Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Nina Mehta
Secret Agent
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posted:
Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:18 am
|
|
| |
| Quote: | | Starting Friday, Gannett newsrooms were rechristened "information centers," and instead of being organized into separate metro, state or sports departments, staff will now work within one of seven desks with names like "data," "digital" and "community conversation." |
| Quote: | | Crowdsourcing involves taking functions traditionally performed by employees and using the internet to outsource them to an undefined, generally large group of people. The compensation is usually far less than what an employee might make for performing the same service. Well-known examples include Wikipedia and iStockphoto. |
From Wired magazine, Nov 3:
http://wired.com/news/culture/media/0,72067-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
Any insight Ganett buddies?
_________________
http://www.ninamehta.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Robb Montgomery
Founder
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1504
Location: Chicago
Posted:
Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
Jennifer Carroll, Gannett's VP for new media content says "We've learned that no one wants to read a 400-column-inch investigative feature online. But when you make them a part of the process they get incredibly engaged."
| Quote: | The 7 Primary Job Areas
By May, the editorial side of each Gannett newspaper will be organized into the following seven primary job areas, which make up the Information Center:
Digital — selecting the best platform for news delivery;
Public Service — extending First Amendment coverage, in part by involving readers and asking for community input on investigative areas;
Community Conversation — expanding the concept of the editorial page; managing staff commentary, from editorials and blogs to columns; and encouraging community participation online;
Local — expanding local coverage and re-establishing sports, business and feature reporting into hyper-local areas;
Custom Content — connecting with identified target audiences and looking for efficiencies in repurposing content across all platforms;
Data — elevating the practice of managing and acquiring deep local information;
Multimedia — leading all visual presentation across every platform; photographers will be trained for any type of multimedia.
|
By May, the editorial side of each Gannett newspaper will be organized into the following seven primary job areas, which make up the Information Center:
---> From Crowdsourcing blog
So here's what this may mean.
The databases are the gold mines fueling the business models in this scenario and how well they are structured, mined and managed will be one of the keys to rolling this plan out. I like how their thinking clearly values that reality and that they will invest in the interactive and participatory strategies.
Many journalists will want to talk first about how their jobs are changing, naturally. Well, that’s good but I like how the values are are focused on investing in community participation in a never-ending feedback loop.
That can lead to some remarkable results and good journalism. Look, what Gannett is really trying to do here is build a new model around their key assets - customer data - deep, local customer data. News, community and marketing data.
Managing structured data is the linchpin in executing a vision like this.
I know that sounds like gibberish to some but, mark my words, getting real smart about managing all of your companies databases will be the key to making this work.
What do you guys think?
_________________
Where in the world is Robb? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Zhu
Maestro
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Durham, NC
Posted:
Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:43 am
|
|
|
| |
I think it's nice to see a major news organization take a chance and revamp the way they do things. But I think more details are needed before we know if this is really a drastic change or if it's just minor changes combined with "re-labeling" existing infrastructure and processes to give the appearance of innovation. Some of the stuff mentioned seems very familiar: Is "retraining" people just PR talk for piling more work on already thin staffs? In fact, this is from one of the Gannett memos:
| Quote: | Q. Will there be additional hiring done to fill the Information Center jobs?
A. The Information Center transforms, repurposes and refocuses the resources that exist now. Newspapers are training for new skills in multimedia, assessing needs for library science and archiving expertise and updating job descriptions. There is no need to hire for new positions, but many sites are assessing, updating and training to ensure all employees have the right tools and expertise to transform. |
How can newspapers expand their capabilities and deliver information across multiple platforms without increasing their manpower and still deliver good products, both in the traditional form and in the new platforms, especially if they continue their trend of downsizing at every circulation dip?
The crowdsourcing idea does give me some pause, regardless of whether it's more a cost-cutting measure or a true effort to interact with the community.
| Quote: | | Well-known examples include Wikipedia and iStockphoto. |
Has anybody read The Onion's take on wikipedia?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Funny stuff, unless you're a newspaper and accuracy is one of the basic tenants of your business, and one piece of wrong information is one too many. When someone finds out the information they got from wikipedia is wrong, they don't hold whoever posted it responsible; they hold Wikipedia responsible. How often do you hear people say "the information on Wikipedia is unreliable"? Certainly a lot more often than people say "the information provided by poster Tool32 on wikipedia is unreliable". How many more hits on their reputations do newspapers need?
It's great to try to interact with readers, but it doesn't mean telling them: "Do the work for us" or "You tell us what we should report on". How many warhawks would want to read about how many more died in Iraq on a daily basis? But isn't not reporting that poor journalism? Part of good journalism is reporting things that people don't necessarily want to read about, but should/need to read about. Otherwise, newspapers would just be telling people that everything is right with the world, except for the things they disagree with. To sink to that level for the sake of interacting with your community is to forget the newspaper's role/function in that community and, in the end, doing that community a disservice. I have always been against allowing non-journalists to report for newspapers -- not so much because they lack training or experience (although those are legitimate reasons), but because they don't have the same obligation as people who work in journalistic institutions -- the obligation to provide fair, objective, and accurate information on all topics, even if it's not a personal subject of interest. Journalists don't report hearsay as fact. Can you say that for every person, or even a majority of the people, who provides information to a newspaper?
_________________
Let this be a lesson to you: Never Try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ernie Smith
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 726
Location: Linked in Norfolk, Va.
Posted:
Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
| xyzeal wrote:: | The crowdsourcing idea does give me some pause, regardless of whether it's more a cost-cutting measure or a true effort to interact with the community.
| Quote: | | Well-known examples include Wikipedia and iStockphoto. |
Has anybody read The Onion's take on wikipedia?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Funny stuff, unless you're a newspaper and accuracy is one of the basic tenants of your business, and one piece of wrong information is one too many. When someone finds out the information they got from wikipedia is wrong, they don't hold whoever posted it responsible; they hold Wikipedia responsible. How often do you hear people say "the information on Wikipedia is unreliable"? Certainly a lot more often than people say "the information provided by poster Tool32 on wikipedia is unreliable". How many more hits on their reputations do newspapers need?
It's great to try to interact with readers, but it doesn't mean telling them: "Do the work for us" or "You tell us what we should report on". How many warhawks would want to read about how many more died in Iraq on a daily basis? But isn't not reporting that poor journalism? Part of good journalism is reporting things that people don't necessarily want to read about, but should/need to read about. Otherwise, newspapers would just be telling people that everything is right with the world, except for the things they disagree with. To sink to that level for the sake of interacting with your community is to forget the newspaper's role/function in that community and, in the end, doing that community a disservice. I have always been against allowing non-journalists to report for newspapers -- not so much because they lack training or experience (although those are legitimate reasons), but because they don't have the same obligation as people who work in journalistic institutions -- the obligation to provide fair, objective, and accurate information on all topics, even if it's not a personal subject of interest. Journalists don't report hearsay as fact. Can you say that for every person, or even a majority of the people, who provides information to a newspaper? |
Here's my problem with this particular philosophy... You're being critical of Wikipedia based on an Onion article, when there are very strident editing policies in place.
I edit Wikipedia occasionally as a way to keep my editing skills sharp. And I can tell you right now that it's easier for people to criticize Wikipedia's faults than to actually figure out how to make it work for them.
And even if this is the case and some of the information is shady, we're journalists and editors. We're well-equipped to sort the doo-doo from the doing-readers-a-service. Just think, Wikipedia with integrity. It's scary, right?
You've put up this opinion somewhat often here, and I've disagreed whenever I've come across it, including now. I just want to emphasize that blogs and wikis don't require you to stop doing your job; they help you do it better. Putting up a wall and not trusting readers isn't going to get us anywhere. Figure out a way to trust them.
_________________
[-,-] Stoic boy, you're far from home |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Zhu
Maestro
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Durham, NC
Posted:
Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
[quote="Ernie Smith"] | xyzeal wrote:: | | Here's my problem with this particular philosophy... You're being critical of Wikipedia based on an Onion article, when there are very strident editing policies in place. |
Obviously I realize that the onion article is an exaggeration. Personally, I love Wikipedia, but I never use any information from there unless I verify it through other sources, and I doubt that's the reputation newspapers want to have. And you're right that I have on more than one occasion expressed my skepticism with newspapers' infatuation with blogs, and it's partly because I don't buy into how revolutionary they supposedly are. Using the Internet to share information and express your opinions is nothing new. It existed long before blogs became popular, and it will exist long after the novelty of being able to put your two cents online has worn off. I'm all for embracing new technology, but not to the point where you're diverting already thin resources away from your core product and spending them chasing fads (it's one thing to redirect resources to do something revolutionary, it's another to redirect resources to do something that already is reaching saturation level, such as blogs, without really adding anything new), which is what most newspapers seem to be doing with their approach to blogs -- "Let's get in on this blog thing since everyone else is doing it."
Besides, many of the things that make blogs appealing doesn't work well for newspapers. Part of the appeal of blogs is that you can distribute your opinions to the mass public without being part of the establishment. But the press IS the establishment, and newspapers trying to get in on the blog thing would be like Richard Nixon reaching out to hippies -- it doesn't work very well and you come off looking like a poser trying to act like you're with it. Blogs often express strong opinions, but newspapers are supposed to be fair and objective and therefore temper and water down their content, often overly so. Blogs often stir up controversy, whereas newspapers prefer to avoid being involved in controversies for the fear of alienating certain portions of their readership. Until that changes, most of newspapers' online content would be much like most of their print content right now -- vanilla so as not to offend, occasionally entertaining (but not often enough to keep people coming back regulary), trying to be all things to all people but ending up exerting a weak hold on most of its audience.
You say putting up a wall between the paper and the readers isn't the answer, and I agree. You can use readers input to help you do your job, but you shouldn't let readers do your job. If nothing else, it cheapens your profession and makes people think they can do your job just as well as you, and frankly, they can't. I'm not putting journalists on a pedestal, it's just common sense. How often have we heard people talk about how they can do so-and-so's job (whatever that line of work may be) better than that person, but then if you actually get into that job, you'd realize all the nuances that aren't apparent from the outside. Journalism is no different, and turning your back to that bit of common sense in the haste of enhancing community interaction is to hurt your product and do your community a disservice. Newspapers can be a part of the community, but they should be able to say, "We're the part of the community that doesn't stoop to the lowest common denominator. We're the member of the community that's the best trained and experienced in giving people reliable information, not just gossip or hearsay that gets passed around."
_________________
Let this be a lesson to you: Never Try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Cubbison
Juke Box Hero
Joined: 03 Dec 2004
Posts: 33
Location: Syracuse
Posted:
Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
Credibility is a valuable thing no matter who you are and where you publish. Craigslist will suffer if people can't trust the ads, no matter how hip and cutting edge the concept is.
But professional journalists don't have credibility automatically just because they're professional. Professional journalists have done enough sleazy things that it's best not to act superior to the citizens. But credibility is something that newsrooms can bring to online journalism, if they earn it first.
Journalists can help keep the wisdom of the crowds from becoming the tragedy of the commons, if they embrace the possibilities. I wouldn't point to Wikipedia as the only model of crowdsourcing either.
Many newsrooms still think in terms of publishing a story in its final form, no matter how flawed, and then coming back the next cycle with a new story. There's an untapped opportunity to keep coming back to the original story, listening to what the crowds say about it, and continuing to make the story better and more accurate.
A few more points we should be open to:
Bloggers do more original reporting than we give them credit for.
Also, crowdsourcing often involves a very sophisticated use of databases to do significant journalism.
The future of editing will be in taking pieces of information from many sources, making sense of them, and linking them in ways people find useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denise Covert
Maestro
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 399
Location: Daytona Beach (Fla.) News-Journal
Posted:
Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
| xyzeal wrote:: | | You can use readers input to help you do your job, but you shouldn't let readers do your job. If nothing else, it cheapens your profession and makes people think they can do your job just as well as you, and frankly, they can't. I'm not putting journalists on a pedestal, it's just common sense. How often have we heard people talk about how they can do so-and-so's job (whatever that line of work may be) better than that person, but then if you actually get into that job, you'd realize all the nuances that aren't apparent from the outside. Journalism is no different, and turning your back to that bit of common sense in the haste of enhancing community interaction is to hurt your product and do your community a disservice. |
I have to take issue with this. Journalists are not rocket scientists. True, I can't walk up to a surgeon, or a professional basketball player, and say "I can do your job," because I can't. But believe me, lots and LOTS of people can do what we do, which is why -- surprise! -- journalists aren't paid very much. Except of course for copy editors -- either you can spell, or you can't, and spellcheck doesn't help. Which is why (at least in my anecdotal experience) copyeds are paid more than reporters at the same experience level.
But if a person is a sentient being who can string a few sentences together, just explain to them some basic rules of libel, hand them a camera, remind them not to let subjects say "cheese" in the photos, and BOOM! instant journalist. I know it works because I've done it several times in the past few months with new correspondents.
Am I oversimplifying? A bit. But not TOO much. Here's another example:
A former friend of mine, in the presence of someone with no journalism background, said in my hearing that she'd rather work the night desk, rather than the day weeklies desk where I am, because she is into the "real news," and the "important news." My non-journalist friend had no idea what that meant. "Do they brainwash them in journalism school?" I told him that in j-school, the two most important things they NEVER tell you are that 1) the hours are so bad you have no life, and 2) the pay sucks. To console themselves once they graduate, journalists proclaim that they are Gatekeepers of Information and also Doing Something Very Important. This helps them sleep at night -- or rather, during the day.
When honestly, the news I do, the community news, the Boy Scout troops and the Red Hat Ladies and the city council meetings, is a lot more important to a big chunk of readers than what's happen in Iraq. Because it's about THEM and their children, the people they care about, the things that matter in their daily lives, not far-off places some can't find on a map.
I don't believe in the "spinach" theory you mentioned earlier, of feeding readers what they "have" to know instead of what they "want" to know. Readers are media savvy -- if you're not giving them what they want, they'll go elsewhere. And readers CAN go elsewhere for Iraq news -- probably better than you can provide it. So give them what CNN CAN'T -- and don't roll your eyes and complain about "chicken dinners." That exact attitude, that not caring about about your readers, wanting them to be something they're not, is what's hurting the media right now.
I don't think the most successful papers are so because of the color of their type, or even the width of their paper. I think it's how much they connect with their LOCAL audience, and what's happening in their lives, without looking down their noses and thinking that some topics are beneath them.
Stuff that attitude in a box and ship it back to academia. This is the real world, where your audience is made up of real people who live real lives.
_________________
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.
-- Kahlil Gibran |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
