Hypercrit - Latest Comments

Re: When is an update not really an update?

Steve Durbin — Tue, 24 May 2011 18:25:42 -0000

Sounds normal, since they shouldn't do anything that might change the look of your site without direct consultation. But they should mention the need to call them in the email notifying you about the upgrade, not bury that in the documentation.

Re: Tom Brokaw talks new media with ASMSU Exponent editor

Carole Simpson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:47:01 -0000

I think we're constantly surprised by new media and how social media is used. Although not a 'new' idea, I do think that in cases like Libya, Egypt, and others often show us a power of new media we weren't exposed to before. Brokaw was right in his statement that the World Wide Web is often 'game-changing'.

Re: Of shoddy journalism and unhappy commenters

Michael Becker — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:45:33 -0000

Time is always an issue. As is commitment. We should be honest with ourselves, not everyone working in newsrooms around the country is dedicated to the "mission" of journalism. They are working for the paycheck and may not care a whit about educating the public.

We have reporters and editors respond directly to readers in the Chronicle comments when necessary. It certainly doesn't happen every day, though, mainly only when readers have a drastically wrong idea about something or when readers are asking questions directly to the Chronicle.

I have encouraged the other editors to blog about our internal processes, but that hasn't gotten off the ground yet. A managing editor's blog is doing pretty well for the Missoulian, though.

I'm going to think more about the idea of different "kinds" of comments, perhaps certain instructional comments that could be set off from the normal comments on stories... Our system doesn't support that at the Chronicle now, but it's worth looking in to.

Re: Of shoddy journalism and unhappy commenters

Steve Durbin — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:10:30 -0000

Agreed. I think the "customer service" approach Ford suggests would, in this case, mean engagement as in journalists actually responding directly to readers. I would think that what you say in your post would not only help readers understand the process better, but would increase their appreciation of the work you do. And occasionally, there might be good points for the journalist to actually follow up on.

This is asking journalists to also be educators in some sense, which may place them a bit outside their comfort zone. The bigger problem, no doubt, is time for such engagement. But I think there's also a structural problem in this setting, as comments related to the reporting will be mingled with opinions and reactions to the content of the article -- an area for reporters to avoid (this might be different for editorial pieces). Perhaps comments could offer a category selection to indicate different purposes? Creating a good system for productive discussion is really difficult.

Re: Of shoddy journalism and unhappy commenters

Michael Becker — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:47:07 -0000

Thanks for the link. Spot on with what I see in the comments on the paper's website. The thing is, I'm one of the WWIC supporters, I think. I'm looking for more ways to "engage" our readers, which is a fancy way of saying I want them to find our site useful in its own right and not just a replica of the day's paper in pixels instead of ink.

Re: Of shoddy journalism and unhappy commenters

Steve Durbin — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:39:20 -0000

Paul Ford has a thoughtful take on what he calls the "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" phenomenon: http://www.ftrain.com/wwic....

Re: Cooperative commenting

sewa mobil — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:42:42 -0000

Thanks for the tips! While I am not new to blogging, I am new to actually trying to grow my blogs rather than just blog and see what happens. Your info is helpfull

Re: The perils of centralization

Ryan Storment — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:50:54 -0000

I would think that if there was an upgrade that there were also be something (temp page) letting users know that there was an upgrade with an ETA of when things would be up and running. Regardless an upgrade should be infrequent.

Re: Listen and talk, but listen more

Michael Becker — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:32:08 -0000

I apologize for the slip of the fingers. It's been corrected in the post. Thanks for stopping by!

Re: Listen and talk, but listen more

Jason Fry — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:10:04 -0000

Hi Michael, very much appreciate the link and the thoughtful response. I agree the metaphor was a little strained. But feel compelled to point out that it's Jason Fry. Stephen's the actor, James is the Oprah-bashed author (with an extra "e" in the last name). I'm just me....

Re: Notes from #wjchat

Michael Becker — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:32:42 -0000

Thanks for stopping by the blog!

Re: Notes from #wjchat

ChristineStrobel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:52:03 -0000

Thought it was an excellent fast-paced forum, looking forward to next week's.

Re: Notes from #wjchat

Michael Becker — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:15:21 -0000

I corrected this post to reflect the fact that it's not officially linked to WiredJournalists.com. But hey, if you aren't a member of WiredJournalists.com, why not join? All the cool kids are doing it.

Re: Charlie Brooker — How To Report The News

Ian Aspin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:06:16 -0000

Hi Michael,

Hope you're well and thanks so much for the response.

Personally, I think it has little to do with time or money and everything to do with a lack of quality thought.

What Charlie's pointing out is the mind numbingly bland, tired, uninspiring, formulaic treatment of news stories.

Who said stuff should be reported in that style?

And if anyone blindly copies this mindless approach when their news organisation starts offering video, then they're doing readers a disservice and once there's an alternative, such news outlets will likely suffer and perhaps even go out of business.

All the best,

Ian.

Re: Charlie Brooker — How To Report The News

Michael Becker — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:49:28 -0000

We've gotten into some video production at our newspaper. Granted, we're not producing broadcast-quality stuff here, just short news videos for the Web, but it's opened my eyes about the difficulty of getting quality video out there on a deadline.

In a perfect world, video producers would all have the time they needed to produce high-quality video journalism. Sadly, most news organizations, like the ones here in Bozeman, Montana, are fairly small. They don't have enough people on staff to allow their reporters and producers the time to innovate.

Re: Charlie Brooker — How To Report The News

Ian Aspin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:41:42 -0000

Having worked as a TV news reporter I found Charlie's piece very amusing - some of us have long believed reporting like this is a rubbish way to do things!

But even if a journalist wants to tell stories in a more authentic and engaging way, the constraints of the so-called "house style" in many news organisations make it difficult to achieve.

What's needed is a massive culture shift and a complete re-think of what we understand quality broadcast news reporting is.

And guess what? That's exactly what's happening, though you'd never believe it from what we're still mostly seeing on TV.

Anyway, the new digital technologies, and shake up of "old school/old mainstream" journalism means new platforms and styles of "news" storytelling can now emerge.

Let's hope fresh and appropriate ways of funding appear too, so we can kill off this dreadful formulaic reporting and delivery, and clear the way for more natural and interesting ways to treat stories and content.

Much love,

Ian Aspin. www.twitter.com/ianaspin

Re: A self-serving idea

Michael Becker — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:12:58 -0000

I use the phrase "in essence" too often. I know.

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Michael Becker — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:40:53 -0000

I posted some more thoughts about Carr's essay in a new blog post. It didn't quite fit with the discussion going on here. Read it, if you like, at http://www.hypercrit.net/20....

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Tom Mooney — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:32:48 -0000

Joegullo,

Respectfully, I'm not arguing about what is news or what isnt news. That to me is immaterial and being a journalism student you have no choice whether you think you need or don't need gatekeepers. They exist, they're usually called editors.Keep in mind the massive amounts of information/stories that are out there? You can only pick and choose a few of thousands. Right there is "gatekeeping" These stories are chosen for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here, although they usually have to do with what helps to sell more whatever...Anyway, citizen journalism has no editors or gatekeepers, However as Mr. Becker points out it also lets anyone publish without corroboration which can bring out the crackpots. So if you are like me, you try to find a healthy balance of both...

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Michael Becker — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:31:54 -0000

"Moderating and removing ideas I think is not an option as this would impose on the 1st amendment and I think that isn't what should be done."

What do you mean? Can you expand your thoughts here?

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Joe Gullo — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:07:47 -0000

@Tom... I don't think we need "gatekeepers" in the sense that this information is invalid we can not use it or this is good information lets use it. I think if the information is factual then it should be used, if it's not then it shouldn't. I think their needs to be a distinction between what is news and what isn't news. Is Twitter considered news? Can we consider what we read on Twitter news? I think the ideas and comments are great on Twitter, I read them and I read them regarding Fort Hood. The problem is how do we know which comments are truth and which are not? I think facts are important and I think Michael is right about the time constraints. I think too many journalists are pressured with getting the story done and on the air and don't have time to double check and double check again to make sure everything is accurate. I am a journalist student and I haven't worked in the industry but that is what I have been told. I don't want to assume anything so please correct me if I am wrong.

@Michael... I agree that we need some system of determining what is factual and what is not. Citizen journalism is great and I think it adds to our field. Sites like Twitter, we need to be cautious what we read on there as a lot of information can be misrepresented. We need some other way to fact check this. Moderating and removing ideas I think is not an option as this would impose on the 1st amendment and I think that isn't what should be done. I agree may be calling people out for misinformation is a good idea.

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Michael Becker — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:56:06 -0000

"Gatekeeper" has such a harsh connotation to it, but that is also one of the roles of mainstream media. Editors in newsrooms decide which stories to publish based on their judgments. Which news is important? What does the public need to know?

Sadly, this selection is often done with revenue in mind and not any thought about what people should know to be functioning members of a democratic society. So citizen journalists step in to "fill in the gaps" they perceive in the mainstream media's coverage.

I'm all for that, except when that leads to citizen journalists who believe they are on a crusade against some news industry conspiracy -- people who believe they are "exposing" the stories that the mainstream media is sweeping under the rug.

Maybe I'm naive, but in all my years in the industry, I've never seen any hint of such conspiracies to hide "the truth." Mostly what I've seen are lots of people who are almost always stressed and crunched for time. They wouldn't have time to conspire if they wanted to.

People have always been dissatisfied with newspapers and the media's coverage of events. Before now, few people had access to tools that would let them publish their own news to a wide number of people. Now they can, and that ability is having a profound effect on the whole newspaper industry, casting journalists in a new light. Is this a good thing? I can't judge that, but it is an important thing.

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Tom Mooney — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:10:05 -0000

Of course, when you add "the gatekeepers" to this equation it becomes even more dicey. What is even more important than the facts of any particular story, is the stories that are chosen for publication. Which, of course, is one of the primary reasons we have citizen journalism in the first place. I think most of us realize that "old media" wasn't doing their job, or wasn't allowed; whatever the case may be. "New media" is here to stay people, get used to it. "New Media" has it's issues and facts and accuracy are definitely some of them. However, equal time, "gatekeepers" etc are no longer issues. Moreover, the saying "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" existed long before "new media".

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Michael Becker — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:02:17 -0000

Thanks for reading. You're hitting on the problem right there. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff in these social networks?

The easiest way is to think of them like you'd think of any other source of information. That is, be skeptical. Gone are the days when we could blindly believe sources just because they were published.

People may still have in the accuracy of printed matter like the Encyclopedia Britannica or World Almanac, but I'm not so sure. The Web has taught us one powerful lesson about accuracy: It never existed. Only varying degrees of accuracy existed, and that accuracy, such as in multiple-volume encyclopedias, was only as good as the copy editors and fact-checkers -- and don't forget that, in truth, most of those errors remained in the printed matter, even after they were discovered, because correcting them would have cost too much money in reprints.

Reporters have always been fact checkers and curators of information. We need to keep up that tradition now. You wonder how we might go about validating information we see online. My answer is that it requires hard detective work and a willingness to call up the people behind the online avatars and actually find out what they know.

Re: Citizen journalism has a cost

Joe Gullo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:29:31 -0000

I'm a journalist student and I find your site rather interesting. Very nice work.

I'm on the fence about how I feel about citizen journalism. I agree with your thoughts about citizen journalism. I don't think that journalism should be an elitist profession. I think there are some valuable contributions from citizen journalists. Sites like Twitter have enabled citizens to comment on various events and post information. However, I think this causes chaos and multitude of thoughts and ideas. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but how can we be sure this information is accurate? Hmm...