasons (for learning)"What do you ask of reporters? They have to record audio, they have to read the comments posted on their stories."Look, if we don't know what we're doing, it's OK. (just don't fail on same thing twice and learn from it.) If it royally sucks we can take it off the server and deny it ever existed."
ESPN has 50 people working online, it's a working newsroom, disctinct from but aligned with the TV product. He was touting ESPN Insider, which is a pay-to-play proposition. Has 35 bloggers. (I did later tell Pat that one sign of his success was shown in a top Yahoo news story of the day, a man named his son ESPN, pronounced Espin. He said it was about the sixth such christening.) ESPN has an internal newswire, a common news desk that edits stuff and then sends it out for the various platforms.
Curley made a good distinction, something I was talking about in some detail with my new friend, Ashley Wells, who runs a Skunk Works lab at MSNBC.com: It's not just that you have a story and a video and pictures and sound, but that you have to "integrate multiple types of media into seamless storytelling." What Ashley was saying is that it's stupid to have a video that says the same thing as the story. I'd put it differently: why lead readers/users over the same ground twice?
I was hoping for a discussion of staffing structures, instead it was more of a discussion about how Naples did a fabulous project, how ESPN works and about change in general. "Change is an organic process." (see above).
Curley, who is always fun to listen to, like his partner in crime Adrian Holovaty, said:"Own breaking news at the local level." Go hyperlocal.Database driven coverage creates additional value for material you collect. (more on this later from Adrian.)
"If we could have figured out in Naples how to beam content to your ass we would have done so."
"Extend the reach of your organization." Through online.
He was mostly talking about the excellent package Naples did on real estate costs, which they corroborated with a custom-built searchable online database of real estate transactions in the area. They hadn't intended to make it live, that is, to update it, but users demanded it. Reporters found subjects willing to talk about how much they make, how they afford -- or can't afford -- housing in Naples, did videos and stories. Also did lots of behind the scenes podcasts in which reporters did not opine but just talked about what they had found out through their reporting. Videos were documentary style, not like the nightly news.
"It was never about migration to print. If they (print) get it, great."The online staff played an active role in producing content for the newspaper. Worked because they had strong support from executive editor (also their print and online sides were never under separate management.)He said the Scripps Co., which owns lots of TV stations in addition to newspapers, was willing to pay for TV training, but urged them instead to learn on their own so it wouldn't be too polished and slick.
My colleague Ron James noted how professional the graphics looked. Rob said they hired an able graphics guy to make the logos, which swirl like they were on Fox news, partly to hide the rougher edges.They spent $200,000 to create a TV studio. Their TV colleagues were smirking that they'd never be able to do it on such a small budget but they did things on the cheap.
How did they encourage people to contribute to online? (this is important for us) "We treated even baby steps with cheers." Made huge fuss over little things for positive reinforcement "It's OK to launch products for internal reasons (for learning)"What do you ask of reporters? They have to record audio, they have to read the comments posted on their stories."Look, if we don't know what we're doing, it's OK. (just don't fail on same thing twice and learn from it.) If it royally sucks we can take it off the server and deny it ever existed."
ESPN has 50 people working online, it's a working newsroom, disctinct from but aligned with the TV product. He was touting ESPN Insider, which is a pay-to-play proposition. Has 35 bloggers. (I did later tell Pat that one sign of his success was shown in a top Yahoo news story of the day, a man named his son ESPN, pronounced Espin. He said it was about the sixth such christening.) ESPN has an internal newswire, a common news desk that edits stuff and then sends it out for the various platforms.
Curley made a good distinction, something I was talking about in some detail with my new friend, Ashley Wells, who runs a Skunk Works lab at MSNBC.com: It's not just that you have a story and a video and pictures and sound, but that you have to "integrate multiple types of media into seamless storytelling." What Ashley was saying is that it's stupid to have a video that says the same thing as the story. I'd put it differently: why lead readers/users over the same ground twice?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
PA forests
Hiked up to the top of rocky ridge in Pennsylvania, trees there are amazing by California standards. 
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
"Read the whole thing?"
The panel put together to show folks how youth view online news was interesting. (Kids today, sheesh.) It was a graceful moderator and five articulatekids on the same stage they use for the Gridiron Club's annual roasting of the president, kids ranging in age from 12 to 21. All smart, all very digital in their media habits.
Do any of you read print? A pause, then, "Your hands get all black from the ink."
They weren't that into MySpace, one said it was just too creepy cuz not limited to kids, "anyone can go on there."
Common theme. "It seems so second nature to me just to open up a web page and get what I need." (they are digital natives rather than digital immigrants. Some folks call them the millennials, but that's too hard to spell and it sounds vaguely apocalyptic.
One young woman, about 17 or maybe 18, talked about how she had to help her mom open her email, that her doesn't know how do do anything digital. "I actually don't know how she gets by in her daily life without me."
The most techie of the bunch was a well-spoken high school boy who says he plays a game on his computer, one on his PS2 and simultarneously IMs his pals. He admits it was a bit too much, but later said "Unless it overloads your computer, it's never too much."
"Being connected all the time is like a visceral drive," one girl said.
She said she went camping and was horrified to find her Blackberry (!) was out of range. "I was hyperventilating. I had to borrow a cell phone to text my friend" to feel normal again
One of the boys echoed that, "When your computer goes out, your life sort of shuts down."
Some good news: They did show some loyalty to established news brands, all read the papers their parents did, but did so online. And, they said, "Blogs just aren't accurate, they're unreliable."
They thought ads are fine, as long as they're not too intrusive. Registration they do NOT like. One resented age limit registration particularly, saying he wouldn't go on it if it wasn't appropriate. Hmm mmm. And they won't give their real email address out to anyone, although they really think email is "formal," "for official stuff," not for chatting with friends. (That's why God made IM.)
Get this, will they pay for online content? "Certainly we're not going to pay for anything. If you pay for anything (information) online, you're a sucker."
And, what, the excellent moderator asked, would it take to get you to read a whole long article. The camper girl, quoted above, responded in astonishment, "Read the whole thing?" which made everyone laugh. But then she and the others went on to say they might if there is an explainer thingie telling them why they should care.
Do any of you read print? A pause, then, "Your hands get all black from the ink."
They weren't that into MySpace, one said it was just too creepy cuz not limited to kids, "anyone can go on there."
Common theme. "It seems so second nature to me just to open up a web page and get what I need." (they are digital natives rather than digital immigrants. Some folks call them the millennials, but that's too hard to spell and it sounds vaguely apocalyptic.
One young woman, about 17 or maybe 18, talked about how she had to help her mom open her email, that her doesn't know how do do anything digital. "I actually don't know how she gets by in her daily life without me."
The most techie of the bunch was a well-spoken high school boy who says he plays a game on his computer, one on his PS2 and simultarneously IMs his pals. He admits it was a bit too much, but later said "Unless it overloads your computer, it's never too much."
"Being connected all the time is like a visceral drive," one girl said.
She said she went camping and was horrified to find her Blackberry (!) was out of range. "I was hyperventilating. I had to borrow a cell phone to text my friend" to feel normal again
One of the boys echoed that, "When your computer goes out, your life sort of shuts down."
Some good news: They did show some loyalty to established news brands, all read the papers their parents did, but did so online. And, they said, "Blogs just aren't accurate, they're unreliable."
They thought ads are fine, as long as they're not too intrusive. Registration they do NOT like. One resented age limit registration particularly, saying he wouldn't go on it if it wasn't appropriate. Hmm mmm. And they won't give their real email address out to anyone, although they really think email is "formal," "for official stuff," not for chatting with friends. (That's why God made IM.)
Get this, will they pay for online content? "Certainly we're not going to pay for anything. If you pay for anything (information) online, you're a sucker."
And, what, the excellent moderator asked, would it take to get you to read a whole long article. The camper girl, quoted above, responded in astonishment, "Read the whole thing?" which made everyone laugh. But then she and the others went on to say they might if there is an explainer thingie telling them why they should care.
Cuban not YouTubin
Cuban was noting YouTube's legal exposure is potentially greater, because it downloads a copy to your computer. They do that to save on download expenses if you want to watch it mutliple times. But that could increase the copyright legal exposure, cuz it's giving it away.
Pretty amazing that the Google guys paid, what, $A Million Gabillion in stock for a company that is not profitable and spends, according to the Washington Post, $2 million a week for the bandwidth (tube) to transmit all those video clips of college students lip synching. Post also speculated that users could be driven away from YouTube if it gets any more commercial, noting there was a user backlash over the Puffy Combs videos he put on there.
Pretty amazing that the Google guys paid, what, $A Million Gabillion in stock for a company that is not profitable and spends, according to the Washington Post, $2 million a week for the bandwidth (tube) to transmit all those video clips of college students lip synching. Post also speculated that users could be driven away from YouTube if it gets any more commercial, noting there was a user backlash over the Puffy Combs videos he put on there.
Watch the GoogTube
Mark Cuban
Well, it looks like Google wasn't listening to him. Now let's see if it gets sued over the copyrighted stuff on YouTube. (wondering, will they change name to GoogTube?)
Well, it looks like Google wasn't listening to him. Now let's see if it gets sued over the copyrighted stuff on YouTube. (wondering, will they change name to GoogTube?)
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Quotes from someone who did not speak at ONA
OK I FINALLY found my notes from that innovation speaker George Schlukbier, the guy who built Nando, the News & Observer's early Web site, in the 1990s built Nando. Much of it did not apply to what we're doing, though he did refer tsome open source content management systems that I should probably check out. But he did have some quotes worth sharing here:
"New media are change agents" that "dispurse thought organization."
OK this is a better one: "Make sure your (online) products are focused on San Diego, (that they are) unique content."
"Integrity of the newsroom has to be protected." (I like that one.)
Newsroom in charge of technologiy can push out all the information it has."
"All about community, find online communities and grow them."
"Build readership by offering services that tie them (readers/users) to the paper."
"alignment is the best term, form inter-disciplinary teams to work on specific projects and emower them."
urged integrating sales force.
"The content will be king" (and it's good to be king.
"New media are change agents" that "dispurse thought organization."
OK this is a better one: "Make sure your (online) products are focused on San Diego, (that they are) unique content."
"Integrity of the newsroom has to be protected." (I like that one.)
Newsroom in charge of technologiy can push out all the information it has."
"All about community, find online communities and grow them."
"Build readership by offering services that tie them (readers/users) to the paper."
"alignment is the best term, form inter-disciplinary teams to work on specific projects and emower them."
urged integrating sales force.
"The content will be king" (and it's good to be king.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Ok that's over!
Well the conference is finally over and I am greatly relieved. Also pleased that Jeff Jarvis himself said it seemed to him that this conference had done away with the Eyeorism that had characterized last year's conference, which was one of my goals in all this (though I had never heard that wonderfully useful word before.) If you look at his blog's main page, you can also read more about what Mark Cuban said here yesterday.
OK I'm way behind. I'm a bad, bad blogger.
I am hugely gratified at the kind words of praise I got for the panels I orchestrated. Perhaps because the organization is plum out of foolish victims, I was asked a couple times tonight if I would be willing to help coordinate next year's conference. I said I would give it some thought, but not tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Leaving DC tomorrow for PA. Will try to catch up on my notes somehow on the way, otherwise I'll do it later. Or after that. As I said, I am a bad, bad blogger.
My conclusion, however, I can give you now: Despite SignOn's successes and profitability, we are way behind where we should be online, with a primitive publishing system and a divided -- and divisive -- organizational setup that leaves us unprepared to meet the challenges of this new digital age.
Yet we saw the other day how our newsroom is ready for the change, indeed our news staff is way more receptive to going online in a big way than those at many other big newsrooms. It seems like there is still a long way to go toward that goal at the NY Times and other big shops, and it's clear that those papers -- sorry Mr. Jarvis, norgs -- that never had a seperation between newsroom and online are now producing better, more innovative online journalism than many of their much larger Metro counterparts.
OK I'm way behind. I'm a bad, bad blogger.
I am hugely gratified at the kind words of praise I got for the panels I orchestrated. Perhaps because the organization is plum out of foolish victims, I was asked a couple times tonight if I would be willing to help coordinate next year's conference. I said I would give it some thought, but not tonight, maybe tomorrow.
Leaving DC tomorrow for PA. Will try to catch up on my notes somehow on the way, otherwise I'll do it later. Or after that. As I said, I am a bad, bad blogger.
My conclusion, however, I can give you now: Despite SignOn's successes and profitability, we are way behind where we should be online, with a primitive publishing system and a divided -- and divisive -- organizational setup that leaves us unprepared to meet the challenges of this new digital age.
Yet we saw the other day how our newsroom is ready for the change, indeed our news staff is way more receptive to going online in a big way than those at many other big newsrooms. It seems like there is still a long way to go toward that goal at the NY Times and other big shops, and it's clear that those papers -- sorry Mr. Jarvis, norgs -- that never had a seperation between newsroom and online are now producing better, more innovative online journalism than many of their much larger Metro counterparts.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Some thoughts from the British gorilla - or, is this blog post is too long?
They keynote speaker this morning was Adrian Van Klaveren, deputy director and controller of production, BBC News, which has been online since 1997.
Get this, the "Beeb" has the "idiosyncratic funding" of an annual fee of $250 on every TV set in the UK. (I thought it was just $75. Man, that must be nice.) BBC allso gets money from commercial licenses for content and from a grant-in-aid from the British Foreign Office for covering news overseas.
BBC considers itself the global leader in 24/7 and on-demand news (What they want, when they want it) and current affairs.
He said there is no sense of starting or finishing a day, it is truly round-the-clock operation.
But social networking is now taking away attention from news. We must ask ourselves, what will the next big idea be? What's the next big attention grabber?
Keeps in mind relevance. That is, do we really understand what we want to do?
Big media players do not have a track record of innovation. (ya think?)
Again raised questions: What are you about? What are you trying to achieve? What resources can be made available for the task? What are others doing? How can you distinguish yourself from them?
Quality of serendipity, we have to deliver content in an unexpected way. Need to create a hugely enhanced consumer experience.
"MySpace is increasing the time young people spend online."
"User-generated content is crucial in sharing the monopoly on truth."
But must use technology as an enabler, not just for tech's sake.
I love this quote, puts things in perspective: "When TV came along radio became audio wallpaper and movies, which had been the ubiquitous movie, became a special event."
Yesterday the mission was all about editorial (journalism); today it's about packaging.
Web is not TV. Mobile is not web or TV. New biz is passé; we're in the information biz
Are we in this for public service or to provide an audience for advertisers? (I would say we have to do the latter so we can perform the former.)
He showed an interesting video -- Ron asked for a copy for us -- called Creative Future, which grew out of the effort to strategically map out BBC's next steps. It must be modern, accessible, courageous and dynamic.
He offered some numbers documenting the huge increase in user content submissions since the London Train bombings (7/7). It increased to the point that after a recent industrial explosion (at Buncefield) they had 6,500 emails and 1,500 images offered from readers, with lines outside their satellite transmission trucks of people wanting to contribute their material.
In answer to a question, he said BBC even has a user-generated content hub (that's really what it's called) of 6 people to vet and verify the stuff they get from users.
BBC breaks it's audience down as:
- Traditional: Sits on couch to watch the news at a scheduled hour
- Mix & matchers: consume a combo of linear news and news on demand
- Clickers and flickers: All info they consume is on demand, don't even try to reach them with a scheduled broadcast, but rather offer them interactive models that allow them to define and schedule the content
A neat thing: BBC's done Web cam interviews, interviewing reader-contributors over their own computer web cams.
His conclusons: Life is complex. Our job is to simplify it and make it relevant to all audiences. It is OK to fail, but it can't be a mindless failure, you have to learn from it.
Get this, the "Beeb" has the "idiosyncratic funding" of an annual fee of $250 on every TV set in the UK. (I thought it was just $75. Man, that must be nice.) BBC allso gets money from commercial licenses for content and from a grant-in-aid from the British Foreign Office for covering news overseas.
BBC considers itself the global leader in 24/7 and on-demand news (What they want, when they want it) and current affairs.
He said there is no sense of starting or finishing a day, it is truly round-the-clock operation.
But social networking is now taking away attention from news. We must ask ourselves, what will the next big idea be? What's the next big attention grabber?
Keeps in mind relevance. That is, do we really understand what we want to do?
Big media players do not have a track record of innovation. (ya think?)
Again raised questions: What are you about? What are you trying to achieve? What resources can be made available for the task? What are others doing? How can you distinguish yourself from them?
Quality of serendipity, we have to deliver content in an unexpected way. Need to create a hugely enhanced consumer experience.
"MySpace is increasing the time young people spend online."
"User-generated content is crucial in sharing the monopoly on truth."
But must use technology as an enabler, not just for tech's sake.
I love this quote, puts things in perspective: "When TV came along radio became audio wallpaper and movies, which had been the ubiquitous movie, became a special event."
Yesterday the mission was all about editorial (journalism); today it's about packaging.
Web is not TV. Mobile is not web or TV. New biz is passé; we're in the information biz
Are we in this for public service or to provide an audience for advertisers? (I would say we have to do the latter so we can perform the former.)
He showed an interesting video -- Ron asked for a copy for us -- called Creative Future, which grew out of the effort to strategically map out BBC's next steps. It must be modern, accessible, courageous and dynamic.
He offered some numbers documenting the huge increase in user content submissions since the London Train bombings (7/7). It increased to the point that after a recent industrial explosion (at Buncefield) they had 6,500 emails and 1,500 images offered from readers, with lines outside their satellite transmission trucks of people wanting to contribute their material.
In answer to a question, he said BBC even has a user-generated content hub (that's really what it's called) of 6 people to vet and verify the stuff they get from users.
BBC breaks it's audience down as:
- Traditional: Sits on couch to watch the news at a scheduled hour
- Mix & matchers: consume a combo of linear news and news on demand
- Clickers and flickers: All info they consume is on demand, don't even try to reach them with a scheduled broadcast, but rather offer them interactive models that allow them to define and schedule the content
A neat thing: BBC's done Web cam interviews, interviewing reader-contributors over their own computer web cams.
His conclusons: Life is complex. Our job is to simplify it and make it relevant to all audiences. It is OK to fail, but it can't be a mindless failure, you have to learn from it.
One interesting discussion I missed yesterday
Aside from the fancy USA Today reception yesterday, I also missed this discussion on real-time news.
One of the panelists, Neil Chase, a really good guy, is now continuous news editor at New York Times. (I've met him when he was running CBS Marketwatch.) He said in this panel discussion that that's not like issuing edicts and writing memos but more like working with "tenured faculty." I assured him in a separate conversation that everything would be better once they move into the Times' new building.
One of the panelists, Neil Chase, a really good guy, is now continuous news editor at New York Times. (I've met him when he was running CBS Marketwatch.) He said in this panel discussion that that's not like issuing edicts and writing memos but more like working with "tenured faculty." I assured him in a separate conversation that everything would be better once they move into the Times' new building.
Wash Post editor says online is swell
Washington Post Editor Leonard Downie walked across the street to speak to the ONA this morning. His basic message was that all his early assumptions and worries about the internet years ago were unfounded. Online was not competition for the newsroom, and didn't ruin its journalism, instead it made it better. And the audience for Post's journalism is huge, now much bigger than with just print, and has strengthened Post's brand.
Post's Continuous news desk starts at 4:30 a.m. The paper runs an AM and an FM station that carries Post writers talking about the news,.
"(internet) has imoproved our journalism a lot. Our journalists are working earlier, watching breaking news more closely." plus unlimited newshole.
Print and online work the the same standards. He later raised the question about seperateness, as the web side remains separate. "Will we eventualy merge? I don't know."
He noted the increased scrutiny of journalism online, and said that there used to be big names in the business in the old days who were "cheaters, fabricators and plagiarists" who did not get caught but would swiftly get exposed nowadays.
He said citizen journalsts haven't displaced traditional journalism, but has joined it, noting that the most-read journalism on the net remains edited, verifiable journalism. He said largest single driver of traffic to the site is Drudge.
"Everyone blogs." Staffers take pictures and video for the web. Still important we keep opinion out of news coverage.
Here's a link to Staci's paidcontent.org blog entry on Downie's comments. Staci is a more experienced blogger and one more accustomed to typing as people are talking.
Post's Continuous news desk starts at 4:30 a.m. The paper runs an AM and an FM station that carries Post writers talking about the news,.
"(internet) has imoproved our journalism a lot. Our journalists are working earlier, watching breaking news more closely." plus unlimited newshole.
Print and online work the the same standards. He later raised the question about seperateness, as the web side remains separate. "Will we eventualy merge? I don't know."
He noted the increased scrutiny of journalism online, and said that there used to be big names in the business in the old days who were "cheaters, fabricators and plagiarists" who did not get caught but would swiftly get exposed nowadays.
He said citizen journalsts haven't displaced traditional journalism, but has joined it, noting that the most-read journalism on the net remains edited, verifiable journalism. He said largest single driver of traffic to the site is Drudge.
"Everyone blogs." Staffers take pictures and video for the web. Still important we keep opinion out of news coverage.
Here's a link to Staci's paidcontent.org blog entry on Downie's comments. Staci is a more experienced blogger and one more accustomed to typing as people are talking.
ONA blog on conference
The ONA has students blogging the conference, and they are doing a much better job than I am. (I'm still encountering panel loose ends.) you can find that blog at http://journalists.org/2006conference/
Cooking with gas - and Cuban
OK now we're online and blogging, yay
my first panel, the Developing New Voices one, went well, though there were some logistical hiccups.
I am now listening to Mark Cuban's keynote, which is very interesting because he's so smart and outspoken.
He said Google would be nuts to buy YouTube (not MySpace, as I wrote earlier, duh on me, thanks Huntz) that YouTube is a copyright lawsuit waiting to happen.
Asked what he would do if he ran a newspaper, he said he would figure out its core competencies, what it does well; who is "going to kick my ass" (what competitors are out there) and how am I going to differentiate myself from the others. He said the hardest part is the marketing, to brand your product so that people will come to you.
He also said papers should raise the price to better match the value proposition, ie it's worth more than we charge for it.
my first panel, the Developing New Voices one, went well, though there were some logistical hiccups.
I am now listening to Mark Cuban's keynote, which is very interesting because he's so smart and outspoken.
He said Google would be nuts to buy YouTube (not MySpace, as I wrote earlier, duh on me, thanks Huntz) that YouTube is a copyright lawsuit waiting to happen.
Asked what he would do if he ran a newspaper, he said he would figure out its core competencies, what it does well; who is "going to kick my ass" (what competitors are out there) and how am I going to differentiate myself from the others. He said the hardest part is the marketing, to brand your product so that people will come to you.
He also said papers should raise the price to better match the value proposition, ie it's worth more than we charge for it.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
