I really enjoyed attending the International Day on Writing event on campus last Tuesday. I didn't know what to expect when I got there, and now I wish I would have come more prepared. I thought it was very interesting to cover the event, and was shocked at how many people participated. It's good to bring people together who share an interest in writing, because it is often such a private talent. The event was a very unique experience. Looking back on it, I wish I would have prepared questions for the participants, and if I could do it over again, I would ask more people to read things that they had written during the activities. The participants were diverse and people inspired each other as they worked at different stations. I think it would have been a nice effect to have people read for the camera, what they created, although, that is easier said than done because people are often self-conscious of what they write. Of course, it's always worth a chance, to ask. I thought Taylor did a really good job recording pieces of what people wrote at one of the stations. I think we could have gotten a lot more material like that. We did manage to capture a lot of different types of information to compile for publishing, including audio, video, and photography.
I also regret not planning for the event better because I would have liked to have done the writing adventure activity, where a small group of students walked to various parts of campus and stopped at specific spots to reflect and write. I think this would have made for very interesting coverage of the event, and the audience could actually experience the event visually as well as through the writing of the students who participated in the walk. Overall, I was enthusiastic about the event and I would have enjoyed participating even if I wasn't covering it for class. I hope the event is continued next year and that students who cover it next year can learn from what our class puts together.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Finding Your Voice: Writing for a Webzine...Philip E. Agre
People have used a public voice in the past, but it must now be adapted in order to be appropriate for the Internet. Successful online writing requires a new etiquette and ethos. The voice you use on the Internet is similar to the voice people have used throughout history, when in serious discussions face-to-face. Writers must be conscious of how their words come off sounding to the audience. Agre writes, "To have a public voice, you must learn to combine two seemingly contradictory goals: being true to your won experience and values while also serving as a consciously designed intervention in an ongoing public debate." Because the visual effects of face-to-face communication are not usually evident in online communication, at this point, the audience can easily misunderstand the tone or connotations behind what the writer is saying. It is important to consider the risk of ambiguity and to anticipate questions or reactions that an audience might have. Agre says, "You may know what you *intended* to say, but you cannot know how much of your intention was actually conveyed by your words." This is important to remember, and it requires that people take a new approach to the way they write.
The most difficult part of writing is to establish an audience, and in order to achieve that, a writer must create a conducive public voice. Journalists still have the same responsibility as previously in history, and that is to simplify complex information so that the common public audience can understand it. Just like learning AP Style, developing a public voice takes practice. Two of the suggestions that Agre makes that I found most helpful were to, "Choose someone you identify with and copy their voice -- not their exact words but their style -- until you get comfortable," and, "Contribute to public discussions by responding to others, rather than by initiating your own topics." By looking at how other people do it, we can identify aspects of our own writing that are worth developing, and we can discover what is unique about our individual voice. And, I agree that commenting on another person's writing is a good way to start because you can build a rapport with other writers and people who read them may like what you have to say and may become interested in hearing more from you. I was also inspired by the end of the article when Agre talks about having to care about something. It is helpful to think of developing a public voice about something specific, as a process that is never-ending. Once you discover what you care about, you can find or create a community to share your ideas with. I find that the hardest part of writing, for me, is deciding what to write about. It is definitely easier to write about something I'm passionate about though, and it is inspiring to think that as a writer I could give a voice to a community's values, as Agre says, and that, "You can provide a public service by learning how to explain your values to people who don't yet share them."
The most difficult part of writing is to establish an audience, and in order to achieve that, a writer must create a conducive public voice. Journalists still have the same responsibility as previously in history, and that is to simplify complex information so that the common public audience can understand it. Just like learning AP Style, developing a public voice takes practice. Two of the suggestions that Agre makes that I found most helpful were to, "Choose someone you identify with and copy their voice -- not their exact words but their style -- until you get comfortable," and, "Contribute to public discussions by responding to others, rather than by initiating your own topics." By looking at how other people do it, we can identify aspects of our own writing that are worth developing, and we can discover what is unique about our individual voice. And, I agree that commenting on another person's writing is a good way to start because you can build a rapport with other writers and people who read them may like what you have to say and may become interested in hearing more from you. I was also inspired by the end of the article when Agre talks about having to care about something. It is helpful to think of developing a public voice about something specific, as a process that is never-ending. Once you discover what you care about, you can find or create a community to share your ideas with. I find that the hardest part of writing, for me, is deciding what to write about. It is definitely easier to write about something I'm passionate about though, and it is inspiring to think that as a writer I could give a voice to a community's values, as Agre says, and that, "You can provide a public service by learning how to explain your values to people who don't yet share them."
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Rescuing the Reporters – Clay Shirky
I think it would be great if journalism moved to the non-profit sector. I never thought about that type of transition, and I actually think it would be good for Americans to receive news from people who aren’t being paid by corporations.
Through a non-profit model, journalists would be responsible to the public again, instead of trying to balance advertising and public interests. This is not to say that the shift to non-profits will not present future challenges, for instance with legal issues of copyright and potential government censorship. However, media organizations such as PBS and NPR have been able to survive and present diverse information, using public money and occasional advertising.
One thing I found shocking was that the Columbia Tribune only employed six news reporters, out 59 people on the staff list, according to Shirky. It is interesting that that publication dedicated 11 people to cover sports, which suggests that news reporting positions are more competitive than sports writing, which inspired me to learn more about writing about sports.
The non-profit model would be good for local news, as Shirky points out, because most of the content in most newspapers is not hard news, and the non-profit entities would be paying at the most a dozen reporters to provide local content. Those reporters would be necessary to fulfill the production of what Alex Jones calls the “iron core of news.” The work of these reporters is “critical to the orderly functioning of that town,” Shirky said.
“What matters in the Tribune, and what’s at risk, is Terry Ganey’s work on a state coverup of elevated levels of E.Coli in Ozark lakes…” Shirky said. I agree. Investigative reporting, on the local level especially, must exist to protect the public. We must find a way to fund this service.
Through a non-profit model, journalists would be responsible to the public again, instead of trying to balance advertising and public interests. This is not to say that the shift to non-profits will not present future challenges, for instance with legal issues of copyright and potential government censorship. However, media organizations such as PBS and NPR have been able to survive and present diverse information, using public money and occasional advertising.
One thing I found shocking was that the Columbia Tribune only employed six news reporters, out 59 people on the staff list, according to Shirky. It is interesting that that publication dedicated 11 people to cover sports, which suggests that news reporting positions are more competitive than sports writing, which inspired me to learn more about writing about sports.
The non-profit model would be good for local news, as Shirky points out, because most of the content in most newspapers is not hard news, and the non-profit entities would be paying at the most a dozen reporters to provide local content. Those reporters would be necessary to fulfill the production of what Alex Jones calls the “iron core of news.” The work of these reporters is “critical to the orderly functioning of that town,” Shirky said.
“What matters in the Tribune, and what’s at risk, is Terry Ganey’s work on a state coverup of elevated levels of E.Coli in Ozark lakes…” Shirky said. I agree. Investigative reporting, on the local level especially, must exist to protect the public. We must find a way to fund this service.
Understanding New Media
“New media” has affected the way we think of news, for both consumers and producers of information.
I found the results of the Pew Internet and American Life Project in 2007, interesting: “72 percent of internet users, or about 108 million American adults obtain news from the Internet.” This statistic suggests two things: even though people are able to get information from a variety of sources on the Internet, they still value credited news organizations, and, even though the Internet allows the public to get involved in the news like never before, there are still millions of American’s who don’t have the Internet, and as the revolution continues, we must find a way to give a voice to those who are not literate with the technology.
Information gathering is easier than ever for consumers of news. Services like aggregators make it convenient for people to collect content from different sources. According to Logan, “Aggregators substantially improve upon the time and effort needed to regularly check websites of interest for updates as well as provide different sides of a story (5.9).” By providing different sides of the same story, these Internet services encourage people to think critically, which is something that the mainstream media has failed to promote over the past few decades.
For news producers, it is much easier to present the complete story on the Internet because there is no limit on publication space, and stories can be given depth by the addition of links, which can provide further background information, statistics, ect. News producers also face some challenges though. First, the new media must be able to generate income in order to pay writers and staff. The solution to this will probably involve a variety of strategies, including advertising and subscriptions to archives. Of course, there are also legal issues that come along with the changing news environment. Logan says, “Because newspapers were generating revenue from their archives a dispute arose between them and their freelancers over residuals. The newspaper owners tried to force their free lancers to give up their residual rights.”
One of the greatest changes with the Internet is that, as Logan writes, “a hypertexted news story can bring together newspaper, radio and television.” This is amazing and incredibly efficient for consumers. With New Media, producers of news are forming a different relationship with consumers. As Logan says, the gap between them is closing.
I found the results of the Pew Internet and American Life Project in 2007, interesting: “72 percent of internet users, or about 108 million American adults obtain news from the Internet.” This statistic suggests two things: even though people are able to get information from a variety of sources on the Internet, they still value credited news organizations, and, even though the Internet allows the public to get involved in the news like never before, there are still millions of American’s who don’t have the Internet, and as the revolution continues, we must find a way to give a voice to those who are not literate with the technology.
Information gathering is easier than ever for consumers of news. Services like aggregators make it convenient for people to collect content from different sources. According to Logan, “Aggregators substantially improve upon the time and effort needed to regularly check websites of interest for updates as well as provide different sides of a story (5.9).” By providing different sides of the same story, these Internet services encourage people to think critically, which is something that the mainstream media has failed to promote over the past few decades.
For news producers, it is much easier to present the complete story on the Internet because there is no limit on publication space, and stories can be given depth by the addition of links, which can provide further background information, statistics, ect. News producers also face some challenges though. First, the new media must be able to generate income in order to pay writers and staff. The solution to this will probably involve a variety of strategies, including advertising and subscriptions to archives. Of course, there are also legal issues that come along with the changing news environment. Logan says, “Because newspapers were generating revenue from their archives a dispute arose between them and their freelancers over residuals. The newspaper owners tried to force their free lancers to give up their residual rights.”
One of the greatest changes with the Internet is that, as Logan writes, “a hypertexted news story can bring together newspaper, radio and television.” This is amazing and incredibly efficient for consumers. With New Media, producers of news are forming a different relationship with consumers. As Logan says, the gap between them is closing.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
In-Class Response to Blogging
There are so many issues to address in the digital media revolution that it becomes overwhelming to try to envision the future of journalism. One issue that is constantly under scrutiny is the concept of ownership. Digital technology makes it possible to easily plagiarize ideas or sample other people's creations. Information can be copied and shared very quickly and easily. Creative commons allows people to share their work and a new genre of art has been created, called interactive art, where several people can contribute to one creation. As far as journalism is concerned, publications have always taken ideas from other publications. Pretty much as soon as one organization breaks a story, the other organizations follow their lead and write about the same topic, occasionally from a different angle. On the Internet it is even more difficult to be the first to break the story, but it is easier to find a good idea and give your own take on it. Basically, I don't think there's a lot of original ideas that exist anymore anyway. Isn't the point of news journalism to take what someone else says and report it, while giving them credit, of course. It is our job to write what someone else says to us. Of course we still need copyrights, but as long as I get paid, I don't care so much about the ownership of the idea. Of course, I wouldn't want someone to take something I wrote and say they wrote it, either. The open source of the internet is somewhat intimidating and scary, but I don't know enough about regulations to comprehend a solution to the problem.
Which brings me to Jeff Jarvis' blog. His post, "FTC regulates our speech," was very interesting. I agree that most people who use the internet do not think of themselves as writers, responsible for the things they endorse or critique. There is a very difficult conflict between protection of ownership rights and freedom of speech. I don't know what an answer is to the balance of that, but I don't think there should be government regulation. It seems to me that this is why journalism students study ethics. Trained writers understand the dilemma of disclosure, and learn to consider all sides of a situation before making an ethical decision. I thought it was interesting when Jarvis mentioned taking freebies for writing about things like food. Overall, I think this is a cloudy area that will only be solved when journalism organizations come up with an effective business model.
Which brings me to Jeff Jarvis' blog. His post, "FTC regulates our speech," was very interesting. I agree that most people who use the internet do not think of themselves as writers, responsible for the things they endorse or critique. There is a very difficult conflict between protection of ownership rights and freedom of speech. I don't know what an answer is to the balance of that, but I don't think there should be government regulation. It seems to me that this is why journalism students study ethics. Trained writers understand the dilemma of disclosure, and learn to consider all sides of a situation before making an ethical decision. I thought it was interesting when Jarvis mentioned taking freebies for writing about things like food. Overall, I think this is a cloudy area that will only be solved when journalism organizations come up with an effective business model.
Lecture Notes: Structural Characteristics of the New News Environment
One of the greatest advantages for our communities is that the newspaper business is becoming more democratic, due to technological advancement. People can demand to know about stories that were once left out of the paper due to space constraints. People can judge for themselves what is important and can shape the content of online publications. Also, instead of just being told about problems or circumstances, the public can discuss possible solutions or changes. As Professor Tracy writes, “By questioning traditional news judgment, audiences can set an alternative agenda.” No longer do a handful of people decide for the public what is important for the public to know. Now, the public has the opportunity to tell journalists what it wants to know about. “It requires the audience to question, and it sheds a different light on the traditional concept of news judgment,” Tracy wrote.
The internet forces journalists to reevaluate whom they work for. We are supposed to be providing a service to the public, not just distributing content in order to make profit. The motives for writing may change and journalists should welcome feedback from the audience they are serving. “When viewed as an ecology, news is not a product to be consumed but a conscious act to engage and produce shared information that has value in a community: this is how cultures and societies create their histories. Thus news is not an economic transaction but a social and cultural practice” If anything, this new model of journalism takes journalists back to their roots, when they wrote for bettering society instead of just competing to sell the most sensational stories. The internet brings the community together and gives a voice to everyone who wants to participate.
Overall, I think Citizen Journalism is a good thing, especially when it is in response to actual reporting done by a publication. This shows that the public is civically involved. Right now our country is facing a lot of difficult problems and we need to come up with several innovative solutions. The type of discussion about current events and local news that takes place on the Internet is greatly beneficial to society on the whole because one idea can inspire another, and can have a snowball effect.
The internet forces journalists to reevaluate whom they work for. We are supposed to be providing a service to the public, not just distributing content in order to make profit. The motives for writing may change and journalists should welcome feedback from the audience they are serving. “When viewed as an ecology, news is not a product to be consumed but a conscious act to engage and produce shared information that has value in a community: this is how cultures and societies create their histories. Thus news is not an economic transaction but a social and cultural practice” If anything, this new model of journalism takes journalists back to their roots, when they wrote for bettering society instead of just competing to sell the most sensational stories. The internet brings the community together and gives a voice to everyone who wants to participate.
Overall, I think Citizen Journalism is a good thing, especially when it is in response to actual reporting done by a publication. This shows that the public is civically involved. Right now our country is facing a lot of difficult problems and we need to come up with several innovative solutions. The type of discussion about current events and local news that takes place on the Internet is greatly beneficial to society on the whole because one idea can inspire another, and can have a snowball effect.
AnnArbor.com and the Hybrid Model
I think AnnArbor.com is a decent example of the hybrid model of news that we discussed in class. I like the simplicity of the layout of the website. The page can be intuitively navigated and the content is not so busy that it becomes distracting. I like the quick links at the top that highlight some of the biggest news of the day and serves as a front page of the paper would. There is also a link to the most popular news, so if you can see what others have been reading about, and think is important. Instead of someone deciding for you what is important news, you have the ability to go through the site and look at what you want. There’s no hierarchy of information as in the traditional paper, which selected news to put on the front page in the hopes of attracting readers.
It is interesting that the news is delivered chronologically on AnnArbor.com, and I think this is a good model because there are also links to the right of the page which allow the viewer to search for content based on the type of information they are looking for. The only downfall to this is that I have noticed that at times there is almost no visual art on the page, depending on what stories have been recently submitted, as some stories do not have pictures to go along with them. Even in traditional print, front page photography was often used to persuade readers into buying the publication. It might be a good thing for AnnArbor.com to post a photo album on the opening page, which could highlight the photographs of the day. Also, with the new hybrid model, print publications can move their content online and add something that was never available in print format; video. With the addition of video, online newspapers can compete with television news, in a way that was never possible before internet.
I like the advertising layout on the page. The ads are not loud and do not distract from the news content. There’s nothing flashing in your face or popping up while you’re trying to navigate the site. I also think it’s a very good idea to have the “Your Voice” section at the bottom of the page. This allows readers to contribute to the paper, similarly to letters to the editor in traditional print, except readers can interact much more quickly with the publication than they could with print. Because this section is set up like a forum, people can comment back and forth about each other’s statements, which opens up discussion about news content, like never before possible. By adding a “Your Voice” section to different stories, the publication encourages the public to participate, which I think is a very important and revolutionary concept. Here is an example: http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/yes-plastic-bags-are-a-bane-but-an-ann-arbor-only-ban-on-them-isnt-the-answer/index.php#comment-17082 . These types of forums are just one example of the benefits of moving print news to internet.
It is interesting that the news is delivered chronologically on AnnArbor.com, and I think this is a good model because there are also links to the right of the page which allow the viewer to search for content based on the type of information they are looking for. The only downfall to this is that I have noticed that at times there is almost no visual art on the page, depending on what stories have been recently submitted, as some stories do not have pictures to go along with them. Even in traditional print, front page photography was often used to persuade readers into buying the publication. It might be a good thing for AnnArbor.com to post a photo album on the opening page, which could highlight the photographs of the day. Also, with the new hybrid model, print publications can move their content online and add something that was never available in print format; video. With the addition of video, online newspapers can compete with television news, in a way that was never possible before internet.
I like the advertising layout on the page. The ads are not loud and do not distract from the news content. There’s nothing flashing in your face or popping up while you’re trying to navigate the site. I also think it’s a very good idea to have the “Your Voice” section at the bottom of the page. This allows readers to contribute to the paper, similarly to letters to the editor in traditional print, except readers can interact much more quickly with the publication than they could with print. Because this section is set up like a forum, people can comment back and forth about each other’s statements, which opens up discussion about news content, like never before possible. By adding a “Your Voice” section to different stories, the publication encourages the public to participate, which I think is a very important and revolutionary concept. Here is an example: http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/yes-plastic-bags-are-a-bane-but-an-ann-arbor-only-ban-on-them-isnt-the-answer/index.php#comment-17082 . These types of forums are just one example of the benefits of moving print news to internet.
Response: The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future
Although the field of journalism is changing because of innovations in technology, journalists still play a necessary role in democratic society. Because there is so much information available to the public now, journalists have a greater amount of responsibility in presenting factual, objective information. With the internet, people are quick to find information which aligns with their established views, and the greatest new publishers of the future will probably be those organizations who build a reputation on sifting through the infinite amount of information and presenting an objective big picture to the audience. Sure, anyone can report news, but journalists are trained to report facts, not just opinionated observations.
I think it is a good thing that everyday people are producers, as well as consumers, of news. The more people who participate and communicate with one another, the more productive society can be. Also, sometimes the best ideas come from individuals, and ideas can now be more easily shared. Much more can be published on the internet, and stories that would otherwise go unpublished because of space issues, are now able to be reported. Also, when the public is contributing to the news, it is more difficult for those in power to try to cover things up, and we may finally be able to work around corporate interests, which have plagued the mainstream media for nearly a century. Also, the internet has made it possible for a greater diversity of people to communicate with one another. Social media has created almost a universal language, where people from all different places and backgrounds can communicate with one another through basic and concise text. In this way, people all over the world can communicate like never before, and Marshall McLuhan’s prediction of a “global village” is becoming a reality.
A journalist’s goal is to get people talking. The best result of a good story is that someone reads it and tells other people about it. The internet and other media make it easier for consumers of news to pass the news on. Also, people can digest a greater amount of news in a shorter time by searching the web. In “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future”, Lapham writes, “As the appropriate next step on an evolutionary continuum, CMC can return to language (the word) the immediacy lost in writing and give it a real-time presence.” With modern technology, people can communicate over great distances in a way that was once only possible face-to-face or over the telephone.
As discussed in “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future”, the hybrid model is allowing the public to have more power. As Howard Rheingold writes, “‘The technology enabled the power shift, but the power shift was created by the people who used the tool to educate themselves.’ (127)” It will be up to the public to decide how they want to use the internet. The scary thing about this technology is that at one time television was a revolutionary communication technology and unfortunately, although it has the ability to teach, for the most part, the device has become a tool only for entertainment. That is why journalists must remain in place in order to give people a place to go to get information they really need.
Through the internet, journalists are actually able to reach a greater amount of people, and a younger generation which does not generally get its news from a paper anyway. And besides, if someone misses reading the paper in the morning, they can print out the paper from their computer. It might be wise for companies to provide a printable version of their daily content and charge customers to print using this format. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a solution for how to maintain journalism as a paid profession. However, because the internet and digital technology are making it easier for people to communicate and they are changing the actual language we use to communicate, there will be a demand for people with traditional writing skills to produce clear and effective writing, quickly. Business models of journalism have changed throughout its history, from strictly subscription fees to advertising revenues, journalism has faced and withstood challenges before.
Intelligent and influential people, like philosopher Plato, were quick to dismiss writing, when the technology of written language was developed thousands of years ago. Since that time, many great works of writing have proven the worth of that technology. Today, we are experiencing similar prophecies of doubt about the value of digital technology and social media. Throughout history humanity has experienced similar revolutions. The printing press did not completely eliminate the role of priests in interpreting and sharing information from the Bible, for example, the role simply evolved. The same should be true of journalists, with the internet. The job of the journalist is as important as ever because even though people can find information about anything they want on the internet, the public will still rely on journalists to deliver facts from credible sources, to do analysis, to research correlations between data and to investigate situations that impact the community.
One thing is for sure, and Jon Katz said it well in “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future,” the purpose of printed news still remains, and “That's the point of a newspaper. . .to filter the worthwhile information, then print it.” Something I never thought about is the ability to add different layers to stories, on the internet, by including links that would allow the reader to do more research for themselves. How often do we read a story in the paper and have a question about something but cannot immediately find an answer because paper is not interactive like internet. In “The Evolution of the Newspaper of the Future,” Lapham writes, “For example, a story about a poll on the performance of a government official could include color-highlighted links that readers simply click on to get more in depth information about his or her voting record, recent speeches, or a news story about campaign promises."
Overall, this evolution of news is actually a more efficient way of doing business, even if it creates less profit for the news conglomerates. Just think of the environmental effects; less paper, less gas, less electricity. There are many benefits for society by having digital news as opposed to traditional print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)