“The mainstream media stole my news story and didn’t give me credit!”

I’ve heard that gripe from lots of hyperlocalists, and on Tuesday blogger Danny Sullivan illustrated exactly how it was done to him. In a detailed post, he showed how his original story — about a woman who’s suing Google for bad walking directions — eventually spun into content for CBS News and The Associated Press. Neither news organization attributed Sullivan as the primary source, he claimed.

That borderline plagiarism sucks to no end, and I don’t like it any more than Sullivan. But it happens. Hyperlocalists and bloggers unwillingly offer plump, juicy leads to mainstream reporters, who both appreciate the tip and refuse to acknowledge the competition. Likewise, small media bootlegs information from larger outfits. And sadly, hyperlocalists “borrow” quotes, images and other content from other hyperlocalists, sometimes without attribution.

There’s no foolproof way around it, but the tactics below might force news outlets to acknowledge in some way their original sources:

Use original images when possible. Sullivan’s story offered screenshots of Google Maps, which he embellished with a few arrows. The screenshots’ appearance on The Daily Mail and The Financial Post without attribution was what tipped off Sullivan to the growing problem, he wrote.

While Sullivan felt the screenshots were protected under his copyright (I believe they’re Google’s copyrighted derivatives), the use of originally composed maps, photos and illustrations might have given him more leverage against other outlets’ fair use of his content. They would have had to acknowledge Sullivan as the source, even if it was only in a “republished with permission” line and link.

Keep a tight grip on source documents. Sullivan based part of his story on the plaintiff’s complaint, a document filed with the US District Court in Utah. Sullivan said he uploaded the paperwork onto Scribd, a free web service that allows one to share or embed PDFs and other content. The magazine PC World then accessed the document directly, bypassing Sullivan as a source.

I don’t blame PC World for hitting the ultimate primary source, the complaint filed in court. But Sullivan might have been better off uploading the PDF onto his website’s host server and not onto an open social-networking service that allows viewers to print, download or embed the document. Self-hosting would mean any link to the document would have led back to Sullivan’s URL.

Of course, PC World could have found a way around that. But maybe a watermark superimposed over the original document could have shown Sullivan as the document’s initial, intended recipient. Personally, I don’t see a watermark disturbing the authenticity of a document, but if there are other thoughts on that, I’m open to hearing them.

When a story is stolen, blog the hell out of it. Sullivan did a terrific job of mapping where his story went and how larger media companies cannibalized it. The blog post eventually made its way through the Twitterverse, bringing attention to sloppy editorial practices and lazy reporting. He may not have gotten the attribution he deserved, but at least he drew attention to the problem and brought some recognition to himself.

Again, none of these tactics guarantee attribution or even a link. But if ripoff artists stumble over them in the process of their “reporting,” then I’m cool with that.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user ratterrell.

Oofah! The Twitterverse was buzzing Tuesday afternoon about Yahoo! News’ acquisition of Associated Content for $100 million. My initial reaction was an apathetic “So what?” Associated Content’s sloppy editorial practices would only dilute Yahoo’s wire content, and its contributing writers probably won’t see much difference in their paychecks.

But then I read this very good article by Michelle Rafter, whose blog focuses on freelancing in the digital age. In it, she points out that Associated Content’s buyout signals Yahoo’s entry into the war for local ad dollars. (AOL and Google are already in the ring with their own products.) Rafter says straight up that “local content [generated by Associated Content's writers] gives Yahoo access to local advertising that would otherwise go to those hyperlocal news ventures that have been cropping up everywhere.”

That’s when my apathy turned into complete panic. I’m one of “those” hyperlocal news ventures trying to crop up. Those are my ad dollars Yahoo, AOL and Google are taking! Motherfuckers!

Once I pulled my head out of the oven, I refocused and took an inventory of what makes independent hyperlocal news outlets the better deal in local advertising. The bottom line: Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t stand a freakin’ chance. Here’s why.

Hyperlocalists have the inside edge on what’s happening in and around their beats. Where content farms like Associated Content and AOL’s Seed spin press statements into content (don’t expect peanut-earning writers to put too much effort into their reporting), hyperlocalists fill in the blanks with strong local flavor and details that larger outlets can’t and won’t detect. It’s the difference between having an embedded journalist and reporting from amalgamated wire stories.

That flavor gives the hyperlocal outlet an “emotional value” with its audience. As I wrote Tuesday, consumers do more than just consume a successful hyperlocal outlet’s content. They incorporate the information into their decision making and allow it to influence their lives. Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t have that kind of hyperlocal clout — perhaps they never will. Score a big one for hyperlocalists!

Also, hyperlocal news outlets are more likely to have access to charitable contributions from homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce and local professional organizations than Yahoo, AOL and Google. Sure, the big guys have investors to fuel their efforts, but investors are interested in only one thing: a big, fat return. It was the drive for profit over quality journalism that took down print newspapers, and it has the potential to undo Yahoo, AOL and Google. Slightly different business model, same outcome.

On the other hand, local donors have other interests in mind. Homeowners want their property values to rise (or at least not fall), chambers of commerce and professional groups want publicity for their businesses. Having a locally owned news outlet in the neighborhood goes a long way to advancing these donors’ respective goals. It’s something that generic news coverage from content farms can’t offer.

I really don’t mean to knock those hyperlocalists who choose to work with these larger organizations. As I’ve said previously, if a hyperlocal news organization stands to benefit from some kind of arrangement with the big guys, then do it. Surely, well-versed and justly paid hyperlocalists can only enrich the news landscape with their content, regardless of who’s doing the distributing.

But if writing for a content farm leads to nothing but pennies per click and “exposure,” then one would be better off in the trenches, digging graves in which to bury Yahoo, AOL and Google.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user godutchbaby.

So it was with great interest that I read this recent article in The New York Times about a startup clothing company that allows its customers to design their own shirts. Shoppers visit the company’s website, pick out colors, patterns and cuff styles, drop some coin and in four weeks, they’re rocking personalized gear.

The company’s success is rooted in its “emotional-value proposition,” says the company’s 22-year-old CEO. (Freakin’ hipster!) Customers play a part in the creative process, and what results is a personalized shirt that oozes individual expression. Okay.

That got me thinking: If consumers will pay to design a shirt, would they pay to participate in hyperlocal content creation? Does the emotional-value proposition apply to hyperlocal news? No and yes.

First, anyone who will pay to generate content is an advertiser. Consumers can usually distinguish an advertisement from editorial content because ads are labeled as such. But when an advertiser’s content is passed off as news, or if the hyperlocalist accepts compensation for creating “advertorial” content, then the news outlet’s objectivity comes into question.

Next, no one should create news content for the purpose of self-expression without fair compensation. That’s what larger media outlets like Forbes.com and The Washington Post call “content for exposure” (or more precisely, content for exploitation), and the practice only dilutes the quality of an organization’s content.

Instead, the emotional-value proposition can apply to opportunities for consumer feedback. A moderated comment section adds tremendous value to a news website. (The same goes for editorial essays printed on paper or broadcast as sound or video.) The opportunity to offer constructive criticism allows news consumers to express interest in their community, and the interaction reflects the news organization’s worth in the community.

That quality is perhaps the strongest selling point when approaching advertisers, sponsors and subscribers. It means that consumers do more than just consume a media outlet’s content. They assign value to it, they incorporate the information into their decision making, they allow it to influence their lives. That kind of quality far outweighs a website’s page views, a newspaper’s circulation or a broadcast outlet’s audience numbers.

The emotional-value proposition also applies to crowd-sourced content, but one should approach that with caution. I’ll get into that tomorrow.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Kirsten Hartsoch.

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.

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.

In the parlance of mainstream media, contextual advertising means partnering an ad with a related piece of content, Kathy Best, managing editor with The Seattle Times, described last month during a NewsU.org webinar. For example, an ad for a cruise line might appear with content on travel, or a restaurant might advertise alongside foodie content.

The most exciting thing about contextual advertising is this: News consumers respond more strongly to advertisements that have a local spin to them, Best found in consumer surveys. For instance, a local travel agency’s ad may get more attention in the travel section than one for a big cruise line. In this case, context has more to do with location than content. Score one for hyperlocalists!

But to make local (and hyperlocal) ads successful for sponsors, context must be coupled with customer service, Best indicated. The ad must do more than just announce the sponsor’s presence in town — it’s got to connect the consumer directly with the sponsor’s services. An advertisement might encourage consumers to order goods immediately via phone or online. Or it could promote a weekly special, giving the ad context in time (double booyah).

Best’s recommendation supports something that CUNY J-school’s Jeff Jarvis suggested previously, that local businesses aren’t interested in advertising their presence to consumers who likely already know they exist. Instead, contextual and service-oriented ads allow local advertisers to build on existing customer relationships by offering more (or at least different) services.

It’s a strong sales argument for why the local dry cleaner (the one who’s been around for twenty years and whom everyone knows) should advertise with hyperlocal media. Even if the advertisement provides only the dry cleaner’s telephone number, it’s one more extension of customer service that can drive repeat business.

There are some dangers to contextual advertising, Best warned, mostly having to do with the placement of ads with hard news. A media outlet shouldn’t place a politician’s campaign ad alongside content about his or her rival, unless one’s goal is to draw that outlet’s objectivity into question. Instead, contextual ads fare better when paired with soft news — food, travel, sports, and news that won’t strike a nerve, Best suggested.

Shuffling ads with content may get cumbersome for small outlets, especially for online publishers who rely on fixed templates. However, there might be tools available to help with that. (I’ll explore that in a future post.) And if an advertiser’s location and the timing of special offers are emphasized, then perhaps the ad’s coupling with relevant content might not be so important.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user FadderUri.

The second transpired on Twitter with Gannett reporter Chris Serico, who shared his thoughts on sportscaster Bob Costas. Serico finds Costas to be a “smart and self-effacing” announcer, whereas I believe Costas is a babbling egomaniac who’s strayed from his roll as a sports reporter.

Both discussions got me thinking: What is a reporter? Is it someone who abandons the self for the sake of objectivity? Is it someone who incorporates or even projects the self as an act of empathy? Is there a happy medium between mensch and übermensch? What is happiness anyway?

Of course, some of these questions may never be answered or even understood. But I’d like to take a swing at the first one, on being a reporter, with an emphasis on hyperlocalism. Here goes nothing:

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a reporter is someone who works for a newspaper, magazine, or television company to gather, report and broadcast news. Throw in organizations like radio companies, press agencies and websites, and I’m cool with Merriam-Webster. But the dictionary (and I) distinguish reporters from journalists, those whose writing is characterized “by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.”

Can community bloggers be considered reporters? If they offer new information that’s relevant to the community conversation, then yes. They should be extended all the courtesies and credentials available to the mainstream press. But are community bloggers journalists? No, not if they participate in news creation or inject opinion into their content.

(The same can be asked of Bob Costas and other mainstream content producers. Are they reporters, journalists, commentators, columnists, or what?)

The distinction between reporter and journalist does not diminish the former’s importance in delivering vital information to the community. However, editorializing can be a dangerous thing for both, especially on the hyperlocal level. On the business end, it can alienate potential advertisers and sponsors. But even worse, it can lead news consumers to question motives.

There are some damn good community blogs out there digging up dirt that mainstream media won’t touch, and they’re definitely worth reading. But as far as practice goes, I’ll stick with journalism.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user jef_safi.

The marketing group that conducted the study didn’t explain the difference, but Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab chalked it up to the ability of topic-specific sites to reach target audiences, versus the watered-down mainstream coverage engineered to speak to the masses.

And there’s this theory from fellow hyperlocalist Cynthia Cotte Griffiths, with Rockville (Md.) Central: “Bloggers are on the front line producing story ideas. We’re free to interact,” she said via Twitter. “Reporters are often restricted.”

Um, no and yes. While bloggers and hyperlocalists are “on the front line,” so are mainstream reporters. Newspapers still break most stories, which bloggers then regurgitate, a Pew study found (in Baltimore, anyway). In that sense, reporters not only occupy the front line, they bring the beer and chips. Bloggers (83 percent of them, according to Pew) just nibble on the crumbs.

I agree that reporters are “restricted” somewhat when it comes to their level of interaction with readers. Good practice requires them to stay out of the fray, to maintain objectivity. But that shouldn’t prevent journalists from eliciting conversation from readers, from “interviewing” them and moderating discussion strings in online comments sections.

Perhaps the bigger problem lies with the institutions that manage mainstream media and the agendas they put forth. Some of the country’s best known publications — The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Harper’s Magazine, to name a few — are managed by billionaires who jump into the news business primarily because it gives them access to the powers that be, Advertising Age’s Simon Dumenco posted last week.

“Much has been written about the death of journalism, blah blah, as the margins at once-great publishing companies vanish. But something else is vanishing too: the old black magic that drew deep-pocketed backers to media ownership because media (specifically newspapers and magazines) offered them ample other rewards (regardless of the state of the balance sheet). Like, prestige. A place at the table. Access to the halls of power.”

That’s not journalism for the sake of civic discourse, quality reporting or even business. That’s just journalism for the sake of ego. And if a news outlet operates only to stroke the egos of aloof billionaire backers, then there’s no room left for average news consumers to share their thoughts.

Mainstream media insists on talking to people. Hyperlocalists understand that it’s about talking with people. Until traditional media changes its mind frame, it will continue to circle the drain. No new technology or novel distribution system will reverse that trend.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user bbaltimore.

My objection to the video’s airing is twofold. First, it was too graphic for my taste, but that’s my hangup. More germane to this blog, the video added nothing of value to the news story.

Media outlets had already reported Friday that Kumaritashvili lost control of his sled during a practice run, flew over a track wall at about 90 miles per hour and then slammed against a metal beam. Some outlets, like The New York Times, also ran still photos of Kumaritashvili airborne before the final impact, with his sled still on the track.

Between the textual description of the accident and the still photography, it was easy to piece together a complete story of how the 21-year-old athlete lost his life. Very much like a motorcycle accident, he was thrown from his vehicle at high speed and ultimately crashed into a hard object. The (tragic) end.

And NBC’s video footage of the accident showed just that — stuff that was already known to those following the story, and nothing that wasn’t described in sportscaster Bob Costas’s preface. It offered no new details or insight on how or why the accident happened. It was gratuitous.

The knocks that NBC took for the video should serve as a lesson to multimedia journalists. Puffing up a news piece with extraneous content has the potential to devalue one’s credibility with news consumers. It shows laziness on the journalist’s part for posting graphic detail without considering its informative value or its usefulness to the overall civic conversation. To some extent, it also insults the consumer’s intelligence, as if bloated content would so easily impress.

Going graphic is especially risky for hyperlocalists, whose consumers tend to take greater ownership in the content. I’ve had to defend my use of certain language and photographs when readers found them too disturbing or offensive, though in my editorial judgment, they were proper vehicles for delivering information and were not gratuitous. Someone’s always going to take offense at something.

Ultimately, the hyperlocalist must decide whether pissing people off does good for the community conversation. If going graphic means doing good, just be prepared to roll with the punches.

Photo of the Olympic cauldron in Vancouver courtesy of Flickr user Marcin Chady.