Posts Tagged 'online'

Curation

Can ‘Curation’ Save Media? — an article written by Steve Rosenbaum in The Business Insider asks.

The arguments he makes are a better-formulated version of what I was trying to say in a previous post where I said newspapers have to be gateways, instead of gatekeepers, for the news.

Rosenbaum writes:

The old model was “one to many”  (NBC -> viewers). The new model is “one to a few” (YOU -> your friends and followers). That means there is an overwhelming explosion of content being created (Twitter feeds, blog posts, Flickr photos, Facebook updates) and most of it is interesting to a very small number of people. But, mixed in with this cacophony of consumer content, there is contextually relevant material that needs to be discovered, sorted, and made “brand safe” for advertisers.

Curation is the new role of media professionals.

Separating the wheat from the chaff, assigning editorial weight, and — most importantly – giving folks who don’t want to spend their lives looking for an editorial needle in a haystack a high-quality collection of content that is contextual and coherent. It’s what we always expected from our media, and now they’ve got the tools to do it better.

Yes, that’s right, the future of media is better, not worse. It’s more detailed, multi-faceted and nuanced. And, just more.

But can curation save media? I don’t know. It’s definitely a job made for editors. But we can’t only be linking to what others are producing. We still have to produce quality information ourselves.

Advertisements

Decentralization

In a TechDirt post last week, Timothy Lee references a Reason magazine article called After the Newspaper. Both pieces discuss how news is moving from a vertically integrated structure (one company controlling the news-dissemination process from story gathering to paper delivery) to a dispersed network structure (what we’ve got going on online).

It’s true that mass media organizations have become too monolithic, and are paying the price in this economy for their multimillion-dollar buying sprees. In cities where there used to be multiple dailies competing and publishing, there is often only one (and in the whole of Western Canada, for example, all the major dailies are owned by the same company and publish much of the same content). The lack of multiple voices in that sphere is something I wouldn’t be sorry to see change.

But this idea from the TechCrunch article is, I think, a little romantic:

Decentralized news-gathering processes can incorporate small contributions from a huge number of people who aren’t primarily in the news business. You don’t need to be a professional reporter to write a blog post every couple of weeks about your local city council meeting. Nor do you need to be a professional editor to mark your favorite items in Google Reader. Yet if millions of people each contribute small amounts of time to this kind of decentralized information-gathering, they can collectively do much of the work that used to be done by professional reporters and editors.

We already have that kind of “decentralized information-gathering” going on. And I don’t think it’s suited to the average citizen’s needs.

For example, I’ve become interested, in the last few months, in one specific topic: the transformation of in how we communicate, with a focus on the transformation in journalism. That’s why I started this blog, because I wanted to get a better feel for what was happening by trying some of it out myself, rather than just reading about it. Currently I subscribe to 18 blogs related specifically to this topic, which means I’m reading more than 40 entries every day. (I also consume a lot of other media, in the general news realm, but that’s beside the point.) Frankly, it’s a little overwhelming — even though I also do this sort of thing for a living!

One of the most time-consuming parts of my job (the one I get paid to do, at the newspaper), is wading through all the content and selecting what goes into the paper (when I’m doing one of the wire-based sections such as arts or national news). And there, I’m only wading through stories that have been written by trained reporters working under experienced editors. I do it so all our readers don’t have to, and they trust that what’s in the paper is what’s most relevant to them (generally speaking).

Those readers, as they shift to online, still need a place to go to get their news in a time-efficient manner. While I can see how decentralized news gathering is useful, I still believe centralized news editing is necessary. Most people don’t have time to edit their own news. I barely have time to digest my own news.

Content Part III

At work last night, I came across a story that got me thinking: a national story about Earth Hour. We’d covered Earth Hour like crazy in the week leading up to it and it was a given it would have to go in the paper.

In Canada goes dark for Earth Hour, the reporter quoted from the official Earth Hour Facebook site, a blogger in Ottawa, a blogger in Halifax, a person who attended an Earth Hour event in Toronto, an Ontario electricity spokesperson, the Earth Hour website, a Canadian Tire store’s website, an online activity list for a school in Alberta and a woman named Evelyn.

So of nine sources quoted in the story (an impressive number on the surface), two were from apparent interviews and seven were from online research.

My opinion on this is just my own opinion — other editors and reporters obviously feel differently — but to me, this is bad reporting, for two reasons.

  1. It’s lazy. Instead of doing the legwork and setting up interviews, the reporter surfs the Internet. Quoting from blogs and websites and Facebook pages sometimes has its place, but to build an article mainly around that is lazy. Interviews are two-way streets, with follow-up questions and interaction, and are a much better way to collect information.
  2. It’s dangerous. If we as journalists are just quoting from websites and blogs, what in the world do we have to offer that websites and blogs don’t offer? Why don’t we just make a bunch of links for our readers and abandon ship?

(A note: the version that ran in our paper, with a photo from Ottawa, was shortened, partly for space reasons.)

Now, the Internet is no doubt an amazing tool for journalists (I find it so hard to imagine/remember what it was like when I didn’t have a Google query at my fingertips for any question). It provides so many more tools for finding sources and researching issues. But should it become a substitution for interview-based reporting?

My answer to that is no. A vehement no. And it goes back to the argument I made in the Content Content Content post: The most valuable thing news organizations have to offer is the original reporting, the information you can’t get anywhere else.

Maybe you could make the argument that news organizations could provide a role in writing stories based on Internet research because the reporter is still doing the valuable job of spending the time browsing the sites and condensing the information down to a 500-word story. But it is still just a regurgitation of information that is already out there and in my opinion, our time should be better spent bringing new information to the table.


Or subscribe to my feed:

Undeadjournalist

Days of This Life

October 2017
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Latest Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.