Jun 28, 2010

The view from Denver

I learned quite a few things last week during the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention in Denver. First, Denver is surprisingly flat. Second, its airport is actually in Nebraska, an eight-hour drive from anything.

Most importantly, I learned that traditional journalists have a lot to learn about new media, and new media has a lot to learn about traditional journalism. It’s easy to chalk up this mutual repugnance to arrogance, the “my medium is better than yours” argument. But it’s more complicated than that.

Traditional journalists (those in print and broadcast) turn up their noses at new media because they deem the quality of online content to be sub-par. They’re kinda right. Some producers of online content have displayed a lack of journalistic skill and editorial judgment, an inability to dig up original sources, and a sole purpose to drive page views and thus advertising rates. It’s embarrassing.

At the same time, those in new media brush off traditional journalists for their seemingly backwards view of how information should be presented and consumed. This too has some validity. Too many traditional news outlets have shown they don’t get concepts like transparency through linking, distribution and interaction through online social networks, and constructive discourse through moderated comments. It’s pathetic.

What traditional journalists and new-media producers share is panic over the news industry’s decaying orbit, as well as frustration in their hunt for a working business model.

My solution to this discord and angst is a swift smack to the back of the head. Responsible journalism is doable in the New World Order. Quality reporting has monetary value, but it will take creativity — not complacency or a reliance on the tired, failing advertising model — to cook up sustainable revenue. The public wants and deserves more than entertainment. Twitter and Facebook aren’t disposable time sucks.

Everyone’s got a dog in this race. The problem is, they don’t realize it’s the same damn dog scowling at its own reflection.

As always, the goal of this blog is to explore ways to make that dog stronger, smarter and faster without beating it into the ground or doping it with steroids. I’ll continue those explorations this week and throughout the summer.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Daniel Hoherd.

May 17, 2010

Back in the saddle again

The prodigal hyperlocalist is back after exploring what I’d hoped would be an opportunity to break into my local market. It didn’t work out for one big reason: In my opinion, I didn’t earn a wage that was commensurate with the amount of work involved. That’s how things roll. Failure is always an option.

But it’s important to learn from the experience, and here’s what I learned: I should practice what I preach. In February, I tore into The New York Times from my cyber-soapbox for its plan to have CUNY J-school students run two of its hyperlocal news sites:

[T]he Times-CUNY arrangement smells like the exploitation of a relatively skilled labor force willing to work for nothing more than a byline, exposure and a good grade. Teaching student and citizen journalists that craft and livelihood are incompatible is the wrong lesson. Instead, quality journalism should be rewarded.

It made sense to me then, though it would have made more sense to heed those words. Instead, I let destitution lead me to work for less than peanuts, for a “news” website that offered exposure but actually relied on its writers to deliver an audience.

For two weeks, I saw my page views beat the site’s average three- to fivefold, but the pennies per page view weren’t doing it for me. Meanwhile, I imagined the website’s publisher promoting its higher page views to trump up ad rates and sales, not by pennies but by dollars.

There was also the issue of who my fellow content contributors were. Some of them were topic experts but not the best writers. Others posted press releases, and there’s no telling if they were compensated in other ways for that content.

Frankly, that wasn’t the online company I wanted to keep. So few publications can successfully serve fluffy cotton candy with blood-rare prime rib and make it palatable. Playboy pulled it off back in the day — only The Heff can publish T, A and X in the same issue and make it work. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case with the website for which I wrote.

In the end, I decided it would be better to work for free while developing my strengths (and identifying my weaknesses) as a hyperlocalist. So here I am, back in the saddle again.

I’ve got lots of interesting stuff coming up this week and next, including thoughts on crowd-sourced content, further ideas on news distribution via text message, and the advantages and disadvantages of partnering with a larger media outlet. I’m also taking more cracks at that editorial calendar-as-business plan.

Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Photo by Flicker user Bill Gracey.

Apr 29, 2010

Steve Jobs is everywhere.

Businesses big and small will always try to defend their reputations and protect their property. It’s why hyperlocalists moderate their readers’ comments and copyright their work. And it’s why Apple is unleashing its corporate fury on Gizmodo editor Jason Chen after he acquired and then reviewed a stolen product prototype.

Apple is so intent on learning how Chen got his hands on the iPhone prototype that it may have prompted San Mateo County (Calif.) police to seize two computers from Chen’s home office. For his part, Chen admits to buying the prototype for $5,000 from a guy who “found” it in a bar. Now there are questions of whether the investigation violated Chen’s rights under federal and state shield laws, The New York Times reported Tuesday. Who knows.

This kind of reaction from business — arguably harassment — can hit hyperlocalists hard, even if the reaction is on a far smaller scale. It’s at least a distraction from a media outlet’s true function and can be detrimental to business relationships if the harassment escalates to libel or slander.

For instance, I once reviewed a local coffee house for my former hyperlocal website. Admittedly, I tore the place to shreds but wrote nothing that was beyond my rights as a journalist. I understood (and expected) the business’s ire, but I was surprised at how much energy they afforded to shutting me up.

First, they berated me for not supporting a small, locally owned business. (For the record, the company made millions selling its products in retail stores and Costco. I was the sole proprietor of a one-person newsroom operating off my dining table.) Then they threatened a local nonprofit via email with withholding financial support if it didn’t dump my publication as its official media partner. The nonprofit succumbed to the duress.

I also received an email from someone threatening to sue me for taking unauthorized photographs of the people who worked in the coffee shop. Knowing my rights as a journalist quashed that issue quickly, but it was still frustrating and time consuming to explain this to the email’s author.

In the end, the review remained posted on the internet, I remained unapologetic, and the company relocated its coffee house to a neighboring town.

The take-home lesson to all of this: Hyperlocalists should know their rights as journalists and publishers. That’s what they are to their communities, and they should exercise their rights under existing media and shield laws to defend the service they provide. Knowing these rights can protect an outlet’s business from frivolous lawsuits and defend it from libel.

It doesn’t matter whether that knock on the door is Steve Jobs or Juan Valdez. Be prepared to answer it.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user ryoichitanaka.

Apr 22, 2010

Mean comments? Suck it up.

Writing about deeply personal events can leave a writer feeling vulnerable when reader comments roll in. That may very well have been the case with Taffy Brodesser-Akner, who earlier this year wrote about the post-traumatic stress disorder she experienced after childbirth. Brodesser-Akner described her reaction to reader comments Wednesday in The New York Times:

I was surprised when, within hours of my article going live, a slew of nasty comments appeared below it in the area reserved for readers to respond.

“You should consider not having any more babies.”

“I feel sorry for her son. Can you imagine going through life with this woman?”

Not every comment was negative. Some were sympathetic, supportive, even touching. But the mean ones — yikes — were they mean.

She explained that the intent of her Times post was not to express how hurt she felt. Instead, she wished to explore “why online commenters are so gratuitously nasty; why, when given the opportunity to have an educated disagreement with an author or other readers, they use the space allotted to spew venom instead of presenting a well-reasoned argument,” she wrote.

But not all venom is meant to be poisonous. Not all “gratuitously nasty” comments are meant to be gratuitous or nasty.

Writers benefit from the skill and gift of being able to crystalize fuzzy thoughts and emotions into succinct words, and a writer who can do that about something as personal as post-traumatic stress after childbirth is probably more skilled and gifted (and experienced) than most. Consider it a blessing when trying to explain complex concepts.

It’s a curse when all that emotional energy is confronted with the dull, blunt force of readers who may not be as graceful with their words. Pity, concern, sarcasm and humor aren’t always conveyed easily by experienced writers, and even less so by those who don’t write for a living. The inflection that readers hear in their own voices, and the emotion they feel in their own hearts, don’t always come across in their written words.

That’s not to say that “gratuitously nasty” comments don’t exist — of course they do. Some axes won’t be denied a grinding. But writers must develop thick skins when the criticism crashes down on them. If the writing is accurate and, in the case of Brodesser-Akner, if it’s emotionally truthful, then the writer has fulfilled her or his obligation to the reader. The writer may choose to respond to comments or blow them off by choice.

Reader comments can be harsh and sometimes hurtful. Suck it up and move on.

Mar 10, 2010

Keep on rockin’ in the free world.

It feels like a while since I’ve written anything, probably because it has been a while. But while my fingers have been idle, my brain’s been crunching through all kinds of concepts, namely what will be my next venture.

The first step in that process (for me, anyway) is to map out the kind of editorial content I want to generate. Should I aim for general hyperlocal news or niche stories? What’s the best way to present that content in terms of editorial voice, tone and structure? How should I structure my editorial calendar?

Question number two is the whopper, the one that will either set things in motion or quash them for good: Is there a need for this kind of content? Would I be duplicating the work of others, or do I have a new and distinct product to offer? This is when all the research and corporate espionage happens, the endless hours of scouring the internet to learn how others have succeeded and failed.

If my concept passes the muster of questions one and two, the next issue to tackle is funding. As mentioned previously, I’m shit broke. So should I take on full-time work until I have enough capital saved for this new venture, or should I seek donors as a nonprofit media outlet?

Decisions, decisions! But that’s how things roll in Hyperlocal Land. The thinking never stops. Trial and error becomes a lifestyle. Failure is always a viable option, as long as one learns to succeed from it. Seriously.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Dena Flows.

« Older Entries