Investigative Reporting on Twitter
Monday, April 26, 2010
.png)
Investigative reporting is changing because of the internet, but it is not going away.
The latest in news-industry issues, as written by multimedia journalism and integrated marketing communication students at Simpson College.
.png)
Investigative reporting is changing because of the internet, but it is not going away.
Robert Niles of The Online Journalism Review makes a compelling point. As journalism shifts more to online content, so should the style in which it is written. So say good-bye AP style and hello SEO.
Some may wonder, what is SEO? SEO stands for search engine optimization. This allows readers to find you based on the information they are searching for, instead of you going to readers through ads.
Instead of you ad just popping up at random, it will pop up because you have posted something with several keyword matches the potential reader has been searching for.
SEO techniques help to provide clear cut writing that stays to the point and on topic. It also helps to frequently reference words and phrases that match the articles topic.
This would be great if, like AP style, there was a book to tell writers how to do this effectively. One day though, SEO might just be the new AP style and taught to journalism students through out the country.
The media as we know it may soon be coming to an end. In a recent article for MediaShift, writer Roland Legrand tells of how another media scholar and writer, Clay Shirky, believes that traditional media outlets have become too big for their own good, destining them for collapse. This may seem disconcerting to journalism students such as myself, however, as Legrand continues he details several ways future journalists can save themselves in the face what I am titling, with inspiration from John Stewart, "mediapocalypse."

Huge name companies including NBC, Fox and Gannett Co. Inc. are combining to form a new national mobile content service.

The iPad is earning the label of "idea creator."
Once dubbed "Generation Z" or "digital natives," the new hipper term for those under the age of 15 is "Generation I." Analysts at Gartner have predicted that over 50% of the computers purchased for this age group will have touchscreens by 2015. That means the idea of typing on a keyboard will be gone.
Gone will be bedtime stories from a book chosen off a bookshelf or even drawing on paper with crayons. Board games and shuffling a deck of cards - will this generation even learn to do this? Tangible objects with a feeling of permanence will be replaced by an application on a computer.
The computer that used to be a tool, a means to an end, is now everything. It is 160,000 applications with more added daily. It replaces books, TV's, DVD players, coloring books, a canvas, a globe, and so much more. Also predicted is that over half of U.S. schools will specify touch and/or pen input within the next 5 year - and this seems to be accurate prediction.
As we adjust to smaller and smaller hand-held devices, smaller keyboards and keys, and now touchscreens - the logical next step will be voice activation.
Twitter recently announced that is is testing the concept of advertising through "Promoted Tweets." This comes after pressure to turn its wide usage into profits since growing rapidly from 2006.
The Promoted Tweets will appear as ads on top of search results, so users would see the new ads when they search broadly for topics being tweeted about.
Twitter invited a test group of advertisers, including Virgin America, Best Buy Co, Sony Pictures, and Starbucks Corp. The ads are not expected to bring in much money during this initial phase, but it should eventually turn into a paid model.
About 69 million people worldwide used Twitter in March, up from roughly 4 million at the end of 2008. Investors have valued the site at $1billion. Twitter is making an undisclosed amount of money by providing Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. with access to messages for their search engines.
The catch? If a Promoted Tweet isn't replied to or forwarded by other users, it will disappear. With advertising bombarding our emails and virtually every website visited, I don't know how logical it would be to expect viewers to forward ads. It will be interesting to see if the concept is successful.
People are very passionate in their opinions about whether or not The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is "news." Most explain this opinion is because the show doesn't present equal sides of the issues as journalism should. The problem I have, is that the media itself has labeled show as "news", which is something that Stewart never claimed the show to be. Per the show's website, it is intended to be a nightly half-hour series "unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy". With that in mind, should the public hold Jon Stewart, who has no degree in journalism, political science, or communications, to the same standard as we hold other commentators who hold those titles and assume that responsibility?
Bernard Goldberg believes so. On April 15th, Stewart aired a clip of Goldberg and several other commentators from Fox News complaining about the media generalizing the Tea Party based on the actions of a few individuals. Stewart agreed that the media had done so, but then pointed out that Fox News in particular was guilty of the same generalizations against liberals. He proved his point by airing several clips of Goldberg along with Bill O'Reilly and others making generalized statements that portrayed liberals in a negative light. Goldberg responded to this by appearing on O'Reilly's Fox News program and agreeing that Stewart had a point, but he went on to say that Stewart himself had failed as a news reporter and social commentator because he did not treat liberal guests as roughly as conservative ones.
"But if clearly you want to be a social commentator, more than just a comedian and if you want to be a good one, you better find some guts because even though you criticize liberals as well as conservatives, congratulations on that, when you had Frank Rich on your show, who generalizes all the time about conservatives and Republicans being bigots, you didn’t ask him a single tough question. You gave him a lap dance. You practically had your tongue down his throat.."
Stewart addressed the critisism on his show April 20th. He pulled together the entire clip of Goldberg and his comments, pausing inbetween to offer challenge points and elaborate a few of his own points.
There was one in particular where Goldberg claims that Stewart isn't as edgy as he thinks he is. "You're just a safe Jay Leno, with smaller audience, but you get to say the F-bomb, which gives your incredibly unsophisticated audience the illusion that you're courageous and you're renegade, but it's only an illusion."
Stewart responded with mock horror, exclaiming "Wait, Wait... I'm not a courageous renegade? But I've always considered myself the Lorenzo Lamas of late night." Stewart continued, explaining that he never labeled his show as edgy, or claimed to be renegade. He accused Goldberg of trying to hold his show to the standard proclaimed by the Fox News tagline "always fair and balanced." "You can’t criticize me for not being ‘fair and balanced.’ That’s your slogan. Which by the way, you never follow..."
Stewart ended the segment with a gospel style skit in which explained that, even in his personal beliefs, he is not perpetually on one side or the other. He closed by calling Fox News the "lupus of news" and offered the same insult he had given to them in the clip on April 15th. "Fox News, as long as fair and balanced is how you sell yourselves, Go F*** yourself," to which the audicence clapped and cheered and the choir behind Stewart broke out into a gospel style chorus of the insult.
The whole clip was amusing to me on many levels from both sides, but what struck me was how Stewart is constantly being portrayed as a journalist, which he is not. Fox News has been critisized by not only Stewart, but other sources (News Hounds and FAIR for example) for being biased in its commentary. Fox News responds not by changing the way it portrays news, but by hurling back superfulous accusations against the accusers, and calling them what appears to be their favorite insult: liberals.
For consumers of media, what does this approach provide to us? From either side, whether you choose to watch Stewart and his openly comedic biased social commentary, Fox News with its right-wing tilt to everything, or another source, if the journalism being provided by our largest news corporations isn't accurately giving us the facts, how can we make informed decisions on all the issues that affect us?
For me, when I watch Stewart, I am fully aware that I'm getting his opinion with the jokes. I completely understand that he might be a little biased, and he can be, because he's never claimed to be a journalist and I don't hold him to those standards. But Goldberg and others are journalists, and there is no warning on Fox News that states "the opinions expressed on this channel may not portray all accurate portions of the story." Which, in my opinion, means Fox News is selling me a false product.

Chris Berman, the face of ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" and "Monday Night Football," is staying with ESPN.
The three year old company Tumblr wants your money.
What is Tumblr? It's a service that allows people to quickly and easily set up lightweight blogs. They currently have 4.5 million users.
What makes them stand out is they do not charge their users for their service. They also do not sell advertising on pages they generate.
In the past Tumblr has received millions of dollars from Spark Capital and Union Square Ventures. Together they recently poured another $5 million making them the sole investors in Tumblr.
Now Tumblr wants to sell "digital stickers" to users at a dollar each. Users will buy these "stickers" to spruce up their pages, like bells and whistles.
Peter Kafka says this "strategy is a little more seat-of-the pants, but the bet is that it may be easier to coax money out of people a couple dollars at a time."
Although I had never heard of Tumblr before, I think that it is a great starting place for new journalist to get a start blogging, and get the feel of blogging. Because there is no cost associated with their service, new journalist don't have a huge financial investment, but allows them to start a portfolio of work.
All 43 years of interviews, reviews, and other articles from Rolling Stone magazine will soon be available online for a price.
According to AFP, Rolling Stone plans on making most of their content free, but in order to see all of the content a user would pay $3.95 per month or $2.50 per month with a yearly subscription. The magazine will also be redesigning its Website, adding more audio and video.
Mashable writer Brenna Ehrlich argues that Rolling Stone is setting up its paywall in a smart way. Rolling Stone not only released more content, they also added a lot of new content.
She points out that putting up 43 years worth of content online is "no small feat." When media consumers are considering whether or not to drop $30 a year into a subscription, they will have to take this work into consideration also.
Ehrlich makes a good point, but will consumers agree with her?
Remarks at today's FCC workshop should be of interest to fellow BNR students.
In remarks made in her testimony at today's FCC workshop, Karen Dunlap, President of Poynter Institute said that cross-ownership of media wasn't the immediate crisis. Whearas she urged the FCC to keep watch to insure that relaxing cross-ownership rules wouldn't affect independent, local and community provided news, she urged them to consider a wider issue.
She is concerned about the media transformation, anyone can have a megaphone now. She quotes Michael Smith, executive director of Northwestern University's Media Management Center. Who said to a group at the Newspaper Association of America meeting that "an eight-year old –- let's say an affluent eight-year-old -- has more publishing power in her bedroom today than publishers in 1999."
The FCC is concerned about owners of mass media and the power they hold; but mass media now shares the stage with the masses. And the FCC should also be concerned about that; because "Almost anyone can post almost anything to friends, a community or the world. Drawing an audience, of course, is another matter, as is the matter of producing news and information that is of value to society. The megaphone simply speaks to the means of commanding attention, of gaining influence."
She also discussed declining audiences of all traditional news media, people are selective in where they are getting thier news. She mentions the decline and loss of jobs in the newspaper industry, newsrooms, news magazines and the loss of ad revenue. "The decline was greater for journalists of color." according to Dunlap.
Dunlap told the FCC, "The problems that I have outlined are a threat to an informed democracy. We are seeing the deterioration of informed civic discourse as we drown in information, opinions, debates, half-truths and lies."
She encourges the FCC to consider their role in insuring an informed population.
She urged the FCC to:
1. Assist local communities to make sure daily, local, national and international news gets to them - using public funding, government, foundations and citizen contributions.
2. Promote diversity in the field of journalism.
3. Take a stand against hate speech and raise the "level of exchanges to stop the civic discourse."
This article addressed similar issues we discussed from the speeches of McChesney and Nichols and emphasizes the amount of concern there must be out there, particularly by academics. I hope the FCC can take some action that doesn't trample on First Amendment rights and yet makes sure we can sustain journalistic integrity within the newsrooms. And I hope they can save jobs and make sure that local communities continue to have news service.
The Comedy Central kings are still sitting pretty on their thrones.

The Apple iPad has been banned from two major American Universities because of wireless connection issues.
Apple has recently denied an application called "Newstoons." This application was apparently in violation and so it was not published. The application was created by Mark Fiore, a Pultizer-prize winning cartoonist. His application was to let people view the cartoons.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt is being criticized by data protection officials from 10 countries for his company's handling of the launch of Google Buzz and asked the company to commit to building greater privacy protections into services.
As we all know by know, Facebook is currently the most popular social network site available. In the past, sites like Myspace, Friendster and Bebo once reigned.
According to an article on Poynter Online, Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications has selected finalists in seven categories in the fourth annual Mirror Awards. The competition received nearly 200 entries.
The winners will celebrate at a luncheon and ceremony on Thursday, June 10, from 11:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at The Plaza Hotel, Fifth Avenue at Central Park South, New York City, with Katie Couric serving as emcee and Lorraine E. Branham, dean of the Newshouse School, serving as event host.
The Colorado Spring Gazette now gives readers the option to block comments from specific users that annoy them. According to Jeff Thomas, Gazette editor, readers have mixed feelings about the new tool.
The Associated Press Stylebook has made a change to accommodate the changes in technology norms. No longer will Web site be the official style. Now, website will be the new recognized version. The AP Stylebook announced this changed on Twitter.
There's a fun article at Poynter Online which is very timely for us "BNR" students. It talks about recent changes made to the AP Stylebook at the American Copy Editors Society (ACES) conference last Friday afternoon.
When the AP Stylebook announced via Twitter that it was changing the style for "Web site" to "website," some users let out shouts of praise: "Finally!" "Yes!" "Yeeha!"
The reactions aren't surprising given how many people have asked AP to change the style from two words to one word, arguing "Web site" is an antiquated way of writing it.
The 2010 AP Stylebook comes out next month.
AP Stylebook announced that in its 2010 edition "Web site" will now be one word "website". This announcement has met approval and rejection. For many up-and-coming journalist, the change is welcomed due to the much more common use of "website" in the English language.
Many editors believe that the change will cause great confusion and disrupt work in the newsroom. This may be true considering that "Web site" is might not be the only thing being changed in the 2010 Stylebook.
According to Poynter Online, AP Stylebook asked its users via Twitter to recommend any words they felt needed to be changed. A lot of users voted for words with capital letters and hyphens to go lowercase and 86 the hyphens.
It's just a sign of the times.
Like it or not, journalism obtains a large amount of its funding through advertising dollars. Therefore, with the field constantly changing, it remains important for advertising to keep up with new journalistic mediums. Unfortunately, advertisers have, much like in the newspaper industry, simply utilized online advertising as a new way to offer the same old thing. However, in a recent article for the Online Journalism Review entitled "Moving Beyond Traditional Display Advertising: Its All About ME," Dave Chase describes three new methods being embraced by hyperlocal Web sites that follow the simple ME principle.
Today, the Library of Congress announced that it will acquire all public tweets made on the popular social networking site Twitter since March 2006.

Today, Americans can get their news from multiple news vehicles. The Internet and mobile technology have changed the way people consume the news, and have turned the absorption of news into a social experience.
People's relationship with news is constantly changing because of the Internet. Six in ten Americans get news from a combination of online and offline sources everyday.
Research shows that while online, most people used between two and five online news sources and 65% do not have a single favorite website for news. Only 21% say they use only one site for their news and information.
News is becoming personalized, participatory, and portable. According to this article:
The Internet has surpassed newspapers and radio in popularity as a news platform on a typical day. It ranks just behind TV.
Read more...We've all heard about iPads possibly replacing textbooks, magazines and newspapers, but columnist Matthew Ingram of Gigaom sees a future for children's books.
A company called Atomic Antelope recently created an iPhone application based on Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. The application gives interactive features to the book's original text and illustrations.
Ingram wonders if this will become standard practice for e-books. Each book will have its own application and readers can choose whether to purchase it; just like books today, except virtual and more interactive.
The current price for the Alice in Wonderland app. is $8.99, similar to what the book's price would be in a normal bookstore. Many of the newly released books for the Kindle, an e-book competitor are $9.99; again, typical pricing for traditional books.
In light of the digitization of media, many newspapers, magazines and book publishers worry about making a profit. The development of apps. could help them maintain their income without losing content.
We should watch for book publishers hiring computer programmers and app. developers. The public likes interactive media, and if companies can make money from it, they will embrace it wholeheartedly.
That's right. Editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore for SFGate.com and investigative journalist Sheri Fink at ProPublica were both awarded Pulitzer Prizes for their work.
Mashable has called it "history making" because it is the first time any online-only publication has won a Pulitzer, the highest award a writer can receive.
ProPublica, which prides itself in investigative journalism, is an independent organization that teams up with traditional media sources to get its news out there. The organization itself operates solely online.
Mashable describes ProPublica as a non-profit that thinks of itself as a resource to other news companies who may not have the time or resources to do serious investigative reporting.
Fink's winning piece told about “the urgent life-and-death decisions made by one hospital’s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the flood waters of Hurricane Katrina,” according to a Pulitzer announcement. The entire series is located on ProPublica's site.
Fiore won his Pulitzer for his editorial comics. Here's an example:
You can find more his work on the SFGate archive or on his site.
This is a big step for online-only media. The only question I have is how many more companies will have to team up in order to get the news out there?
The Pulitzer Prize was given out this week, and a rather unlikely source was in competition for the prestigious prize, albeit, for only a brief moment. The National Enquirer, long renowned for it's coverage of scandalous affairs and over-the-top breaking news articles, entered into the competition the article that covered John Edwards alleged affair with a political campaign worker in 2007. The article was second story the paper had run regarding the scandal, but the story was largely ignored by many outlets. Though many of the facts reported by the Enquirer were easily identifiable, if one were to search hard enough, the story was considered just another one of the magazines supermarket headlines published in an attempt to earn another $3.49 from consumers.
But in 2008, Edwards confessed to the affair, and subsequently confirmed the existence of a child with his mistress. When the story broke, news outlets from CNN to Fox News, and of course, the Enquirer, were covering the details. Why the headlines from the Enquirer didn't read "Hey! We Said It First!" I'm not sure; but the editor thought enough of the story's value to submit the article to Pulitzer for the competition. Several other news sources also gave the Enquirer some credit for getting it right, but others wrote the tabloid off, calling the submission a pipe dream for a checkout tabloid.
We've been discussing credible sources in BNR, and we've all heard the speech at Simpson College: Do Not Use Wikipedia As A Source. Though they didn't name the sources the information regarding Edwards was obtained from, The Enquirer did all their homework. They investigated and reported the facts, and the information in their article was easily confirmed if we would have given it a second glance. They deserved recognition for this important story, one which had important political repercussions, regardless of the source it came from. It seems that we have forgot the humble beginnings of Journalism, which started off with sensationalist stories that ran in the penny press. The public loves a scandal, and the early news papers gave it to them. This tradition, however small, has continued with stories published in the Enquirer and other such tabloids.
Barry Levine, the executive editor of the Enquirer, stated recently to Gawker.com that if the story had first been published in the NY Times or the Post that there would have been no question about a legitimate nomination for a Pulitzer. This may be true, but with that observation, I believe he points out a very important fact: the Enquirer has shot itself in the foot (or, excuse me, footnote) for some of the stories they've published, and much like the boy who cries wolf, it's hard to take another one of their headlines seriously. Here are a few examples of their current headlines on their Web site and running in the magazine's current issue
"Bam Nukes Palin!" <--"Bam" being a reference for President Obama. "Sex Crazed Taylor Swift"
Seagal Sex Slave Charges
Another thing that discredits the Enquirer from being a source people turn to for credible news is the fact that right on their website, they have the "Got News?" button, soliciting anyone with any wild tale to come forward for "big bucks".
It's for reasons like this that the majority of mainstream media has acknowledged that the Enquirer took a big step toward good journalism with it's coverage, but it's still got a long way to go.
Scientific philosopher, Robert Anton Wilson, was once quoted as saying "“Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.” Indeed, many of the stories that grace the pages of the National Enquirer sound crazy, but every once in a while, the reality of the story makes the craziness appear sane.
Twitter declared Tuesday that it will be introducing advertising by allowing companies to pay to have their messages show up first in searchers on Twitter.com.
Conan O'Brein surprises us again. After months of speculation that he would go to Fox after giving his last episode of the Tonight Show on NBC, O'Brein has shocked us all and will be launching his new late night show on TBS.
Alcohol advertising will be banned in Virginia’s college newspapers. By not promoting alcohol in student newspapers the Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board hopes to reduce under- age drinking. Controversy has been sparked over the ban, and whether it is unconstitutional for commercial freedom of speech. University of Virginia and Virginia Tech’s student newspapers deemed the ban unconstitutional. The papers said students’ images of drinking and alcohol in the media are readily accessible; therefore the ban is ineffective. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that this ban does not violate First Amendment rights. No longer can a print or online advertisement say, "'happy hour' or similar terms." Liquor, beer, and wine, "unless in reference to a dining establishment," even then prices and brands can not be mentioned specifically.
In the Washington Monthly, an article by Steve Benen deals with TV fact-checking.© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP