House, hunting

Another old idea comes to pass

        I suppose most of us have ideas at one time or another about products, services, etc. that would work well in the course of daily life.

        In the ’60s, I figured flower pots on rope netting would be nice for hanging plants on porches. In the ’70s, I figured business news could have daily presence on front pages if treated as more than regurgitation of news releases. In the ’90s Andra wondered why there wasn’t medical insurance for pets.

        And there was this other idea: I used to think that if I owned a small-town weekly, I’d put out a call to locals for people interested in writing for the paper or taking photos, noting that I’d train them and edit their work. That way, I figured, I might not fall into the trap of working myself to death, which is the lot of many small-town newspaper editors, and coverage would gain an insider edge.

        Turns out that the Web has opened that path for “citizen journalists,” an idea that appeals even to the biggest and best, a.k.a. The New York Times. They’re launching two “citizen journalist” Web sites, effective Monday. Volunteer residents will cover three communities in New Jersey (Maplewood, South Orange and Millburn) and two Brooklyn neighborhoods (Fort Greene and Clinton Hill). Metro desk staffers will oversee the work.

        Ought to be interesting.

        Here’s another idea that often ran through my mind while I was an ombudsman: If all Americans could somehow work as journalists (hey, why not? we have the Peace Corps and VISTA), maybe they would form a new appreciation and understanding of journalism.

        From lights going on among the public instead of right wing talk show-fed misperceptions, maybe journalism’s deeply wounded credibility would begin to heal. And in the process, the outlook for democracy and our republic would brighten as citizen journalists learned more and more how and why to hold government accountable at the grass roots level and beyond.

        (I apologize for lack of links. Going on 3 hours' sleep, but I had to post something about NYT's move.)

        Silly thought? Maybe. Maybe not. All of those other ideas worked out. 

Should Google pay for news content?

         Here's a question with increased urgency: Should Google continue to get a free ride with news content that it doesn't originate?

        My vote is “No.” Without the news industry, how much content/impact/interest would Google lose? Web users may not want to pay for content, but it's time for some sort of culture shock on the Web. Google should at least pay royalties to the news outlets who pump so much value into a phenomenal and beloved engine. Not to do so is just unacceptable, particularly at a time when the news industry is gripped in such financial struggle. It’s time for Google to ante up in one way or another.

        I’m a fan of Peter Osnos and applaud his recent Daily Beast column about the Google issue. Well worth reading and mulling. What do you think?

Social media's Achilles heel

        Social media’s power and potential as a part of source-building, newsgathering and dissemination of information has one core, ethics-related weakness. As Adam Penenberg of NYU’s journalism department put it in an e-mail last week:

        "The difficulty is that social media is ungovernable. While you and I may preach the standard journalism ethics many people who engage in social media--and become de facto publishers in their own right--don't have a clue. In the past the publications were the gatekeepers--even the tabloids had some form of editorial oversight."

        The “say anything” tendency among some bloggers and users of other social media may be entertaining, but it can cause harm, draw legal action and erode their credibility. I’d advise them to at least review SPJ’s Code of Ethics and the AP Stylebook’s sections on libel and slander and keep those things in mind. The Stylebook is sold by the AP and at most bookstores, and it's cited well in Bob Arya's book Thirty Seconds to Air. 

Not all journalists sold on social media

         Some journalists prefer the surest, time-tested methods of rooting out the news. One of those is Jay Root, formidable AP staffer in the Austin bureau where he covers the Legislature, turning out exclusives amid daily work that keeps him in the ranks of the best there is in  Austin -- and the U.S. as far as I'm concerned.

        Those of us who know Jay are familiar not only with his pleasant, engaging demeanor but also his analytical mind, tenacity and the quality of his questions that tear into things like exquisitely aimed shots from an elephant rifle. We admire, too, his command of Mexican congressional, cultural and border affairs and his fluency in Spanish. 

        As I looked into journalists' use of social media, I was particularly curious about whether Jay uses those resources. What he said did and didn't surprise me. Here's his answer, with his permission:

        "The opportunity for a mainstream journalist (using social media) ... lies in the ability to reach out and draw more contacts and information more efficiently and more broadly than the traditional ways of communicating. The danger comes from putting things out prematurely and compromising your neutrality and credibility. ...

        "I tend to spend my time working sources, calling people, asking tough questions, filing open records requests, watching what really happens in the meetings I go to, covering my beat and having drinks in real time with real people instead of emailing them on Facebook. So far I haven't missed any stories that I know of. I may find that at some point I am missing something, but until then I choose to live without social networking. ..."

Lessons from Mumbai

        Exploring ethics-related challenges for journalists using social media brought me into contact with several former colleagues whom I deeply respect. They shared helpful insights regarding social media, and I’ll share their thoughts on this blog. They’ve given their permission.

        Not surprisingly, first to reply to a request I sent out for thoughts was the gracious and articulate Jeffrey Dvorkin – former managing editor of CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) Radio News, NPR’s first ombudsman and now on the faculty at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario. I mentioned coverage of terrorist attacks in Mumbai as an example of controversial use of social media (tweets) in newsgathering.  He sent his comment to this blog. If you’ve missed it below, here it is along with some followup thoughts.

        “I am teaching a journalism workshop in ‘new journalism forms.’ The class is for 2nd year Masters' candidates. We are designing a multi-media platform to cover a breaking news event, such as the Mumbai attack. We are making sure that while we look for all manner of social media forms, they MUST be moderated as much as possible.

        "Our assumption is that new media will increasingly be the sharp end of the lance while the more traditional newsroom will be the triage centers choosing which information is more useful and reliable, then putting context around it. We assume the risk that we will inadvertently post inaccurate or even misleading information. But as the ‘wiki’ quality of the web increases, we believe it will be self-correcting and self-regulating.”

        If you recall, tweets from Mumbai comprised a significant source of information for the news media about what was going on as the terrorists wreaked havoc. A number of those tweets turned out to be questionable, resulting in controversy over the use of them. So I asked Jeffrey: “What lessons learned from the use of tweets from Mumbai are you incorporating into your project?” He replied:

        “Our class has decided that nothing gets posted on our site until it is moderated. We need to be mindful that if we are doing a story on Mumbai with its implications of race, religion and terrorism, that social media needs to be monitored before we allow it in. That may go against the spirit of the 'anything goes' vibe of the net, but we think that it’s the way to proceed. Eventually, mainstream media will be there to do the triage and the social media will be doing some of the news gathering as first responders.

        "We need to learn from each other so we can serve the democracy better. That’s the theory at any rate. I’m including a draft documents from the Australian Broadcasting Corp. They have used a lot of social media in their coverage of the bushfires. Paul Chadwick asked me what I thought. It occurred to me that since arson is involved, that some of the pictures might be crime scenes and to publish photos might involve the ABC in a way that might compromise journalistic integrity and independence. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t publish, but the editors need to be aware."

        Good points, particularly the emphasis on the need for heightened awareness of all the forces that propel and threaten professional journalists in the social-media universe. 

Be careful with Twitter

        It's a mighty big gun, as my Uncle Caleb would've said. "Be careful where you point that thang."

        Twitter can be a career death trap, as headlined in the previous post, but the fault lies not with Twitter. Like a gun or a keyboard, Twitter pretty much does what the human user tells it to do, accidentally or otherwise. And as with great front-end systems that don't know the difference between plagiarized copy and original work, Twitter obeys the writers who use it unless an editing process is involved, which leads to another problem: Twitter's loaded with raw copy.

        Journalists who carelessly use Twitter or any other tool in the social media lineup are asking for the same trouble they invite with any carelessly crafted communication. And remember: Tweets are potential documentation that can land in court as quickly as memos, e-mails or other documents. Never hurts for the troops to keep that red flag in mind.

        I'm revisiting this issue to make my view clear. Evidently, I didn't do that in the previous post, which led to a sort of e-lashing on a blog written by Steve Buttry, editor of the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette and a leading proponent of social media. If you want to see a staff dedicated to using social media, check out the Gazette's use.

        As I said in an e-mail to Steve: "Twitter, like all great tools, can be an agent of either great good or harm, depending on who’s using it, how and why. I respect it like I respected my 10-inch table saw, my old tractor and the words I write." They all nearly killed me at one time or another.

Twitter: A career death trap?

        Just back up for air after an intense, 4-day/night focus on freelance assignments.

        And I began research into ethics- and credibility-related challenges that social media pose for journalists, and I quickly came across a hideous example of the traps we can fall into -- the same traps that exist in print and broadcast media, but the cyber environment amplifies their impact to levels we've never encountered.

        There on sync-blog.com, I saw the headline: "Could the wrong tweet end your career?"

        As I read the post and followed the link to a chilling exchange between a journalist and a pr practioner, the bright side and the dark side of future journalism became crystal clear. Beautiful on the one hand, ugly as sin on the other.

        Take a look and let me know what you think -- and your thoughts about the effect social media may have on journalism.

Kids and comics

        Forming relationships with the comics can start early in life, and kid readers are just as passionate about their favorite strips as any adult fan.

        Here's an example from January 2007 as I reported in Onotes, a twice-weekly collection of ombudsman notes taken from conversations with readers:

        "Young reader writes: Tyler lodged a complaint. 'I am a 10-year-old boy who enjoys reading the comics every day. I was disappointed when I went to read them this morning. I saw that you got rid of FoxTrot, one of my favorite comics, and replaced it with Pearls Before Swine. I want to know why you got rid of a kid-friendly comic strip."

        My comment in Onotes: "Hearing from such young readers is cause for rejoicing, particularly if they care enough to complain. Tyler knows now that FoxTrot went away because the creator has quit the daily strip to pursue other interests and that we replaced it with Pearls because so many readers have been asking for that strip."

        Readers had been calling and e-mailing steadily for a year or so, asking for Pearls. Some threatened to subscribe to The Dallas Morning News because they carried the strip, and perhaps some followed through on their threat. Opening a position in a limited lineup can be extremely difficult when even the weakest feature draws strong readership. So when a creator ditches a strip, readers mourn the loss of a friend while editors search for fresh material -- a rare occurrence at most papers.

        Pulling Pearls into the lineup gave us a great sense of satisfaction in responding to reader requests. Smartly drawn and written by Stephan Pastis, Pearls has established itself well in the Star-Telegram lineup. I don't know how well, because I'm not there anymore. But I suspect Tyler may even have become a big fan.

        -- David

Stopping the cheaters ...

        Lots of interest in this issue among washingtonpost.com readers (hey, y'all, welcome to my bailout blog courtesy of TypePad), so I should add a bit more detail.

        What did we do to try to stop the comics-survey cheating? The only thing we could think of, at least in terms of the online ballot, was this: We set it up so our system would not allow a reader to use the same computer to vote -- for one hour -- hoping a cheater would think we were allowing only one vote per reader as we had stipulated in the rules.

        Never knew how effective that was at stopping cheaters, but one result was some interesting perspective on comics' readership.

        As the Star-Telegram's ombudsman, I was the target of a pile of complaints from parents who said that either they or their children had been unable to vote. Whole families were voting, little kids were voting. Or trying to.

        I explained what was going on and why and asked them to try to vote again after an hour. They usually understood, appreciated our dilemma and went on to cast their votes. We scored record reader participation when we put the comics survey ballot online.

        Thing is, the situation emphasized the powerful connection between readers and the comics. Those strips and single-panel features are gold. So are the puzzles like Sudoku. As newspapers cut costs by dropping syndicated material, they need to think twice before they whack their comics lineups.

        -- David

From an '05 comics survey: context 'n' cheatin' ...

        Here's how a comics survey usually unfolds. And in this column from Jan. 30, 2005, I also mentioned one of those cheating attempts (emphasized in bf type). This column was published on "Baldo's" site because "Baldo" had ranked #7 out of 42 strips and single-panel features that year. Hey, Baldo's a fine strip and it was good to see it score well and claim strong results. Here's an excerpt from the column: 

By David House/Star-Telegram Staff Writer

        Every page in a daily newspaper holds personal impact for many readers, but none more so than the comics pages.

        There, characters and readers -- and the newspaper that brings them together -- can bond in close relationships that may last for a lifetime, even long after a comic strip is no longer syndicated. So it's no small matter when a newspaper wants to gauge such relationships via comics surveys.

        The Star-Telegram's survey taken in December found a lively array of relationships between a diverse readership and the 42 features carried daily in the two-page comics package. Overall performance is stronger than two years ago, when the last survey was conducted.

        In all, 3,399 readers -- hard-core devotees of comics, no doubt -- took time to complete either online or in-paper ballots to help us gauge our comics' performance. (To the reader who cast more than 900 ballots electronically and the reader who cast more than 600: Your ballots were pitched. But call or e-mail me. I'd like to know what you were thinking.)

        Despite technological enhancement, the survey isn't scientific, but results indicate that the Star-Telegram is publishing a well-balanced package. Nearly every feature draws significant readership, generating across-the-board strength that carries an unwritten warning: Don't mess with this.

        -- David