Student Views

USA Today Via AIM

2008-04-14T15:58:00.004-04:00

According to a posting on EContent (and The Editors Weblog here), USA Today has partnered with AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) to provide news through instant messages.

This post says that via IM, users can search current and archived headlines on USAToday.com and set up "real-time news alerts."

AIM users may input keywords and when stories are published on USAToday.com containing those words, AIM users will receive an instant message with a headline, article summary, and link back to the complete story. Readers may also use the interactive service to browse and search current and archived USATODAY.com headlines.

I thought this was a pretty ingenious idea, so I decided to click on over to USA Today's Web site to find out more. Well, I may not be the best at navigating around the Web, but I couldn't find anything about this new service on the site itself. So, I decided to give it a try myself and guide anyone who reads this through the process.*

1. Add "USA Today" to your AIM buddy list.

2. Send it an instant message. It will respond with a welcome message and instructions to type "alerts now" or "privacy" to set up news alerts or to read the privacy policy.

3. Type and send "alerts now." It will respond with two sending options: one is to edit news category alerts and one is to edit keyword alerts.

4. Choose news category alerts, copy, paste and send. It will then give you eight categories like "Election 2008" or "Celebrity News and Gossip" to choose from.

5. Pick the number of your category and send. You will receive a list of headlines and story summaries in that category. (The headlines are links to the full stories.) There are a limited number of headlines shown, so you can send "more" to get additional headlines or "menu" to return to the main menu.

With that, you're all set. You can play around, choose different categories, get news by keywords of your choosing, etc. But it's a quick and easy process, particularly for someone like me who spends a great deal of time using instant messaging. It's very intuitive, easy to understand and fast. And kudos to USA Today for even being able to throw in a link to an advertisement (it's not intrusive).

There's been talk of text message updates and the like for a little while now, so this seems like a logical evolution. I don't have text message capabilities on my phone, so that would be of no use to me. This, however, is quite useful. I've also never really be a reader of USA Today, and this just may change that. Other newspapers should be paying attention.

*Please be aware that I use Trillian as my instant messaging software, so the process could be slightly different on "real" AIM. But it should still be pretty simple.

Ethics of Images

2008-04-14T14:55:00.003-04:00

In my ongoing search for blog fodder, I stumbled onto the blog of photojournalist Carrie Niland and a post she wrote last Thursday called "ethics and toning."

I always find that ethical issues jump out at me. This is partially attributed to my current enrollment in Journalism Ethics and Issues, a senior requirement for my journalism degree. The other part of it is that I find ethics to be like philosophy: they are both topics that can spark lengthy and heated debates that generally never reach definitive resolutions because there are no definitive answers. Perhaps the part of me that likes this is the part of me that is drawn to the law, being able to see and understand both sides of an issue. Even things that seem black and white are usually a shade of gray.

So, what is this Niland post about? It's about photojournalism ethics. We've had some extensive conversations about photojournalism ethics in my class, and it is much more a world of gray then printed word or broadcast journalism.

Written journalism can be pretty cut and dry when it comes to printing a quote from someone: don't change their words. Of course, then there is an issue of removing words, changing tense, etc.; however, this tends to be indicated by ellipses or brackets, and the whole point is to leave the meaning and context of the quote intact. And facts are facts; if it was raining, you don't say it was sunny. It seems pretty simple.

The problem is that so much of photography is about perception. "Truth" or "fact" are a subjective thing in an image. Who is to say exactly what shade of blue the sky was; every camera is going to capture it differently, and every printer is going to use a slightly different mixture of ink. Even more concrete things are uncertain. In a printed quote, a journalist might remove a word for the quote to work grammatically. In an image, a photographer might want to remove a signpost because it looks like it's coming out of someone's head. In both cases, something about it just isn't right, and the change doesn't significantly alter the context. But it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

The particular issue discussed in the Niland post seems pretty cut and dry to me, but that's because it was portrayed as news (capturing the reality of the event) and was obviously doctored using photo editing software. Due to copyrights, etc., you can click the link above to see the images in that posting.

All in all, as I said, I find these ethical situations interesting, even when it may seem as though there is a clear(er) answer. But I think Niland creates a good conversation - some of the comments are quite lengthy - about a valuable topic. And in a time when technology is more pervasive and more advanced, creating difficulty in spotting manipulations and fakes, this is certainly something of which people need to be aware.

The Online Credibility Gap

2008-04-12T16:26:00.004-04:00

The Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute along with the Associated Press Managing Editors have produced a report about the credibility of online, local journalism.

The news release says the research is based on 500 interviews with randomly selected adults (18 or older) and 1,251 newsroom editors of U.S. dailies. The purpose of the interview surveys was "to examine opinions of the general public as well as newsroom editors regarding the credibility of online local news content, interaction between newsroom and readers, and the attributes that comprise good journalism practice online."

Some of the topics questioned and explored included anonymous postings, "editing for civility," and journalists' transparency in relation to their personal views. The consensus was that local online news should follow standard journalistic practices like verifying information, but there was division over users posting anonymous comments.

Not surprisingly, verifying information, getting the facts right and correcting mistakes ranked highly in importance for both editors and the public. Both groups also felt that journalists and the public are responsible for accuracy of local news.

What seems more unusual is that editors and the public trust the news to the same extent; 74 percent of editors trusted online content, and 75 percent of the public trusted the information. The primarily disagreement regarded anonymous comments, with 64 percent of editors thinking it a bad idea and only 45 percent of the public.

What I find most odd in the report summary is the number of editors who trust print newspapers more than their online versions. Though 74 percent of editors and 75 percent of the public were indifferent as to one being more trustworthy, a full 24 percent of editors trusted newspapers more than associated Web sites.

I know people are sometimes reluctant to accept change, but I fail to see why such a substantial percentage would disparage the credibility of online news content. I'm no expert when it comes to newspapers' Web sites, but I would think much of the content is quite similar, if not a carbon copy, of what appears in the print edition. Shouldn't these editors have greater faith in what it is they are publishing?

The study does not seem to be a particularly large one. However, consider that that are somewhat more than 1,500 newspapers affiliated with The Associated Press; the editors interviewed for the study represent much of this number.

I know this is a difficult time for the world of journalism, but perhaps this report will prove to be a bit of a swift kick to the industry in order to get it back on track. When even people on the inside fail to trust what they produce, it is a sad state indeed.

Are You a Firefox User?

2008-04-12T15:39:00.005-04:00

No doubt most people have heard of the Firefox Web browser at this point in time. And a great many people have begun using it as an alternative (along with the other alterna-browser, Opera) to the standard Mac and PC offerings of Safari and Internet Explorer.

So, what does using Firefox say about you?

Well, according to a blog post by Seth Godin, "a bestselling author, entrepreneur and agent of change," it means you're confident and empowered.

Why, you ask?

The reasoning: In order to use Firefox, you need to be confident enough to download and use a browser that wasn't the default when you first turned on your computer.
That's an empowering thing to do. It isolates you as a different kind of web user.

Godin feels that this is an indicator of the type of person that puts effort into the things they do, thereby making them more likely to complete college and succeed in the professional world.

He may be right. Though personally, if I remember correctly, I just downloaded it because I hated using Internet Explorer so much. But I am neither a bestseller author, nor an entrepreneur, nor an agent of change, so who am I to say?

Protections Slipping Away

2008-04-10T21:43:00.005-04:00

Anne Broache of the CNET News Blog posted an item on Tuesday discussing two recent court cases that are calling into question the protections that have traditionally been offered to Web site operators, such as YouTube or MySpace.

This protection is based on a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which states in part:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Basically, you're not going to be held accountable for something someone else does in the Internet world.

That makes sense, right? Think about the technical and logistical nightmare that would exist if the people behind a Web site like YouTube suddenly were held accountable and could face legal action for every video and comment that appears on the site. Perhaps with hundreds of people tasked with doing nothing but monitor videos and comments, it might be a possibility, but it would also bankrupt the company. Then again, if they were accountable, potential lawsuits could just as easily bankrupt them as the cost of trying to prevent the suits.

Well, as this post points out, two court cases may make these protections a bit less certain.

The first case deals with a network of dating sites under the umbrella of FriendFinder. An anonymous (in court records) woman sued the company for allowing other unknown users to create sexually explicit profiles that were identifiably her. Some parts of these profiles were used in advertisements on search engines and other outside Web sites.

The judge in the case found for FriendFinder, but he did not dismiss the woman's argument that her intellectual property rights had been violated in the form of a right to publicity. The right to publicity says that a person has the rights to and control of his or her name or likeness in commercial uses.

Traditionally, court rulings about intellectual property have dealt exclusively with trademark and copyright, which are more easily defined. The introduction of rights of publicity in these kinds of circumstances could lead to a number of problems due to the inconsistent laws in each state. Given the differences, Internet companies being constrained by these laws would be forced to operate according to the most restrictive laws in the country due to the Internet's reach.

The second case deals with the Web site Roommates.com, which is "a roommate finder and roommate search service which covers thousands of cities nationwide." The site was sued by the Fair Housing Councils of the San Fernando Valley and San Diego, Cali. The suit was was essentially based on the idea that the site was violating housing discrimination laws though the mandatory questionnaire all new users must fill out.

The questionnaire includes such information as gender, sexual orientation and number of children. While asking for information is not a problem in and of itself, the fact that answers to potentially offending questions were in the form of a drop-down menu instead of being open-ended.

I can't say that I really understand why this is a problem, and apparently the judge hearing the case didn't understand either, because he ruled for Roommates.com. However, an appeals court disagreed and ruled against the site, based on the following reasoning from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski:

If such questions are unlawful when posed face-to-face or by telephone, they don't magically become lawful when asked electronically online. The Communications Decency Act was not meant to create a lawless no man's land on the Internet.

So, what does it all mean? It would be a lie to say I really understood the full context of these cases; and both cases are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. But I think the post's point is in pointing out that each of these little decisions may seem like nothing, but once they start adding up, it can became a much stronger precedent.

As the post's title says, the courts are chipping away at well-established legal shields, and at a time when many protections people thought solid are disappearing, this is certainly something watch.

NewsTrust

2008-03-31T16:20:00.003-04:00

NewsTrust.net is a relatively new player in the Internet media, having just launched in November of 2006. It combines news feed with social network to create unique method of seeking out news stories.

Here's a description of the site from its "About" section:

The free NewsTrust.net website features daily feeds of quality news and opinions, which are carefully rated by our members, using our unique review tools. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. NewsTrust reviewers evaluate each article against core journalistic principles such as fairness, evidence, sourcing and context.

But far from a simple rating system, NewsTrust features a complex methodology based on individual ratings about certain journalistic values as well as the reviewer/rater's own reliability.

Instead of a simple "good/bad," users must rate, on a scale of one to five, such categories as trust (of publication), fairness, sources, context, information, etc. These ratings are aggregated and weighted to create an overall rating for the article. The reviewer may then also leave comments about the article, give it search-able tags, post related stories, and suggest improvements.

The final rating of the article is then influenced by your own transparency, which is based primarily on how much you reveal about yourself, such as occupation, affiliations, interests, political leanings, etc. Essentially, the reviewer is being rated just as much as the article.

I doubt I will rely much on NewsTrust for my news; there are certain places I go to seek out my information, and while I'm not utterly devoted to them, I've gotten used to navigating around, and it's a lot faster to use them than to learn something new. That being said, NewsTrust does seem pretty user-friendly, and it probably wouldn't take all that much effort to become comfortable with it.

I also think it's a good idea. This concept takes the idea of members of a community rating news for other members of that community - something like Digg - but gives it an added dimension of credibility and reliability that any news junkie should appreciate.

I tend to dislike tag lines, and NewsTrust's is no exception, but being "your guide to good journalism," may, for once, not be too far off the mark.

Just Plain Cool, Part III

2008-03-29T21:29:00.004-04:00

The third and final post of today's series comes from an Oh Gizmo! post picked up once again by a post on Geekologie.

So, I mentioned in the previous post that you could buy "ABC3D" as a coffee table book. No coffee table, you say? Well, I've got a solution for that as well.

Meet the Musical Rumba Series coffee and side tables. This table, offered in four different sizes, is both a piece of furniture and a musical instrument. The table consists of a basic square or rectangular wooden frame with a variety of square instrumental "modules" that go into the frame in any assortment and pattern.

Now, the cost of chic design is not insignificant, and the smallest of the four tables (2' x 2') will set you back $800; the largest table (4' x 4') is a whopping $2900. But, take any designer piece of furniture, then add in that it's handmade to your specifications (it can be made any height), and then add in a full drum set, and it sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Granted, I'm not going to be buying one; my money's going to tuition and rent. But maybe someday I'll have the table for those books that are a little bit more in my price range at the moment.

Here's a video that details all of the modules that can be placed in the table:

Here's another video of a table being played:

And finally, here's a video about the company itself:

Just Plain Cool, Part II

2008-03-29T16:54:00.004-04:00

So, if you're reading this post, I think it's a pretty safe assumption on my part that you know your ABCs. However, if you'd like a refresher course, or just want a little bit of entertainment, check out the video below.

I found this book and video again through a post on Geekologie. The book, "ABC3D," is going to be released on October 14, 2008, but you can pre-order it on Amazon.com for $19.95. I don't think it's going to do much in terms of teaching a kid the letters of the alphabet, but it should make for a nice coffee table book if nothing else.

What I thought was actually rather interesting when I looked up "ABC3D" was that there a number of pop-up books that are actually geared toward a much more adult audience. They span quite a wide range of subjects, from the psychological ("The Pop-Up Book of Phobias" or "The Pop-Up Book of Nightmares") to the racy or tabloid-style ("The Pop-Up Book of Sex" or "The Pop-Up Book of Celebrity Meltdowns") to the educational or artistic ("Frank Lloyd Wright in Pop-up").

I had no idea there would be such a market for these adult "kids books." However, I think one of the comments someone left makes a good point. In reference to the celebrity book, Carolyn Rampone from Florida said, "There are not many fun books for adults so I treasure this all that much more."

It's really a rather profound observation in some ways. As we become more and more "connected" to our jobs through technology and kids are given more and more responsibility at an early age, I think we often forget how to have some fun. These books are a good way to find some simple enjoyment, and you can always say it's educational. It is a book, after all.

Just Plain Cool, Part I

2008-03-29T14:54:00.004-04:00

So, to begin, a brief science lesson. There are multiple states of matter based on the energy level and amount of movement by the individual atoms within that matter. Depending on the person to whom you speak, there are four or five states of matter: solid, liquid crystal (the "optional" one), liquid, gas and plasma.

Any matter can move through those states by increasing or decreasing its temperature, which in turn increases or decreases the activity level of the atoms. H2O is the simplest substance to use as an example. It is ice as a solid, water as a liquid and steam as a gas. It is harder to understand liquid crystal, yet we are all familiar with it as used in the screens of computers, televisions and other electronic devices (LCD).

Plasma exists at a level of energy above gas. This is even harder to understand, because it is not something readily found in nature. However, the sun consists of plasma. Lightning, in its brief moments of existence, is also a natural form of plasma.

Now, if you've made it this far, here's the subject of my "just plain cool" headline: plasma speakers. This concept came to my attention from a post on Gizmodo (So much in love with shiny new toys, it's unnatural.) that was picked up by Geekologie.

Basically, people have managed to harness the power of plasma and turn it into a speaker; it's like making a tiny lighting bolt play your favorite song. Apparently the idea has been around since the 1950s, but it's just not practical to develop due to safety concerns and the difficulty in maintaining the plasma arc.

Regardless, it's a lot of fun to watch. Enjoy.

Internet Tabloid, 1... Mainstream Media, 0

2008-03-27T15:19:00.004-04:00

Score another win for the Web-based, tabloid-style, alternative media.

On March 17, The Los Angeles Times published an article titled "An attack on Tupac Shakur launched a hip-hop war." This extremely lengthy story by Chuck Philips chronicles the 1994 ambush on Shakur and the deep-seated roots of the "hip-hop war" that eventually led to his death as well as that of rival rapper Christopher Wallace, also known as the Notorius B.I.G. Of course, had that been the extent of the article, it probably would not have been considered newsworthy.

Indeed, the crux of this story was "newly discovered information," including eyewitness interviews and FBI documents, that linked rapper, designer and producer Sean "Diddy" Combs to the ass1994 assault. Of course he denied the allegations, and said he was "shocked that the Los Angeles Times would be so irresponsible as to publish such a baseless and completely untrue story."

Well, it turned out that Combs was telling the truth, but the proof didn't come from the mainstream media. Instead the popular Web site The Smoking Gun printed a detailed expose
titled "Big Phat Liar" about "how a federal inmate duped the Lost Angeles Times, fabricated FBI reports, and linked Sean 'Diddy' Combs to 1994 ambush of Tupac Shakur." This extensive examination was able to prove that the documents used as proof by The Times were faked.

Thus began the back-pedaling of The Times in an effort to correct its mistake and apologize for its lapse. Executive editor Russ Stanton released the following statement in apology:

We published this story with the sincere belief that the documents were genuine, but our good intentions are beside the point.

The bottom line is that the documents we relied on should not have been used. We apologize both to our readers and to those referenced in the documents and, as a result, in the story. We are continuing to investigate this matter and will fulfill our journalistic responsibility for critical self-examination.

Staff writer James Rainey was then commissioned to write a 1600-word article, "The Times apologizes over article on rapper," which now acts as a preface to the article in its original form. (Click here for the preface as well as the original article, which begins on the third page.)

I think it's incidents like this that really solidify an argument in favor of the alternative Internet press. Most people would probably not consider The Smoking Gun a pinnacle of journalistic values, but thanks to this Internet tabloid-style site, Combs has been quickly exonerated and a major misjudgment on the part of a well-respected newspaper has been revealed.

It's quite possible, even probable, that the mainstream media would have discovered that the documents were faked. However, the establishment press is slow to critique itself, as is any kind of powerful institution. Papers are not dead; blogs are not solely the future. But this symbiosis, the Web-based media keeping the mainstream press in check, seems a good indicator of the balance that could be struck in the future.

The Murdochs... Again

2008-03-26T14:57:00.006-04:00

So, I don't want to seem as though I'm beating a dead horse or that I have some sort of agenda against Rupert Murdoch and his progeny, but I just keep seeing more things about this family, and I'm coming to find them rather fascinating.

If there was ever going to be any evidence that a career path is genetically bred, the Murdoch clan would certainly be that proof. On Monday, The New York Times published a reasonably lengthy profile of Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert, sister of Lachlan, both of whom have received some mention in this blog (here, here, and here).

So, surprise surprise, Elisabeth works in the media. She was raised primarily in New York City and educated in the United States, then went to work for her father at British Sky Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. However, she wanted to make a name for herself, so Elisabeth left to start her own company, Shine Limited, a television production company responsible for British versions of "Project Runway," "The Biggest Loser" and "Law & Order" (being developed).

Now Murdoch has branched out into the US with the acquisition of Reveille Productions, an American television production company responsible for "The Office," "Ugly Betty" and "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" This $125 million deal means that now a full two-thirds of her joint company's income will come from the US. Indeed, part of this income could come from selling television shows to Fox, her father's network.

Apparently Elisabeth is also something of a celebrity in the UK, perhaps due her "stony silence" in the public eye, as described by a columnist for The Observer in London. Her husband is Matthew Freud, a prominent PR executive and great-grandson of Sigmund. Together, "the couple cuts a glittering swath through London’s social circuit." According to friend and former producer of "The Cosby Show" Caryn Mandabach, "There is no U.S. equivalent to them as a power couple. It’s actually demeaning to call them a power couple, because they are such fine individuals.”

There are ongoing discussions and speculations about who will eventually succeed Rupert Murdoch at News Corp. But for now, Elisabeth says she never wants to leave Shine, though an eventual return to her father's fold is "certainly not out of the cards."

Regardless of how this family of media titans divvies up their growing slice of the media pie, it should be interesting to watch as time goes by.

PostSecret

2008-03-26T12:40:00.006-04:00

“We elementary school teachers do NOT want you to ‘volunteer’ in our classrooms! We all think you need to get a JOB, get a LIFE.”

“I think GOD makes my period late, just to watch me squirm.”

“Every year a single rose from this pink rose bush would bloom white. My grandpa thought it was really special, he and I would wait for it every year. He died nine years ago. The white bloom still comes but now it’s just like any other flower.”

“Everyone who knew me before 9/11 believes I’m dead.”

This is a sampling of the ever-changing selection of secret-bearing postcards that are found every week on PostSecret, the Internet-based community art project created by Frank Warren, an entrepreneur turned blogger, author and public speaker. Some are funny; some are tragic; all are deeply personal.

Despite posting new content only once each week, PostSecret boasts a monthly hit count of more than three million and a total visitor count of more than 131 million since its creation in 2003. El Mundo PostSecret, a Spanish-language version of the original site, began on March 2 of this year and has already received 17,500 visitors. If The New York Times with its 24-hours-a-day news coverage receives only 13 million monthly hits, just four times that of PostSecret, it is clear this art project meets online community is no flash in the pan.

To Share a Secret
Emily Bursch is a sophomore at Flagler College majoring in English literature; she also has a secret. “Since the first time I read PostSecret, there was one secret that I had in mind,” she said. And so she made a pact with her friend: each of them would create a postcard and submit it. If one of them was posted, the card’s creator would admit the secret to her friend.

Some time later, Bursch’s postcard appeared on the Web site. Though unwilling to publicly admit her secret, Bursch made her friend guess which was hers. “There were only five posted that week, so she figured out which was mine,” Bursch explained.

“It really was therapeutic to make up a piece of artwork for something I had been thinking about a long time,” Bursch said. Because she is an “artistic, crafty person,” physically creating the postcard did not take a long time. But she explained that the finished secret could have taken on a much different form at another time in her life. “If I were someone younger – five or 10 years ago,” she said, “it would’ve been completely different than what I chose.”

Jenna Ullrich, a sophomore graphic design and photography major at the University of Maryland, was hired as one of the first two PostSecret interns last year; in this role, she saw hundreds of secrets arrive each week. Though she thought about submitting her own, she never followed through with it. “You have to be really brave to send out your secret to a complete stranger,” she said.

Northeastern University middler and philosophy student Nicole Keimer completed the pair of original PostSecret interns, but unlike Ullrich, she has submitted some of her secrets. None of them were published, though if they had been, “none have been that devastating,” she said. “People talk about how they felt such a release from sending in their secret, but… I just enjoyed the process of doing the artistic piece to represent my secret.”

Judith Hall, a social psychologist and professor at Northeastern University, equates the creation of these postcards with the expressive writing tradition. “If someone is given an opportunity to write about something that troubles them, it has these incredible effects on their well-being,” she explained. “There are less emotional symptoms; they are healthier and more focused.”

“If someone spends a long time deciding on a secret, deciding on the phrasing, how to present it, it is a much more significant event than it seems on the surface,” Hall said. “It gives them a chance to vent. It’s a form of unconscious self-therapy.”

Though now an alumna, Britta Nugent first heard about PostSecret as a student of theater and English literature at Mount Union College; she submitted her secret during her junior year. “It wasn’t exactly something I was keeping from my friends at school, but it definitely was something I was keeping from my parents – and it was eating away at me,” she explained. “I think sending that postcard in is what eventually gave me the courage to tell my parents what I had lied to them about for so long. I’ve given PostSecret most of the credit for that for a long time. I’ll always be grateful.”

PostSecret: The Evolution
From obscure beginnings, PostSecret has grown into an international phenomenon. The band All American Rejects requested to use some of the postcards in its 2005 “Dirty Little Secret” music video. PostSecret has won eight Weblog Awards – the “world’s largest blog competition” – including Best American Weblog, Best Community Weblog, Best Topical Weblog and Weblog of the Year. It has also received two Webby Awards – “honoring excellence on the Internet” – in the 2006 NetArt category: Webby Award Winner and People’s Voice Winner.

Warren has parlayed the Web site’s popularity into four successful books: “PostSecret,” “My Secret,” “The Secret Lives of Men and Women” and “A Lifetime of Secrets.” He has appeared on “The Today Show,” “Good Morning America” and “20/20,” as well as programs on CNN, MSNBC and NPR. The PostSecret International Art Exhibition is currently touring the United States and

Canada

.

But the project is not all about profit and fame. Warren promotes numerous wellness resources, primarily the National Hopeline Network – 1(800) SUICIDE – for which PostSecret has raised more than $100,000. Instead of accepting the $1,000 offered to him by the All American Rejects, Warren asked them to make a $2,000 donation to the Hopeline. For his efforts in “advancing awareness and acceptance of mental wellness and mental illness,” Warren was honored by the National Mental Health Association with one of their inaugural forWARDS, which “pay tribute to the people, actions and events that move the cause of mental health forward each year.”

The Truth Shall Set You Free
One of the biggest questions raised by the immense scope of this anonymous project is, are these thousands of secrets all true? Though several attempts to contact him were unsuccessful, Warren addresses this question on the Web site, stating that it “is more complicated than it might appear on the surface.” He goes on to explain that he views each postcard as less of a secret and more of a work of art. “As art, secrets can have different layers of truth. Some can be both true and false, others can become true over time depending on our choices,” he said. “Sometimes a secret we keep from ourselves only becomes true after we read it on a stranger’s postcard.”

Bursch feels the question is not really worth considering. “I think that if somebody was making up a secret and sending it in, there must be some underlying thing going on,” she said. “It must be therapeutic in some way or they wouldn’t spend all that time on it.”

Though there is no way to prove if the secrets are true or false, Hall believes there are probably only “a tiny fraction” of people fabricating secrets. “There is really nothing to be gained,” she said. Making up a secret is “interesting in and of itself.”

Hall concurred with Warren’s explanation of the multifaceted nature of secrets and the project in general. “Maybe it’s a wish instead of a secret,” she explained. “If nothing else, they may be reaching out for attention. Knowing a lot of people may look at it is satisfying a need.”

There is, however, the potential for people’s competitive nature to come through. If a person is only sending in a secret to get it posted on the Web site, “it could promote distortion,” Hall said. “It may lead people to make up a secret or make it more vivid.” She also considered the idea that previous postings may influence new submission. However, the lack of online archives may act as a mitigating factor, promoting an “instant amnesia” about what has been publicly posted.

Community: Why PostSecret Has Become So Popular
“It’s a kind of voyeurism,” Hall said about PostSecret. “Even mentally healthy people have a streak of that in them, a morbid fascination for the terrible.”

“To have this window into other people’s lives is definitely alluring,” Ullrich concurred. “What keeps people coming back is the cathartic effect it has for those who read their own secrets… written by a completely different person.”

Now, beyond just reading the postcards posted each Sunday, people can interact with one another through the PostSecret Community. “Since [Warren] receives so many secrets, he can’t post or publish them all,” Keimer explained. “The Community was created so that people can still share their secrets anonymously and have their voices heard.” Since its creation, the Community has expanded to more than 20,000 registered users, she said.

Though she has a fulltime job as an instructional aide for children with learning disabilities, Nugent is a dedicated member of the Community, often spending up to four hours on it each night. “Some of us who have been there for a while have formed some fantastic friendships,” she said. “It gives everyone the opportunity to come on the forum – post a secret if they so choose – and they immediately receive support.” She added, “It’s really helped me through quite a bit in the past, and the people who post there are some of the most genuine, loving people you’ll ever come across. I’ve found a home away from home… and I’m so thankful for it every single day.”

PostSecret is a blog and a business, but also a community and a form of therapy. “People have sent in cards saying they saw the Web site when they were thinking of killing themselves, but they called the [Hopeline] and changed their mind,” Bursch explained. “PostSecret has an impact on people. It can change their lives.”

Nugent added, “I hope PostSecret stays around for years to come.”

The Fall of The Wall... Street Journal

2008-03-24T15:12:00.004-04:00

About two months ago, I wrote a post that I titled "The Wall Street Tabloid" about how Rupert Murdoch's purchase of Dow Jones & Company, including The Wall Street Journal, would change this well-respected journalistic institution. I was, and still am, less than confident that Murdoch's stewardship of the paper is going to prove to be a good thing.

Well, the New York Times ran a story today about The Journal making over its popular Marketplace section. This second section of the paper will now have fewer business features on its front page, and some of the section front's recognized columns will be moved inside. The section will also focus more on hard news in the corporate world.

These changes come on the heels of an already shaken Journal staff, which has seen the following changes: reduced coverage of business features and investigative pieces; shorter stories; a focus on politics, breaking and non-business news; pages for world news; and a new sports page.

To this outside observer, these changes seem like a pretty big deal. But representatives of the company don't seem to agree. The Times piece quoted Robert Christie, a Dow Jones spokesman, who in turn quoted Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli as saying, "There are a lot of evolutionary changes going on."

I really don't think too many people would argue with the suggestion that The Journal is going to be markedly different from its old form by the time Murdoch is done molding it into the image that he feels is most appropriate. However, it remains to be seen whether his changes will be good, bad or somewhere in between, and I'm certainly not the one to judge. But no one person really is, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the tide of public opinion turns.

Want to see an opera? Go to the movies.

2008-03-23T21:55:00.006-04:00

Several years ago, I spent two wonderful weeks in July in Vienna, Austria and the surrounding countryside. While I was there, I saw parts of several major orchestral performances and an opera, and I didn't pay a single Euro for it.

Every summer, the city government of Vienna sets up a film festival-type event in the Rathauspark, the area in front of city hall. It consists of a drive-in sized movie screen, hundreds of chairs, and food vending stands from restaurants all around the city. And then ever night a different film is shown, free to the public. But these aren't your typical movies. Instead they show performances of some some the world's greatest symphony orchestras, operas and ballets. You can stay for just a part of it, walk around, get a bite to eat, and enjoy some of these great bits of culture without spending any more than the fare to get there on the tram.

I thought it was a real shame that there wasn't something similar in Boston, or any other city that I had heard of. Granted, I have never done any research into similar programs, but considering it was such a novel concept to me, I'm going to assume it's not happening all over the US.

But that could be changing. According to a New York Times article, movie theaters across the country may soon be showing classic TV shows, concerts and performances of all kinds, and even live sports events. Certain theater companies have apparently been experimenting with this kind of content already, and getting some mixed reviews.

There have been some complaints due to technical difficulties and people feeling as though they didn't get their money's worth. However, one company called National CineMedia started showing simulcasts of the Metropolitan Opera and had 300,000 people attend during 2007. They're projecting more than a million people to come to these performances in 2008. These are certainly not insignificant numbers.

I'm well aware that the theaters are only doing this because of the bottom line; there just isn't as much draw for people to go to the movies anymore. But at the same time, I can't think how beneficial this could be to a whole new population of the country that has never experienced these enduring pieces of culture. Sure, I'm a big fan of the symphony and would pay $40 for a seat in the back of the top balcony. But how many people feel the same way? Probably not tons. And so these people will probably choose to simply never experience these bits of culture. But for $20 and a close-up view of all parts of the stage, I think the audience would be significantly larger.

My one opinion: I'd challenge the theaters to charge even less money. Perhaps they won't be able to afford live simulcasts, but I'm sure there are plenty of other performances they could find and that people would want to see. And if it's appealing to watch a concert for $20, it only makes sense that it would get an even larger audience at $10.

I have no doubt the theaters will make plenty of profit on these new shows, but the ability to facilitate an ongoing interest in the arts could have a far greater impact that these companies think.

It's the Advertising, Stupid

2008-03-21T21:38:00.005-04:00

So, everyone knows how important advertising is to the media. Subscriptions and newsstand sales maybe cover all of the shipping costs, if the newspaper/magazine is lucky. But that leaves the physical production of the product, the business's infrastructure, and that pesky little thing known as a salary for all those reporters out there (plus copy editors, layout staff, etc.).

So, where does that money come from? The advertisers. And why is the newspaper industry in such trouble? Because the advertisers aren't paying nearly as much for online advertising and print circulation is in decline.

Okay, this is not big shock. But now, apparently the advertising giant that is Pepsi is skipping print altogether.

Meet Tava, Pepsi's new, no-calorie, fruit-flavored, carbonated beverage. If you haven't heard about it yet, it could be because you're outside of the target demographic: men and women ages 35-49. But it could also be because Pepsi has decided to skip all print and television advertising and go strictly online. If it seems as though the demographic is off for an Internet-based ad campaign, you might just be unaware of the "reborn digital" crowd being targeted by Frank Cooper, vice president for flavored carbonated soft drinks at Pepsi-Cola North America (try saying that title three times fast).

All right, this is all online. So won't they still be selling ads to newspapers' Web sites? There will be banner ad sales for these sites, but the primary ad push comes in the form of the drink's own Web site (warning, it starts playing music, so watch the volume).

But the problem with this idea is getting people to actually want to visit the site. Well, problem solved. Beyond all of the information about the drinks, this site features emerging musicians whose songs you can download, the work of artists and illustrators, and arts events like the Boston Arts Festival (since Boston is one of the target markets).

But frankly, the information relating to the drinks is almost amusing enough. Take, for example the description of the "flavor inspiration" for Brazilian Samba:

Passion fruit flavor, hints of pineapple, and drops of lime weave a vibrant melody in this sparkling beverage. You don't need the gift of rhythm to enjoy Tava Brazilian Samba, but some toe-tappin' skills wouldn't hurt.

Who knew that carbonated drinks could get the same thoughtful descriptions as your favorite vintage wine. Oh, and while you're at it, if you're wondering what to drink this stuff with, they tell you right there! Brazilian Samba goes best with Thai-style shrimp and cucumber salad and Mexican-style shrimp cocktail, tasty-looking pictures and recipes included.

So, while I don't think this one instance of online advertising spells doom for the media, it is a bit concerning when the advertisers can "out new media" the media. The joy of Pepsi, indeed.

Side note: For some reason, I love this line from the article in the New York Times: "Pepsi-Cola North America is bringing out a line of no-calorie, carbonated beverages named Tava — not to be confused, presumably, with Teva, Lava, Kava or just plain java."

And to close, a classic cinematic masterpiece featuring Britney Spears and Bob Dole.

General Electric, Part II

2008-03-21T20:16:00.003-04:00

So, a week ago I wrote a post about General Electric that was sparked by a New York Times article about GE publishing its 2007 annual report to investors. Well, in looking up some information from the actual document, I managed to miss another Times article that mentions the effort CEO Jeff Immelt is making to embrace not only his company's investment in NBC Universal, but also in the world of new media.

It turns out that instead of the typical press releases and/or press conferences, Immelt decided to address investors via an "exclusive, Internet-only broadcast" on March 13. A Web page from which the 35 minute broadcast can be launched is located here. The site also has a link to download a transcript of the broadcast as well as Webcast FAQs.

According to GE, the audience submitted 6,000 questions for Immelt, though the Times article points out that only a few of them were actually answered during the interview. The FAQs are apparently the "best of the rest," and Immelt (or, let's be honest, his public relations team) provided written answers to such questions as:

Some analysts and investors still think GE is too big and complicated. Can you
comment?
In this economy, how are you positioning to keep up growth? Through
diversification or internal penny-pinching?
What do you think are the most important qualities to become a CEO?
What does your company do to promote diversity in the workplace? What are you
and your company doing to make things better?

And then my two personal favorites:

I live in Brazil. I have experience in Finance. Could you, by any chance, accept my
resume? Carlos from Brazil
Why do you own NBC Universal?

I'm going to be mean and not include any of the answers. They can be found by following the link above. But I'll just say that I think it's commendable for Immelt to be embracing the Internet as a medium of communication, even if this is just a shameless bit of self-promotion.

News from Your Neighbors

2008-03-17T16:10:00.004-04:00

"9Neighbors is a community-ranked news site for the Boston area. Stories here are submitted and voted on by users."

This is the description provided in the "About" for the reasonably new Web site 9Neighbors. My classmates and I have been asked to take a look at this site because we are having its editor/moderator Rick Burnes as a guest speaker this week.

My initial impression of the site is that it's nicely designed and easy to read, and it seems reasonably simple to navigate. There are plenty of links to group news by community, "top stream," most recent, and those your friends find interesting (you must have an account for this particular feature).

I also noticed (and this could just be a chance occurrence) as I was clicking through the applicable links, i.e. Boston as opposed to Somerville for me, but none of the stories really jumped out at me. The top three most popular headlines in Boston are "Bye, bye trans fats," "Mayor Menino Supports Zoning Rule to Limit Rentals to Four or Fewer Students," and "Evacuation Day/ St. Patty's Day." Okay, it's good to be healthy, but a ban on trans fats isn't really going to have an impact on me. I should be concerned about the zoning rule, but I live alone, and I don't intend on having a roommate ever again. And I didn't even know that it was St. Patrick's Day.

According to a post about 9Neighbors on Burnes's blog, the site has indexed more than 25,000 local news items, 70 percent of which were "independently produced," i.e. not from the mainstream media. This is an impressive number, and I have no problem with the concept of the site, I guess my problem is, what's the point?

The site is supposed to represent what people are talking about in the greater Boston area. Okay, I understand. But what makes this so much different than other sites like Hub Blog, Universal Hub, Boston Blogs, or Bostonist?

Perhaps I'm just missing something; I'm well aware that I don't know it all. But I guess in my view, it's nothing particularly new.

"Breaking News:" The Newspaper Industry is in Trouble

2008-03-16T14:47:00.011-04:00

A few hours ago I listened to an online broadcast of 90.9 WBUR’s “Radio Boston” from Friday afternoon. The discussion prompt: “After another round of buyouts, we ask what does it mean when there are fewer newspapers and journalists?”

My first response would be that while, yes, there are fewer print newspapers, but there are more media outlets of various forms than there have ever been. And, if my classmates are any indication, there is no lack of well-trained journalists, though the definition of journalist is certainly a topic of discussion.

One of the guests for the program was Steve Kurkjian, reporter and former metro editor of the Boston Globe, who blamed the precipitation of the decline in print media in Boston on bad economic times in the region and the attention diverted to the Internet. This is particularly exemplified in the area of classified ads, which Kurkjian pointed out was the bulk of the Globe’s Sunday edition.

In briefly browsing the classifieds on boston.com, the online branch of the Globe for any unfamiliar with it, the least expensive classified ad appears to be $29 for one week online. Costs can range up to $200 for “until it sells” online ads or print and online packages of more limited length. Now, compare this to the now ubiquitous Craigslist. Users may post ads for free in more than 26 major U.S. cities in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico, as well as 53 countries around the globe. This incredible reach at no cost (for most situations) to the poster makes it a much more appealing option than the more limited Globe print edition or boston.com.

Editors of the Globe and the Boston Herald (Marty Baron and Kevin Convey) both called the radio show to speak about their papers and describe how they are maintaining their viability. Baron explained a local focus at the Globe, stating its “most important mission is covering this community.” Convey said the Herald has had to “narrow [its] focus considerably” and try “to present stories people aren’t going to find anywhere else.”

The problem with this focus on Boston is that there are other sources for much of this information. People in a live, online chat running concurrently with the broadcast expressed the general opinion that newspapers are outdated and that good local news can be found in blogs and online information boards. One would think you could find almost anything you were looking for with a service like Boston Blogs. Here one can search by topics such as sports, politics, religion, and even T stop. Granted, there may not be huge amounts of breaking news coverage, but it provides the kind of hyper-local coverage that people seem to crave these days. A similar service is offered by Boston Online, which provides a map to choose blogs by town or neighborhood.

I don't know how comfortable I am with leaving the hard-hitting, investigative, and I would say most important I don’t know how comfortable I am with leaving thejournalism in the hands on blogs, and in that respect, I think the traditional media outlets serve an important purpose, though the form is less important. However, some blogs have broken important stories in ways traditional media wouldn’t. And I don’t agree with blanket generalizations made by some people, such as Kathy, a caller on “Radio Boston,” who said that so many anonymous bloggers post such hurtful things that she “just can’t read that.”

In the long run, I think I have to agree with Kurkjian’s summary of the situation: “Empowering the public with information makes sure that city halls and state houses are responding to the public needs,” and what was once only coming out of established media outlets is now coming out of people’s living rooms. It is truly the voice of the people, and that is certainly for the better.

The GE Admiration Society?

2008-03-14T00:06:00.008-04:00

So, I have to admit that I'm rather fond of General Electric, one of those big, bad corporate entities and the proud owner of NBC Universal. I worked for GE Infrastructure in the Small Commercial Engine Operations division of GE Aviation; trust me, I know exactly how complicated it sounds, and you've got every reason to be confused.

Now, I didn't particularly enjoy my time as a co-op there, but that had much more to do with my specific job description/responsibilities than it did with the company overall. In fact, I was continuously struck by the dedication people seemed to feel toward GE. It reminded me much more of the attitude I used to hear from my grandfather when he talked about how loyal employees and employers were to one another.

I think part of this enthusiasm and loyalty comes from a continuous self-promotion, but in a good way, re-affirming the many achievements of each small division of the company as well as corporate efforts in volunteerism and green technology. An example you may be familiar with:

Now, I always wondered how NBC fit into the mix, considering how different it was from the rest of the company. But after numerous brief exchanges with my doppelganger (NBC had a Stephen Asay working for it as well, and our email paths were often crossed in the corporate database), I came to realize an undeniable sense of camaraderie. And so it should come as no shock that GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt is denying rumors that the company is trying to offload NBC.

Here are excerpts from Immelt's letter to investors in the GE 2007 Annual Report:

Should we sell NBCU? The answer is no! I just don’t see it happening … not before the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games … not after the Olympic Games. It doesn’t make sense. The business has outperformed its competition and the GE average for the last 20 years. Our diversified content position is very strong. Content is increasing in value in a digital world. We are in a good cycle, with momentum around the Beijing Olympics, the U.S. elections, and the 2009 Super Bowl. NBCU benefits from GE’s global footprint, financial strength, and human resource skills. And, NBCU provides us with a leading perspective on digital transformation. NBCU adds value to GE, and GE adds value to NBCU. This is true now, and it will be true in the long term as well.

I know this whole letter is really just PR spin meant to make investors feel good about the progress of the company, but I think Immelt makes some points that should make all of us feel good. That the chairman of such a major corporation is talking about the value of "digital transformation" can certainly be a sign of hope for journalism. As Lisa Williams (founder of H2otown) in our class the other day, maybe it's time for the journalists to go to the companies and make some changes instead of just waiting for the apocalypse to come.

Another excerpt:

NBCU is a great example of a business that becomes more valuable as its market evolves. In 2002, 75% of its earnings derived from NBC broadcast television. But we realized that the broadcast model, while important, would grow more slowly in a digital world. We have refocused NBCU in global markets around fast-growth cable, film, and digital businesses. Today, driven by powerhouse brands such as USA Network and Universal Pictures, these businesses in total represent more than 80% of NBCU’s earnings and are growing at about 15% each year. In 2008, we expect to achieve double-digit growth in digital revenues. As a result, NBCU is positioned to grow earnings 10% in 2008.

I find this interesting based on some conversations we've had in my Journalism Ethics class about media consolidation. General Electric is often left out of some the all-powerful media companies, I think because NBCU is such a small part of the company overall. Yet here we have GE admitting to the fact that NBCU is trying to grow in the cable/digital/film world, and in another portion of the lengthy letter, Immelt talks about global growth as NBCU makes attempts to break into foreign markets.

I'm not too worried about GE's influence on NBC, and from the sounds of it, I'm not too worried about NBC's health as a media business either. Though, according to Nicole Parent, an analyst who covers GE for Credit Suisse and was quoted in a New York Times article, NBC is at a low point in its value: "It’s very clear to sell an asset at the bottom doesn’t make sense.”

I think that someday I'd like to understand how 10 percent per annum growth within a multi-billion dollar company is "at the bottom." But until I do get it, I'll trust the experts on the matter, and assume that GE and NBCU are a pair that is here to stay.

Disappointment

2008-03-11T11:53:00.004-04:00

Apparently the new big story is about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his connections to a high-end prostitution ring. You know what? I don't care. So he's slimy... just like almost every other politician.

So, why do I mention this? Because Web traffic increased so much based on this story that it was causing Web sites to crash.

I first saw mention about this aspect of the story on Journerdism, "stompin' grounds for journalists and nerds." (I now can't remember if I learned about this site from a classmate or my professor, but I consider myself a journalist-in-training and definitely a nerd, so I've been checking it out) When I saw the headline "Spitzer story crashes nytimes.com," I had to check it out.

Journerdism linked me to a LostRemote blog post:

The big story today that the NY Times broke about the NY Governor and a prostitution ring apparently caused the site to crash under the traffic, according to a spokesperson from the paper in response to the Huffington Post. According to the paper, the site has crashed two other times: 9/11/2001 and the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens.

So, on my continuing journey of discovery, I went to the Huffington Post story. Rachel Sklar was able to get confirmation from a Times representative that the high amount of traffic did cause problems with the site, with a 60 percent increase in the amount of traffic normally seen during the same time frame. As the LostRemote post repeated, they have had this problem only those two prior times. But the Times rep also said it was hard to compare these events, because the site now has 10 times more bandwidth than it did in 2001.

It's great that breaking stories can still generate large traffic to news sites. And it's shocking that there can be enough of a surge to actually crash a titan like the Times. But what I pull away from all of this is, instead, profound disappointment in the American people. The largest reader surge since 9/11 is for a sex scandal? That is just sad, and it shows how wrong our priorities are.

We are trapped in a quagmire that, in my mind, is on a path to rival Vietnam. Our government breaks the law, and then diverts attention by calling people's "patriotism" into question. Segments of the population still fight for equal rights. Our economy is heading into a recession. And yet people care most about a governor paying for sex.

Sad.

To Use or Not To Use... An Anonymous Source

2008-03-10T22:34:00.006-04:00

I find it interesting timing that an Associated Press story that just ran in today's Globe deals with a current legal argument surrounding the protection of anonymous sources. It is a topic that has been on my mind of late, and something, I think, that most reporters will have to deal with at some point in their careers.

This is a topic of interest to me both as a current journalism student and as a future law student. In fact, I recently wrote a research paper for my Journalism Ethics and Issues class about the legal and ethical issues regarding the use of anonymous sources. I tried to focus specifically on the CIA leak/Valerie Plame/Robert Novak/Judith Miller situation (primarily because it is the most talked about case, therefore the case with the most researchable material), but there have been a string of similar cases across the country.

Jim Taricani was placed under house arrest for refusing to reveal his source after broadcasting a leaked videotape showing a Providence, R.I. official accepting a bribe. Journalists at the San Francisco Chronicle came under attack after reporting leaked grand jury testimony in the BALCO steroid investigation. Five reporters were found to be in contempt of court when they refused to name their sources on Wen Ho Less, suspected of passing nuclear secrets to the Chinese.

Now reporter Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today, is facing extensive fines and potential jail time for refusing to identify her sources from stories in 2001 about a scientist who was, at the time, a leading suspect in the anthrax attacks in Washington, D.C. Locy is appealing a ruling that sentenced her to fines of up to $5,000 per day, which she must pay personally. She may also face time in prison if she continues to withhold her sources beyond an April 3 deadline.

Because Locy says she cannot remember which specific sources she used for the articles, but does remember about a dozen confidential sources from the FBI and the Justice Department, the judge ordered her to reveal all of them. Locy has the support of 29 news organizations, but at this time, certainly not the support of the courts.

Now, I could go on about this protecting sources (the 3,000 word paper is evidence), but I think it essentially boils down to a few key points:

Anonymous/confidential sources are an extremely valuable tool for reporting on stories that serve the public interest, when a source is reluctant because he or she could lose a job or face other threats.
The media has become too cavalier about using these sources; reporters should never offer confidentiality just because they think a person's position "requires" it.
Reporters and media organizations must fight at all costs to preserve a source's confidentiality until the source absolves the agreement.
The only time a source should be "outed," regardless of his or her motive, is if there is an obvious, imminent risk to an individual or the public at large.

You may agree. You may not. But this is a volatile time for the media. Dropping circulation is forcing staff cuts; people are turning to the Internet and blogs for news; and the media's traditional role as the protector of democratic ideas is in jeopardy in the courts and the public eye.

Clay Calvert, a professor at Pennsylvania State University specializing in first amendment law, summed up the problem the media faces in "Victories for Privacy and Losses for Journalism? Five Privacy Controversies from 2004 and Their Policy Implications for the Future of Reportage" in the Journal of Law and Policy:

For the news media, the preponderance of judicial opinions... in 2004 may reflect... a growing belief among the public that, as compared to... years past, modern "journalists are sloppier, less professional, less moral, less caring, more biased, less honest about their mistakes, and generally more harmful to democracy.

This is obviously not a view that can continue if the media are to maintain their place in society. And a careful approach to anonymous sources is just one part of the battle.

If you're interested in the topic, the articles below contain some interesting information and perspectives:

"Attack At The Source," by Douglas McCollam (Columbia Journalism Review)
"Fighting Like Tigers," by Jessica Myers (American Journalism Review)
"Kind of Confidential," by Lori Robertson (American Journalism Review)
"The Journalist and the Whistle-Blower," by Geneva Overholser (New York Times)
"Uncharted Terrain," by Rachel Smolkin (American Journalism Review)
"Under Fire," by Rachel Smolkin (American Journalism Review)

The New Universal Remote

2008-02-25T15:39:00.005-05:00

The New York Times published an article today about a small company, Akoo International, that is aiming to transform advertising and the way we all view our cellular phones.

No, there's no need to go out and buy a new phone. There's no need to upgrade to some new service plan. This isn't something that's going to change anything about the ways you normally use a cell phone. However, you will get a new feature: nearly-instant, on-demand content in public places, such as airports and restaurants.

Akoo uses what it calls the m-Venue Platform to help you access this content. You (the interested user) would submit a text message request for a music video or television clip, and it would either be sent to your phone or played on a nearby Akoo-connected big-screen TV. Also in return, you would receive some sort of advertisement, possibly including some sort of coupon that could be used on-the-spot (such as an appetizer at a reduced cost). From what I can tell, these coupons/ads defray the costs, and the content you're requesting is free. This could be wrong, but I haven't seen any information about cost to the consumer. Below is a diagram from Akoo about the m-Venue Platform.

The Times article says that revenue from digital signs in the United States was $1.5 billion in 2007 and that a research group predicts it could be $2.6 billion by 2010. While this is a relatively new idea, this is certainly not an insignificant revenue stream.

More than two million video clips are available from Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Fashion TV, and advertisers and marketers are attracted to the idea of reaching out to a young, generally hard-to-reach audience in close proximity to the cash registers. Apparently at a trial McDonald's location in Chicago, business increased 17 percent in only 14 days.

I think this is an interesting development in the world of cell phones and wide-reaching connectivity. People are always on their cell phones now: phone calls, text messages, calendar planning, email checking, etc. It makes me wonder how the press might take advantage of this sort of technology. I've heard about some newspapers offering text message headlines and updates throughout the day, and maybe this could be some sort of evolution of that process. I'm sure it will be a long time before any this really takes off, but it could be an interesting development to watch.

Oscar Buzz

2008-02-24T22:10:00.004-05:00

Okay, so I figure I should hop onto the Oscar train, catch the Oscar buzz, and any and all other metaphors for talking about the Oscars like half the country will be doing in a very short time.

I had no plans to use the award show as a topic, but host John Stewart made me think about it. In one of the many brief vignettes between award presentations, he made a mention of "new media" while supposedly watching Lawrence of Arabia on an iPhone. Of course it was a joke, but it made me wonder how the Oscars were approaching the synergy between TV and Internet.

So, I went to the Oscar Web site, and it is, of course, flashy and "glamorous," as befits the ceremony. My biggest complaint is how slow it is, but that could also be because of my computer. (However, everything else seems to be working fine at normal speed.) Other than that, I think the biggest problem with the site is that there is too much content. There are numerous items from this evening being constantly updated, plus all of the material that has been created leading up to the awards show.

Though it can be a little overwhelming, you do get the most important information, the quick list of winners, in the upper right corner. It may take a few minutes to update, but given that I've seen a winner posted within nine minutes is rather impressive.

Now, for some of the features I think are interesting, innovative or just good in the new media light. One of the most important aspects of the Oscars is the red carpet. People love the celebrity fashion; most of the time the first interview question is, "Who are you wearing?" Well, here you can view a 107 image photo gallery of this year's fashion (click through by image or choose your favorite celebrity), then peruse the past five years of red carpet as well as selections from the whole 80-year history of the awards show.

Well aware of how connected people are, there is now the Oscar Widget. Their plug: "Add an Oscar widget (just like the one below!) to your blog, Facebook profile, MySpace page, iGoogle homepage, and many other social networks!" They seem so enthusiastic, that I've decided to add it below, just to make the plug accurate.

It has video, nominees, trivia and a newswire. This is actually a really good idea. I wouldn't personally seek it out, but for all the entertainment junkies out there, I'm sure it could be quite popular.

I think the most successful page is the one giving the more detailed winners list. There are some minor glitches and mistakes on this page, but the winners are uploaded within several minutes, so it's understandable. When you click on a winner, you're taken to a new page that lists the film and individuals who won the award, a film synopsis, Academy Awards history, nominated role (if applicable), and even a transcript of the acceptance speech (though this takes a bit longer to appear). You can also link to pages for all of the other nominees in that category. Clicking on the movie title takes you to a page that lists all of the categories in which it was nominated.

And I think one of the most interesting aspects of the winners list, as well as the best example of convergence style site construction, is the Thank You Cam. You can link to it by clicking beneath the pictures of people giving their acceptance speeches, or you can go right to the video page. Everyone is familiar with the celebrities being "played off stage" by the orchestra when their time is up. The Thank You Cam happens backstage, allowing them to give a more detailed, less pressured thank you. It's something many people would like to see, and a logical extension of television-type content that works well as an Internet feature.

Are there improvements that could be made? Sure. It might be nice to feature some streaming content, to allow people to watch more of the awards on the Web. But overall, I'm pleasantly surprised. Old Oscar is definitely keeping up with the modern era even at 80 years old.

It Could Be Worse

2008-02-19T13:39:00.005-05:00

I think we sometimes need, as a country, to step back and examine the world we live in, and realize how good we have it. Everyone focuses on newsroom budget and staff reductions, media consolidation, bias, etc., but we need to remember that it could always be much worse.

The Boston Globe first ran a story on Feb. 15 that Arab governments had just approved a "Charter of Principles" to gain additional control over satellite and privately run media broadcasters. The Charter would allow countries to suspend, terminate or refuse to renew the licenses of TV network offices that break the principles of the agreement. Of 21 "Arab states," Qatar (which funds Al-Jazeera) was the only nation that refused to sign.

A follow-up story on Feb. 16 added some additional detail: The Charter was signed by the Arab states' information ministers in Cairo, and apparently Egypt and Saudi Arabia (the two major players in Arab media) pushed for the agreement. The language of the document bans broadcasting any material that "undermines social peace, national unity, public order and general propriety, or that criticizes religions or defames political, national and religious leaders." (See a blog post at the JURIST.)

The Committee to Protect Journalists released a news alert on Feb. 15 condemning the Charter. CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon made the following statement:

This is an unacceptable move on the part of autocratic governments to rob viewers of the already small amount of broadcast freedom they have enjoyed on private television. Arab governments should immediately disavow this shameful document and hold their countries to international standards for freedom of expression.

I will grant that the "American way" is not necessarily right for everyone, but this limitation on free speech and expression is truly frightening. As the articles pointed out, these privately owned media outlets have hesitated to criticize certain institutions, even before this Charter. Al-Jazeera has a history of refusing to criticize the government of Qatar (its backer), and many other private stations owned by Saudi investors are very careful about any content which could be seen as negative to the kingdom.

Hopefully there can be some efforts made to change the views of the Arab governments, but there may be little hope of that when you consider Egyptian Information Minister Anas el-Fiqi's statement to his fellow officials: "Some satellite channels have deviated from the right path. There are violations that have taken place, violations taking place around the clock, which require a serious stance." The CPJ has taken an equally serious stance, and I only hope this issue will receive the international attention it should.

"Cutie Couric"

2008-02-18T22:18:00.006-05:00

Well, just in case reality is too complicated for us, we now have Katie Couric and her team of animators to explain that big, bad, confusing world out there.

The New York Times ran an article today about the newest addition to its nightly newscast CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: The Fast Draw. The Fast Draw is "an animated series created with dry-erase markers that tries to shed light on news developments," created by Josh Landis and Mitch Butler, formerly of ABC.

An Orlando Sentinel blog post includes an explanation of the new hires from Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS News:

We're always looking for new ways to help our viewers understand the increasingly complex -- and sometimes confounding -- world around us. Josh and Mitch do that in a unique and informative way that will complement the strong reporting of our anchors and correspondents.

Well, I watched a Fast Draw clip about superdelegates, and I really can't decide how I feel. In some ways, it was so simplistic it was a bit insulting. And the experience of watching it was like elementary school educational video meets trippy and frightening dream. But, that's just my opinion; you can judge for yourself (link to the video at CBS here, or just watch it below).

Now, regardless of opinions about the video, I was struck by something entirely different when I was trying to find code to embed the video in this post. Of course I was able to find a version of it on YouTube, but it was actually posted by CBS. That's right, CBS has it's own user profile on YouTube. Given that they don't see fit to provide embed-able code on their own Web site, it's a valuable alternative. Also, when you also consider the massive amounts of traffic that YouTube gets, it can't hurt CBS's viewership.

These are some interesting twists on new media: cartoon meets newscast, major network meets online community. It just goes to show, you never know what you're going to find.

Reality Sinks In

2008-02-18T21:45:00.004-05:00

On February 15, The New York Times ran an article in its business section explaining that it must finally give in to economic pressures and eliminate 100 jobs in the newsroom.

I always knew the Times was a major news institution, but I don't think I was aware of how large it really was. There are 1,332 newsroom employees at the Times, which is both the largest number in the industry and the largest number in Times history. Despite overwhelming economic pressures in the newspaper industry, they have actually managed to increase the number of people on staff in the newsroom. It was pointed out, however, that the overall number of employees at The New York Times Company is approximately 3.8 percent lower than it was a year ago. And even after the cuts, the Times will still have about 300 more people in the newsroom than any other American paper.

It is discouraging to hear that an institution as recognized and revered as the Times is also facing
hardships. (It's not hard to understand when you read that the stock price of the Times Company has dropped by more than $33 per share.) Nevertheless, I think there are aspects of this situation that can give members of the media some hope.

The Times Company, despite being responsible to its shareholders, is dedicated to the news above all else. Until this year, they have managed to increase the newsroom staff by eliminating "nonnews" positions and cutting at other locations (though this is less than pleasing to readers of The Globe). Beyond that, the paper has maintained its $200 million newsroom budget and refused to reduce its coverage of the war in Iraq.

The other positive aspect of the situation is that Bill Keller, the executive editor, willingly admits that the cuts will have an impact on the quality of the paper:

To meet our budget goals, we will have to do a little less, and every time we do less, we cede a bit of advantage. Our challenge will be to set our priorities in such a way that we do less in the areas that damage our competitiveness least.

Far to often in recent years, editorial staffs and business managers have insisted that business will continue as usual, despite budget cuts and staff reductions. Perhaps if Keller can admit the reality of the situation, other members of the media will do so as well.

The first step in resolving a situation is admitting you have a problem, so thank you to Bill Keller for being so honest in your assessment of the situation.

Printing, I Shall Mourn Thy Passing

2008-02-12T20:04:00.001-05:00

Well, this is it. Our generation is now witness to the beginning of the end of the printed book, or magazine or newspaper for that matter.

Say hello, everyone, to the Amazon Kindle. I don't know how long it has been available, but my friend just alerted me to its existence.

The Kindle wants to replace all of your new books, magazines and newspapers with a single 7.5" x 5.3" x 0.7," 10.3 ounce device. On its own, the Kindle can hold 200 titles, and you can add an expansion card that will markedly increase the storage capacity.

How do you get things onto the Kindle, you ask? Amazon has the answers. They have a number of books available for sale at the Kindle store, which you can access from the Kindle itself (it uses an advanced form of wireless that does not require WiFi hotspots and for which you don't have to pay). You pay for your books and newspaper and magazine subscriptions, and they are automatically downloaded onto the Kindle with a back-up on Amazon, in case the Kindle is damaged or stolen.

Worried about glare and readability? Well, apparently the new "electronic paper" screen reads like a piece of printed paper and requires very little power. With the wireless off, the power will last for a week or more.

Think there won't be enough material? Check out this sample list: 100,000 books (including 90 of the 112 New York Times bestsellers), The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, TIME, The Atlantic, The Onion and The Huffington Post. You can also email the Kindle copies of your own Word documents and images.

I love reading a book or a magazine. The tactile experience is one of many enjoyable aspects for me. And yet I find myself really wanting a Kindle. Yes, it's still too expensive ($399), and there are probably any number of bugs to work out, but when the price drops and a few versions have been made, it will make for a compelling alternative. I don't know what to expect, but I'll certainly be keeping an eye on developments.

Click the pictures below to link to two videos, an introduction to and a demonstration of the Kindle.

What About the Magazines?

2008-02-11T09:34:00.000-05:00

In most of the discussions surrounding "the new media," the focus is on print newspapers. The conversation then evolves into the media of Internet and television and how newspapers can integrate with them in order to remain current and viable media outlets. But through all of these extensive conversations, people seem to ignore the glossy, monthly magazine.

When everything is available instantly on the Web and people expect to get half of their news from cell phones or RSS feeds, what chance do monthly magazines have?

Along with my engineering major comes a certain geekiness and interest in science, research and other gadgets, so I have long loved Popular Science magazine. I never particularly paid much attention to their Web site because it really just didn't occur to me. But they have recently done a complete overhaul, and I think it's not only a huge improvement but also a very well done site. Below you can see how you're greeted.

It's generally pleasing to the eye and reasonably easy to navigate. As you can see, you can rotate through the "Most Recent," "Most Viewed," "Top Rated" and "Most Commented" stories and postings. And far from being a regurgitation of the exact same material that is in the print magazine, PopSci uses the site as an opportunity to post numerous smaller bits of information that occur after the magazine goes to print or which simply wouldn't fit.

What I found trully innovative, however, is The PopSci Predictions Exchange, or PPX. The PPX is exactly what it sounds like, a stock exchange of predictions and ideas. You can come to the site and sign up for an account (you don't have to subscribe to the magazine), and they will give you a starting account of POP$250,000, virtual dollars you can use to purchase the "stocks." And these are no ordinary stocks, based on the success and value of a company. Instead, they ask questions. For example, the stock HOTAIR is the question, "Will Apple change the design of the MacBook Air or pull it from its lineup by the end of the year?" If you think yes, you should buy the stock; if you think no, you should sell or avoid it. The higher the value is, the more likely people believe it will happen.

No, you aren't going to receive a big payoff at the end of it all; POP$ does not equal $. However, PopSci does offer prizes each month for the person whose portfolio has the greatest positive change. But I think people's natural tendency to compete will make them want to participate regardless of any real, physical reward.

So here we have an example of a monthly magazine that could very well be driving people to its Web site on a daily basis. It's quite an accomplishment. And I think it's good timing, coinciding with a rise in a desire for more information. One of my classmates has a post about a new site that could be the educational alternative to YouTube. This is a time of change, and people want to participate. The PPX is probably as close as many people are able to get, and it's not a bad alternative.

Calm Down... It's Just an Ad

2008-02-07T22:47:00.000-05:00

It seems appropriate that my last post was about Super Bowl commercials given some of the news I've just come across about some controversial advertisements.

The first ad creating some controversy is one published in this month's Boston Magazine. You can see the ad on the right. It depicts three nuns, one wearing a garter, making sketches of a nude man. The two-page spread is for Equinox Fitness Club and is apparently the first thing readers see upon opening the magazine. I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, but I seem to alone in that. You can read about the criticisms coming from the Archdiocese of Boston at: boston.com, FOXNews.com, WCVB Boston, WBZ TV and Boston Magazine's own Boston Daily Blog. I can understand why people might find it objectionable, but come on, it's just an ad.

However, what I actually find most interesting is the incredible proliferation of the ad despite people's objections. I'm sure the Archdiocese wanted the ad to get as little exposure as possible, but due to their objections, it became a news story in print, TV and Internet. According to Boston's Web site, the magazine has approximately half a million readers. If no one had complained, those people - and probably few others - would have seen the ad. Now it's all over the Web. The picture I have above was from WCVB specifically, but almost every single site had a copy of the ad.

This is an environment from which things do not disappear. We can see this shown again with this second controversial ad. Play the video below.

This commercial for Salesgenie.com aired during the Super Bowl and instantly drew criticism for the pandas' Chinese accents. Again, I get it, but lighten up. Besides, pandas are from China. If they spoke, wouldn't it make sense to have a Chinese accent? I know I'm being flippant about this, but really, it was just a (bad) commercial. Yet now it's even being discussed in this article at the New York Times. And thanks to the volume of the Times's online archives and the wonder that is YouTube, this commercial will remain accessible and visible for quite a long time.

Is advertising a part of new media? Absolutely. But now it can also become the story. Here we see two simple advertisements that would receive some attention, and have now become national news stories. And no longer do people have to hear about the story without a visual. Thanks to the Internet, there will be pictures and video easily found for years to come. What it finally comes down to, though, is that in many situations, any publicity is good publicity. I had never heard of salesgenie.com or Equinox Fitness Club, but now I have, along with a large number of other people. Sometimes it just makes me wonder how much the media is aware of the impact it has through its choices in coverage.

The Best of the Super Bowl... Without Even Watching

2008-02-04T16:22:00.000-05:00

I'll preface this by stating very clearly that I do not like sports. At all. I never have, and I probably never will. When I was in middle and high schools and significantly overweight, they used to try to draft me onto the football team. I played the violin; I was not going to rick the integrity of my musician's fingers.

Now, because I don't like sports, I certainly don't care about the Super Bowl. Honestly, I thought it was really funny that the Patriots lost. (I know... please don't lynch me) So, I've never really watched a Super Bowl except to see the new commercials. And when I didn't watch this past Sunday night, I thought about heading to YouTube to catch some clips of them. But thanks to msnbc, I don't have to go through that effort.

As part of the plethora of coverage surrounding the Super Bowl, msnbc has its Super Bowl XLII Ad Showdown. Apparently they had something similar last year, but I wasn't really paying much attention at the time. I think this is a great idea. Once again, we as the consumer are getting a two-for-one deal. There are clips of the commercials so many people like to watch, and you can treat it all like a game.

If you can't really tell from the picture, they have arranged all of the commercials into four "Brackets." The ads are arranged in pairs, and after you watch a pair, you choose which you like better. This process continues, eliminating one ad at a time, until you've chosen a winner. You can them submit the ad that you think is the best. Honestly, I don't know what happens after you vote, but it's still fun.

I'd have to say this is quite a success. They have gotten me to come to their site for Super Bowel coverage, despite my lack of interest in the actual event. And I'll probably come back multiple times. (There's also a link below the Showdown that lets you watch all of the commercials that aired during the game.) So, kudos to msnbc for bridging the gap between TV and Internet in a successful way, and for getting this dedicated sports un-enthusiast to visit Super Bowl coverage.

Digital Social Activism

2008-02-02T13:33:00.000-05:00

There has long been an acceptance of the idea that print and broadcast media have both the ability to shape public opinion and the possibility to create social change. I'm sure there are any number of journalists who choose the field simply because they want to expose the "bad guys" in the name of truth and justice.

Now, it makes just as much sense that with its intercontinental reach, the Web can be just as effective at influencing the global community. And because it can be quite inexpensive to create to maintain a simple website, it would also make sense for philanthropic organizations would begin reaching out through the web to broaden their reach without significantly increasing overhead costs.

I must admit that I never really thought about the concept until I read one of my classmate's blog entries. She mentions several Web sites dedicated to advancing social causes, but the one that really caught my attention was freerice.com. One that site, you can essentially play a word game that tests your vocabulary. Then, "For each word you get right, we donate 20 grains of rice through the United Nations to help end world hunger." While 20 grains may not sound like much, it adds up. According to today's site, they donated 171,527,040 grains of rice yesterday. Now that is a lot of rice.

I hate to have such a cynical view, but there are many people who are unwilling to help others without getting something out of it for themselves. They may not "get" anything physical from this site, it becomes a game, a competition with yourself. I gave it a try, and I got to more than 1,000 grains of rice; and it was exciting!

Now, I just happened to have the Rachel Ray Show on the other morning, and chef Mario Batali was there acting as a judge for an NFL player, Super Bowl party cook-off. But in addition to that, he was plugging a new cook book. "What does this have to do with anything," you might ask. Well, this cookbook is free and you can download it from the Internet. And when you do, Barilla (the pasta people) will donate $1 to America's Second Harvest, a charity that helps to fight hunger in the United States. You can even choose whether your dollar goes to the national food bank or to one in a city/location of your choice.

I like to cook, and I like cookbooks, so I'd be happy just getting a free cookbook. But knowing that it helps a charity, even a little, is just icing on the cake (slight pun intended). So while I wouldn't advertise on a regular basis, I'll make an exception.

Go get a free cookbook. Go play some word games. It's fun for you, and it may actually make a difference in someone else's life.

The Great Debate

2008-02-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

The audience at last night's Democratic debate looked more like the Oscars - appropriate given its location at the Kodak Theatre - than most political functions I am used to seeing, but that didn't stop me from tuning in.

I have to say, given the contentiousness of this presidential contest, the debate between Senators Clinton and Obama was remarkably civil. In addition to the expected coverage and analysis*, the New York Times made a point of discussing extreme effort at friendliness.

A great example came at the end of the debate with the question of a joint Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket (about halfway through the video):

But beside all of that, as our class prepares to discuss "convergence journalism," I have to say I'm impressed with the joint efforts at coverage of the debate. The debate was broadcast on CNN and CNNPolitics.com, and it was jointly sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and POLITICO.

Perhaps spurred by the earlier YouTube debates and meet-the-candidate efforts by MTV and MySpace, this debate seemed to want to encourage audience participation. Wolf Blitzer made it clear at the beginning of the debate that some questions would be those submitted by readers of POLITICO and that you could still vote during the debate for which questions you would like to be asked.

All in all, it seemed to me, someone who is not a political junkie, that both the coverage efforts and the debate itself were reasonably successful and more balanced than we've come to expect from some of the media during this campaign. So for that, and for a multimedia approach, I congratulate both the candidates and the media.

*Disclaimer: This NY Times multimedia, interactive analysis seems to have no permalink, so I don't know if it will continue to be accessible in the long-term.

Target in the Crosshairs

2008-01-28T16:03:00.000-05:00

An article in today's New York Times exposes Target's reluctance to recognize the trends of new media.

Apparently, Amy Jussel, founder of the blog ShapingYouth.org, called Target to complain about their latest advertisments, specifically the one pictured on the right. While the image seems innocent enough - featuring Target's ubiquitous logo and color scheme with a happy-go-lucky young woman in the middle - Jussel sees the ad as "targeting crotches with a bull's-eye."

However, instead of sending Jussel a typically placating response, a public relations person responded with this: "Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."

I'm sorry, what?

Given the current changing media environment, I can understand a certain misstep in handling the blogosphere. However, for Target to have an official policy stating they do not "participate" with bloggers seems extremely shortsighted. Company spokesperson Amy von Walter explained that Target's policy is to focus its limited resources on major media outlets with the potential to reach the largest audience. I can understand the idea, but it should apply to their proactive efforts, not simply responding to inquiries or complaints.

I worked in public relations, with a firm of three employees - including the other co-op and me - and a list of five client companies/organizations. And we always had time to respond to inquiries. For a multi-billion dollar corporation to use the excuse that their public relations team is too limited to respond to an inquiry, simply because it came from a blogger, is inexcusable.

It is true that bloggers have yet to truly find their place in the media - the reader comments to the Times article demonstrate that clearly enough - but this situation should serve as a lesson to the business world. Get on the bad side of one blog, and in a short time, the whole world knows.

My word of advice: Recognize the power of the blog.

Keeping Up with the Times

2008-01-26T11:37:00.000-05:00

A January 25 article in The New York Times explained that The Wall Street Journal will continue its "hybrid" online edition. I have never been one to particularly seek out content from The Journal, but apparently many of the paper's true articles are "hidden" behind a paid subscription service while other material - editorials, video, etc. - are available for free.

According to The Journal's website:

Subscribers to WSJ.com get access to articles from daily editions of The Wall Street Journal for the past 90 days, organized by section and page, and may also view images of each section's front page. It's a quick way to find a specific story from the paper, or to scan page by page to make sure you haven't missed anything. Subscribers may also browse section front pages of The Wall Street Journal Europe and The Wall Street Journal Asia, with complete access to stories from those papers.

Nonsubscribers may view headlines from today's section fronts. Subscribe now to get full access to the full list of headlines and the articles.

The Times article goes on to say that this hybrid service may or may not really continue. Rupert Murdoch made the announcement on Thursday, apparently to the shock of certain anonymous News Corp. "officials." Murdoch had made an announcement in November that the site would become completely free. According to the officials, it is a decision that has not really been made.

While I can understand to some degree the exclusivity The Journal tries to cultivate - "[the firewall] also creates an elite audience of high-income business-oriented readers whom advertisers pay a premium to reach" - I worry about that attitude in the evolving media environment. As print circulations decline and the world goes digital, The Journal will really need to keep up with the times... and The Times. The New York Times used to follow a similar model but has since made all of its primary, new content free online.

The elite businessmen of today may very well be willing to pay for both a daily print edition and an online subscription for The Journal, but as my generation becomes the movers and shakers of the business world, I doubt the validity of this model. We are simply too accustomed to free content on the Internet. This is obviously a time of change, and I would hate to see such a well respected publication falter. To The Journal: I wish you the best.

King Murdoch II

2008-01-25T10:34:00.000-05:00

Now, I don't want to sound obsessed or beat a dead horse of a topic, but the Murdoch dynasty just makes me nervous.

The family again came to my attention thanks to an article in the Boston Globe about Rupert Murdoch's son, Lachlan. Lachlan Murdoch is the founder and owner of Illyria Pty. Ltd. (for which I cannot seem to find a website), a private investment company. Apparently through this business, Lachlan Murdoch is making a bid for ownership of Australia-based Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd. as a 50/50 venture with Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd., a major shareholder of Consolidated Media. (Personally, I'm a bit confused by the similarity.)

According to the Globe article, if the sale goes through, it would merge Australia's two most powerful media corporations. So it looks as though Lachlan Murdoch is following in his father's footsteps.

As an aside, I find the situation a bit confusing. Illyria is supposed to be independent of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.; however, Consolidated Media owns the Premier Media Group, which in turn owns FOX SPORTS 1/2/3, FOX SPORTS NEWS and FOX SPORTS STATS. So perhaps this venture is not as independent of daddy as some might like us to think.

Independent or not, Lachlan Murdoch's private venture is due to the fact that he left his job at News Corp. in 2005 (though he remains a director). The split between father and son is detailed in a (very) long narrative article in New York magazine. If you can manage to make it through the entire article, it provides an interesting look at the Murdoch dynamic.

While I was looking for some more information about father and son, I stumbled across another article in New York, this one about the "Murdoch-ization" of America. The indicative opening paragraph of the article:

The Murdoch-ization of America has never felt so irreversible. At any given moment, according to Business Week, one in every five households is tuned into a show produced or delivered by News Corp.; meanwhile, Fox News is crushing CNN, the Weekly Standard is running the Bush administration, and three of the top six books now on the New York Times’ best-seller list were published by Regan Books. And in perhaps the most unmistakable sign yet that New York’s preeminent right-wing robber baron has become an entrenched member of the city’s Establishment, Rupert Murdoch recently purchased the late Laurance Rockefeller’s Fifth Avenue triplex for $44 million. In cash.

This just reaffirms my fear of and fascination with the Murdoch empire. America was the first to be Murdoch-ized. With the next generation, it looks as though Australia could be next.

The Pendulum

2008-01-22T16:39:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: This could be somewhat ridiculous considering it's published through a blog, but here goes.

We live in a world of cycles. Even if they are difficult to grasp in our individual, limited views of the world, there are patterns all around us. The rise and fall (... fall, fall) of the economy. The warming and cooling of the Earth. The regular changes in the "ruling" party in Congress and the presidency. The growth and collapse of empires (Roman, British, Soviet... American?). I could go on.

But I want to turn my specific focus to the subtle ways societal norms shift from one generation to the next. Look first at the beginning of the 20th Century. Looked upon in hindsight, the first 50 years of the last century, were decidedly uptight, some might say prudish, in their approach to the world. But all that changed as the nation entered the 60s and 70s: a period of splendid excess; the world of "sex, drugs and rock and roll." Now consider the present day. Many people are very open about matters that would have curled a good little housewife's hair 60 years ago. Yet more and more we see the influences of religious conservatives and the "moral" majority. Public schools have abstinence-only education, and large numbers of young students wear promise rings and sign contracts preserving their virginity.

Women decades ago rarely thought about leaving their jobs as housewives to enter the workforce. Yet they were forced into working during World War II when the men went off to war. Then came women's liberation, and women began putting off marriage and children in order to make their mark in the business world. My own mother, though she may not have been blazing a trail as a corporate executive, didn't have me until she was 36. And yet we are beginning to see a "return to family values," with many young women actively looking for marriage and children instead of a diving into a career after college.

So, what does any of this have to do with the media? Everyone's focus is on the Web. Blogs are on the rise. Most people say websites will be the saviors of the traditional print media. People strive for 24/7 "connectivity" with cell phone/mp3 player/web browser/GPS/everything-but-the-kitchen-sink pieces of technology.

Everything points to this high-tech future, and I begin to ask, when are we going to experience the back swing? Why, when everything else experiences highs and lows over time, should technology be exempt? Already there are some signs of people rejecting the 21st Century aesthetic. Steampunk is genre of fiction that is being carried over into real life. There are people spending countless hours modifying these aids of the technological age to fit a more classical aesthetic.

Above is a video from The Wall Street Journal about Steampunk, specifically computers modified to look as though they were created in the Victorian era. Yes, this is still modern technology simply made to look old, but will there come a time when people will rebel against the pervasive nature of technology? No, I don't really want to give up my laptop or my cell phone, but I still don't have a digital camera, nor do I even know how to take a picture using a cell phone. And quite frankly, I never would have considered creating a blog or using an RSS aggregator (now that I finally know what it is) were it not for this class.

Maybe I'm going to end up being a relic, but I do think there will come a time when people will tire of being constantly connected and long for the simpler life of a bygone era.

The Wall Street Tabloid

2008-01-21T11:52:00.000-05:00

Well, I said I would address Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal at a later date, and well, now it's a later date.

Yes, I know that this isn't exactly headline news anymore. The deal was approved months ago, and I must say that although I haven't paid all that much attention to the sale, and I've never been one to read The Journal, I also haven't heard anyone complain about Murdoch trying to transform the paper.

Murdoch's track record isn't exactly the greatest. While he was forced to sell the Boston Herald in favor of a local Fox channel, Murdoch was certainly the final factor in the Herald's tabloid transformation and sensationalist approach to the news. Consider as well the New York Post. I suppose it is supposed to be a credible news source, but it looks like it belongs in the grocery store checkout. When I visited the Post's website this morning, one of the images on the main page was that of a winged, two-headed monster; one head was Bill, one was Hillary. The accompanying headline reads, "2-Headed Monster," with a sub-head of, "Barack: I'm Fighting Against Both Clintons." (The article if you're interested.) And in case you were wondering, they managed to capture two of the most unflattering images I have ever seen of the Clintons.

I could look at every publication under the Murdoch banner past and present, but suffice to say, many of them are decidedly more sensationalist in their coverage and tabloid in their design. But would he dare give The Journal, a staple of the American business community, what I am dubbing "The Murdoch Treatment"?

According to excerpts from a conversation between Journal staff and Murdoch himself, he doesn't want to change the Journal.

WSJ: Tell us what you would do… Are there changes you would like to see at the Journal, improve it?

Mr. Murdoch: Not at all.

WSJ: Some people would say the front page might be boring.

Mr. Murdoch: The front page is not boring. Absolutely not.

WSJ: Then what's the opportunity for you? Digital?
Mr. Murdoch: I think it's in the digital area, digital and TV. And I think we've got to pour some money into digital. We've got to do a lot of things there… There's so much going on on the Internet. We've got to find new ways and new business models to get revenues. Or else the world is going to be owned by Google.

Who knows? If what he said here is true, perhaps Murdoch could do well by The Journal. They are certainly a more traditional publication, and I doubt they have embraced the Web as much as will be necessary to sustain themselves in the future. (I have to make an aside here: I find it hilarious that Murdoch is afraid of the world being taken over by Google when he's spent his entire life trying to build a global empire of news and entertainment and has more than once run afoul of anti-monopoly laws.)

Here, a slightly different viewpoint from Keith Olbermann:

He and his guest make a valid point: If you want to expand your business, you really shouldn't buy a newspaper. They aren't incredible money makers, and some of those Murdoch owns actually COST him money. No businessman would accept that except for the power and voice it gives him as a private mouthpiece.

Maybe these are just some unfounded liberal fears. Maybe Murdoch has as much respect for the institution of The Journal as many others. Maybe it will all work out for the best.

Maybe.

Newspapevangelist?

2008-01-17T23:26:00.000-05:00

"Anyone who isn’t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn’t a conservative by age 40 has no brain."

This quote is most often attributed to Winston Churchill (though there is apparently some debate as to its origins), and it was first uttered to me by my uncle, the conservative, retired US Army colonel who listens to opera and ABBA.

Personally, I think the statement is a bit overly broad. I'm all about the details, and I demand a differentiation between social and financial liberalism/conservatism, among other things. Regardless, this 21-year-old heart does indeed lean somewhat to the left. And right now my poor heart is having palpitations.

An article in the January 12 edition of The Boston Globe reported that televangelist Pat Robertson is thinking about buying a newspaper: The Virginian-Pilot, which covers Norfolk and Hampton Roads. No, it's not one of THE big-name papers, but it is apparently the local paper of record and has a respectable average daily circulation (in this day and age) of more than 186,000. It is also apparently the "flagship newspaper" of Landmark Communications Inc., which also owns The Weather Channel and the ubiquitous weather.com.

Now, we live in a free and capitalist society, and anyone with the desire and means to own a news outlet has every right to do so. They are also quite able to infuse that particular outlet with their own opinions and style (see Rupert Murdoch and all things Fox... and the Wall Street Journal, but more on that some other time). However, while I willingly grant these freedoms, I sometimes wish there were another aspect to our government: a separation of church and press.

Pat Robertson is the founder and chairman of CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network. Forming this cable channel was his golden opportunity to espouse his personal views, and I have no problem with that. It is, in my opinion, an entertainment channel. If I don't want to hear the opinion of the Christian right wing, I don't have to watch it. And because it's not a major news channel, I won't be lacking for information by choosing not to watch.

As The Globe article points out, there is a precedent for a newspaper to be owned by a religious outlet: The Christian Science Monitor. The Monitor is a reasonably reputable publication, but even if it were solely a mouthpiece for Christian Science, it is at very best a third tier newspaper in the Boston market. The Virginian-Pilot seems to be proportionally more like The Globe than The Monitor. Imagine the uproar if The Globe were suddenly bought by religious conservatives.

I suppose it really all comes down to motives. Robertson said the paper would be an internship opportunity for journalism students at Regent University, a nearby private Christian college he founded. Purchasing a newspaper seems like an awfully expensive way to arrange some internships for students he has probably never met. Another possibility? Robertson wants to buy the paper to stop its criticisms of him. According to The Globe, Robertson has formerly objected to articles that "unfairly characterized him and his activities." He has also accused the paper of conducting a vendetta against him and has considered filing a libel lawsuit against it.

Since both sides essentially refused to comment, this is all simply speculation, and it will probably be months before anyone knows anything for certain. It could all turn out fine, and I certainly hope it does. But if Robertson does turn this newspaper into his conservative mouthpiece, at least it should quiet some critics of the liberal bias of the media, in one small piece of the nation anyway.