More niches, more political knowledge

I've found some really interesting information thus far. One article compares online communities to political campaigns.

She says we can learn a lot from successful political campaigns: Know your base. Understand your key constituents: their age, where they shop, how many kids they have, etc. Tailor your content and site functions to meet their daily needs for information and sharing. Don't alienate this group. Stay "on message."

Another source discussed "viral journalism," -- when stories spread online before they reach the mainstream media, causing the dissemination of largely unfiltered information.

"Viral journalism shapes people's political views because it gives them access to stories not found in the main-stream. YouTube is a powerful tool. Videos by the candidates show people different aspects about the candidate," said NPR host Michele Norris.

A third source asserts that changing media are offering different types of political content than they have in the past. The emergence of more journalistic niches is prompting more narrowly targeted news coverage, the authors suggest. This allows for more widespread political engagement. In addition, the piece stressed the need for the political "old guard" to adapt, or be left in the dust of newcomers. "The advent of new media also changes the rules of the game by which politics are played," the article reads.

I also think the split between "earned" and "paid" media will require significant consideration. I'll be looking into this subject more in the future.

-Caitlyn

How about aggregators?

After talking with Jill on Friday, I have decided that it might be a better idea to switch courses for this project. Sort of going off of Dr. Stewart's Google idea, I was thinking about investigating the effects that news organizations that rely primarily on aggregation for their stories are having on the organizations that actually report the stories.

The prime example of this, of course, is Google, with its Google News feature. Also prominent, however, is the Huffington Post. An article recently ran on Slate.com defending the practices of the company based on the idea that they were in line with American journalistic traditions.

Clearly, organizations such as the Associated Press and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation are not pleased with the practices of these sites. The AP, in particular, is concerned with the lack of profit that they are seeing from these other sites and is trying to figure out just what to make of them at this point.

My goal for the project would be to determine whether aggregators, in particular Google and the Huffington Post, are good for the dissemination of news or bad for it. I think that I could probably find a fair amount of scholarly research and could definitely make it relevant, since aggregation wouldn't really be possible without the Internet, at least not to the degree that we have seen it.

Is Twitter Just a Fad?

I made some real progress on my topic. I found two books, “Twitter Power” and “Interviews with Web 2.0 Heros,” which have served as great sources. While I am learning quite a bit about Twitter, I am still not convinced of its usefulness. (I also have not gotten a grasp on the Twitter account that I recently activated.) I was reading an article in New York Magazine that brought up the dot.com bust that happened in the late 90s. I don’t know much about this, but I want to look into it. From what I read in that article, it sounds like everyone at the time thought that what they were doing with the internet and Web sites was going to last. And it didn’t. I want to see if the same thing could happen with Twitter. (I’m not trying to be a pessimist, but I’m really just curious and felt this was an interesting comparison.)

Another interesting fact that I have been reading about is that it seems like Twitter is stumped as to how to turn their popularity into profit. They won’t come out and say that in any of the articles, but they seem to be looking for a solid business model just like print and broadcast are. It almost seems like everyone is in the same boat in that respect.

While I’ve gotten quite a bit done on this project, I really want to find an article that discusses the longevity of Twitter. What is going to make this more than a fad? I can make assumptions from what I read (and I have my own opinions about it of course), but I haven’t come across anything yet that predicts what is going to happen with Twitter in the future. That is what I want to find out. Is this something journalists need to be nervous about in the long run?

Honing in...

After our meeting Friday and after meeting briefly with Adam to discuss ways in which our J-School-related topics can differ, I was needing to hone in on my topic. I started thinking that I'm most interested in what skills and insight current Scripps students would like to gain from their classes.

I'm also interested in what employers would like to see from employees fresh out of J-School. I'd like to examine which skills, exactly, are getting students jobs in journalism, and how Scripps can emphasize these qualities in pre-existing classes right now or new ones that could be created as we switch from quarters to semesters. I'm mostly interested in opinions from current Scripps students, recently graduated Scripps students, and employers. I'd also like to examine past curriculum changes here at Scripps, at the suggestion of Dr. Stewart, both when online j became a sequence and when new technologies (such as radio) were integrated.

My focus is slightly historical, but mostly I would like to hone in on the present -- and what our J-School can do right now, in this economically-deprived media landscape, to better prepare student journalists for the "real world."

I've been looking into the changing curriculum at other great J-Schools around the country and what I'm noticing is a trend of integration all around -- something I think Scripps must consider. We relegate Web skills to online j classes only, which is one of the main topics I hear many Scripps kids bemoaning.

So, I would like to ask my classmates and any other OU J-Schoolers who might have stumbled across this blog: What is one skill or idea that you'd like to see taught more prevalently in Scripps?

How Should Online News Sites Moderate User Generated Content?

After presenting my topic in class earlier today, I have decided that I will change my topic, mainly because my first attempt was entirely too broad a subject. So I've brought it down a notch, with some help from Jill. She mentioned that I look into online moderation on news sites. I thought at first this topic might be difficult to do because I might have trouble finding info on it. But, to my surprise, there were a number of sites that I found on the subject after a single Google search. 

So, to refine my proposed topic from earlier this morning, I have chosen to look into how online news sites moderate their user generated content, specifically the comments readers or viewers can leave after a story or video. 

After a quick look at some of the sites, I recognized three main choices for moderation: 

1.) The first is pre-production moderation, which entails that the hosting site, in this case a news site, allows the comment to appear after reviewing it and deciding that it is both relevant to the conversation and useful to other posters.

2.) The second is post-production moderation. This form of moderation means that the comment is posted immediately to the comment section. It is then reviewed later on by the site advisers for relevance and usefulness.

3.) Last is peer-based moderation. Comments are posted to the comments section immediately, and they are never reviewed by the site's administrators. Instead, users define whether the information given in the post is relevant and useful. If the comment is found to be useless (such as spam) there are mechanisms in place such as ratings and “flags” where users can decide whether the site administrators should review a post. 

This is very preliminary, but I think that it is very important. The fact that news sites allow comments means nothing if the majority of the comments are spam or the site only allows comments that agree with the site's administrators. 

New Media Potential in Iraq

One of my classmates recently posted a blog stating that new media executives were in Iraq this past week to assess the technological environment and potential of the post-war country. My topic deals with new media's ability to influence government and any reactionary censorship by governments around the world, so I was very curious to see how these executives thought their social networking sites would be received and utilized.

Yesterday, I read a transcription from a press conference with the executives on the State Department website. They said that the new government recognizes the fact that the internet will be a necessary tool to spread democracy and censorship will not be a problem. On the contrary, government officials think it will help to build bridges and earn the trust of Iraqi citizenship. Interesting.

One legitimate concern raised by a reporter during the conference was the potential for sites like MeetUp, Facebook and Twitter to be used be extremists in a country that is ideologically divided. The new media group responded to the concern saying that "digital space is merely an extension of reality" and the reality of innovation is that "the private sector is going to continue putting these technological platforms in the public domain." There is also the potential for the internet to combat extremist action by providing an outlet for youth to learn and connect with the outside world.

The overwhelming opinion on Iraq seems to be that these new technologies are pretty well understood in the country and will be met with open arms by the people and government. The benefits are thought to outweigh the risks. I'm going to look into any other opinions on this topic, as well as other countries' attitudes or fears about social networking being used to quickly assemble and mobilize large groups of people.

The J-School Debate...

Starting the research is always the hardest part of the process, at least for me. I need to feel motivated, energized, interested. I want to feel like I'm delving into a fresh idea, though I'm usually not. Then I find the perfect nugget of research gold and I'm off to a running start.

After sulking around the numerous research ideas all week with little to no interest, I stumbled upon this piece about J-Schools trying to catch up -- and quickly -- from the New York Times. I was not planning on researching the idea of journalism schools' stake in online journalism, but I think that it could make for a charged project, especially if I incorporate student reactions within the video I would like to make for the online component. Going to school at one of the country's top J-Schools, sometimes I am astonished when the most we're told in some classes is "newspapers are dying...make sure you know online!" Every class should incorporate and acknowledge online journalism -- that's the only way for every student, even the print and broadcast purists, to learn.

There is a quote in the NYT article that stuck in my head for a few days:

“I don’t know a journalism dean in the country who knows what the solution is, or where the journalism industry is going,” says Christopher Callahan, the dean of the Cronkite School. “I am convinced that those answers are going to come from people of their generation,” he says of the students. “Not my generation.”

I can only hope that my J-School classmates will be smart to realize that we have a big job ahead of us, and that is, figuring out how online journalism works -- both socially and monetarily.

Dr. Stewart has mentioned in the past that Scripps has considered basically doing away with sequences, since journalism is moving toward media convergence anyway. I would like to present this idea to students here at Scripps and gauge their reactions within my video project.

I think it's easy for students here to be critical of our J-School in regards to the amount of online journalism training they provide, but I also would like to point out a recent article in New York Magazine that suggested that Columbia has some catching up to do, too. Not all hope is lost when Columbia needs to make improvements.

The Digital Divide In Our Education System

Don Jason
Dj320306@ohio.edu


Former President Bill Clinton said that technology provided the tools needed to assure no child, regardless of socioeconomic status, was left behind. I found a research study by Dianne Thomas called “ The Digital Divide: What Schools in Low Socioeconomic Areas Must Teach.” This study ran in the summer of 2008 and it deal with low income families in Mississippi. The study looked at Third Graders and based on records provided by the State Department of Education determined which students where low income and which were middle to high income. 1,119 surveys were completed and nearly half of them were taken by students in small rural towns.


As expected the children living in the lower socioeconomic levels didn’t have the same access level to computer and internet as the students living in high socioeconomic levels. 76 percent of students from lower income families had computer at home; however only 65 percent of these computers had internet access. 94 percent of students from higher income families had computers; however, 86 percent of these computers had internet service.


95 percent of students from lower income families use computers at schools while 99 percent of students from higher income families used computers at school. I feel that this topic is important for my research paper because so much attention is paid to the digital divide in terms of people not knowing about or using technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, email and AIM; but, we fail to realize that the first step to all of these things is internet access.


I also think it is very important for children to have access to the computer and the internet, with supervision of course. I have a little brother who is 9 years old and he is starting to know more about technology that me… and that is good. Knowledge is power and knowing something doesn’t cost a person anything. I didn’t grow up surrounded by computers and I feel like I am playing catch up.


For instance, I used to be a broadcast major and every time I went to a seminar or a workshop or took a new class the technology shown was always brand new to me. Then, I would see someone who went to a wealthy suburban high school and they would talk about how they have used InDesign, Quark, Illustrator, and Photoshop for high school assignments. They even went so far as to say their high school had a close circuit TV station so they could do the news for their school and shoot and edit video. So, I know what is like to feel left behind. However this has empowered me to talk to as many people as I can to set up tutorials with them so they can give me the skills I am lacking.


Now I am researching to find a case study or an example of a school that had these technology access problems but then did something about these issues to help their students. If anyone comes across an article or study please let me know?

What do we need to do differently?

One of the most interesting concepts that was brought up in last week's class was the changes that journalism schools will need to make in order to better prepare their students for the online revolution. I have been thinking about this on and off during the last week and have decided that I either want to focus on that topic or how media organizations can maintain high profit margins as the online revolution continues to occur. For the sake of this post, however, I am going to focus exclusively on the curriculum topic.

Both Poynter and the American Journalism Review have done a good degree of writing on this subject, so research shouldn't be particularly difficult. Furthermore, we are in school, meaning we are surrounded by professors and students who have a vested interest in the potential changes.

One Poynter article outlines a new journalism curriculum, so if I choose to do this topic, I may work with the idea of "What should Scripps' curriculum look like in 10 years?" I would expect my research to reveal a renewed emphasis on the business aspects of journalism as well as a need to be proficient, if not expert, in all of the different specializations.

If I choose this topic, I think that I will learn a great deal about what I must do in order to be successful in this new media world that is slowly molding itself out of something that was almost non-existent 15 years ago. Furthermore, I believe that it is a valid and important topic for anybody in journalism school or the least bit interested in the future of the profession.

MYSPACE/FACEBOOK OR SPORTSWRITING AND NEW MEDIA?

I am really tied up about what I want to do for this research project. I have narrowed it down to two choices though. One topic option is researching the media frenzy that myspace and facebook has caused recently. Outlets like these are continuing to make a huge impact on journalism. The mediums of how people seek their news and how they communicate with others our changing. I want to know how this effects journalists and networks. I want to know it all. Is it a correlation between the poor job market and new media? new media and the decline of newspapers? New media and viewer ratings, subscriptions, profits? This also applies to sports which leads me to my second topic option. How is new media affecting sports writing? Are new technologies diminishing the role of reporters? Peter Schaplin visited my Journalism 470 class 2 weeks ago,in which  he offered his unique visions about the future of sports reporting. He spoke of the importance of branding. For this topic I would like to speak to beat writers and others in the industry. I can look for journals on lexis nexis and other sites that speak to this topic. I think I am leaning more toward the sports topic.

Getting a Grip on Twitter

Over the past week, I have spent a good amount of time reading and taking notes on articles about Twitter. I am finding plenty of articles on news sites such as the New York Times and American Journalism Review, but I am having difficulty coming up with many scholarly journal articles. Twitter is a very new form of technology, and I worry that because it is so young, that I will be limited in my research.

I did speak to someone (a graduate student) in one of my classes today, and he mentioned that he just gave a presentation on Twitter the class before. He talked about how he had asked them questions about it, and they did not have any responses. As a student who is researching this new form of media, that can be seen as a positive and a negative from my point of view. While we, communications students, hear about Twitter nonstop, many people have no idea how to define it. And if they do not know what it is and how it can be used, how can they formulate an opinion about it? So despite the vast amount of media attention that Twitter has received, I feel that there are still excellent opportunities to learn and share more about it.

This is an enormous learning opportunity for me as well. I want to read as much as I can about how Twitter is being used by businesses and media professionals. Going into the job market in June, understanding the ins and outs of new media can only help me in my job search.

Something that I am coming across time and time again in my research is how Twitter is changing the way companies approach marketing. But there are other things popping up that I haven’t heard of or thought about until now. According to an article in the New York Times on April 14, Twitter is now being used in the medical industry as well. I think it will be interesting to look at what is being done with Twitter now, what are the possibilities for the future, and what does this tool mean for journalists, business owners and other professionals as well? Also, how will this affect the OU journalism school curriculum?

Investigative reporting/non-profit model

I'm thinking of doing my research project on the demise of investigative reporting as newspapers continue to lose money and whether it can be saved by the rise of a non-profit media model.

The idea was spurred by a Poynter column on The Huffington Post jumping into investigative reporting with the help of some philanthropists. HufPo is the most recent organization to go this direction, but it's certainly not the first.

Will Sullivan at Poynter points out that ProPublica and The Center for Public Integrity employ similar models.

My research would focus on the viability of these ventures and whether there is a real need for them. Investigative reporting has been the teeth of the media since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke Watergate, but is it really going anywhere? These non-profit organizations have been born out of a fear that shrinking budgets are eroding investigative journalism, but is the fear a reality?

And can a non-profit organization really make enough money to support a base of investigative journalists large enough to generate a steady stream of users to their Web sites? At newspapers, investigative reporters spend months -- sometimes years -- reporting stories. With such a large gap between investigative stories, can these Web sites build the same buzz that a daily, general interest newspaper does?

I guess we'll see.

Focusing in on Hyperlocal Websites

Echoing other sentiments and observations in this class, I was just at my brother's wedding in San Francisco and at the reception I had a few folks corner me and tell me they were scared about the future of journalism because newspapers were going away (keep in mind that the SF Chronicle is in a constant rumor of closing). Although I didn't have a box, I went off on the possibilities that this opens up for journalism and how it forces journalism to rethink itself in a really exciting, rejuvenating, captivating way. 

One way that journalism is rethinking itself is the outcropping of hyperlocal websites. It requires too many financial resources to start a community newspaper, but a community website or blog is another story. It is possible to do it as a one-person show in hopes of building and expanding. Or, it is possible to do it with a team who is laid off from a newspaper staff.

Some predict that 2009 will be the year of the hyperlocal website boom. I'm curious. The NY Times recently wrote an article about a few "up and coming" hyperlocal websites. Although I mentioned this article before in this blog, my thoughts keep coming back to this phenomenon. What are the consequences of hyperlocal news? How will Steven Berlin Johnson's "Pothole Paradox" (news of a pothole repair on my street is interesting; news about a pothole repair a few blocks away is totally uninteresting) affect the demand for hyperlocal journalism?

What I am thinking of researching for this class....a series of case studies that are ripe examples of hyperlocal journalism. A few that I have found thus far: patch.com, placeblogger.com, ourtown.com, outside.in, yourhub.com, topix.com. By investigating these hyperlocal sites, I can better understand some alternative ways of telling and distributing news. Who contributes to these sites? What is the business model of these sites? How many visitors/day do they attract?

So, I'm proposing to investigate these sites (and perhaps others) and share with you all the current state of hyperlocal journalism: what it is doing well or not well, the type/quality of journalism on the sites, what it adds to our information environment, what it cannot do, and how it will affect us, as journalists, and the way we define, ingest, and imagine news. These case studies will facilitate our understanding of the ways journalism is stretching and expanding, while giving us models to critique and ponder.

Onward!

--Jen Lovejoy

Politics Online

Earlier this week, GWU and other sponsors held a "Politics Online" conference.

One speaker, David Karpf, has done research on progressive and conservative blogs. He created the "Blogosphere Authority Index," which ranks the top 25 blogs for each side based on factors including traffic, hyperlinks, etc. He's now using this information to determine the relationship between a political party's blog "authority" and support for the party in question.

There was also someone there from YouGov Polimetrix. He talked extensively about polling mode and methodology -- the diminishing accuracy of telephone polling along with the lack of an adequate replacement for it. His company moved toward a more blended (online and telephone) approach during the '08 election and they came up with statistically similar results to those they found in previous elections. This could mean that a big shift in political information-gathering is coming.

The e-campaign gurus for both presidential candidates were in attendance as well. They gave a joint keynote question and answer session, which was full of helpful information and snide remarks from both sides.

More information about the conference is available on its wiki. Video for some of the sessions is supposed to be posted in the near future.

-Caitlyn

Legal problems with charging for online content?

Whenever my family gets together, I'm guaranteed to be bombarded with questions about the fate of newspapers -- questions I never know the answers to. This "conversation" has recently evolved into why newspapers don't charge readers for their online content. Again, I don't know what to tell my family.

A simple Google search reveals that I am not alone. Opinions on the subject vary, with Rupert Murdoch (among others) saying newspapers should charge for online content to stay afloat and others saying that charging is the last thing papers should do. There are certainly many subjects for debate, including whether people would be willing to pay and how exactly papers should structure their payment systems (subscription? article-by-article?).

Part of the problem, as the Huffington Post points out, is whether newspapers will be legally able to stop other sites like Google and the Drudge Report from reprinting the stories. After all, if readers can get content for free on another site, they're certainly not going to pay to get it from a newspaper. Copyright problems abound on the Internet, and a newspaper would certainly have a difficult time if it had to go after every site that gave away its content. However, I don't think that there's as much of a legal problem for the papers here as Peter Scheer of the Huffington Post implies.

Protection for those re-publishers of news would come from the fair use doctrine, which allows people to make use of copyrighted materials in limited circumstances. As Scheer points out, the law is pretty vague on what actually constitutes fair use, meaning that it is often disputed in court. In my opinion, newspapers don't really have much to worry about here. The trend for the past, oh, hundred years or so, has been in favor of stronger copyright protection.

So, while a move to paid news content could produce some interesting legal challenges, I don't see copyright issues posing a real problem, so much as enforcement of copyright. Should newspapers, then, attempt to charge people to read their stories online? I still don't know.

Opposing Views

When we watched the video interview of Andrew Revkin, NewYorkTimes.com science blogger, he brought up some interesting points about blogs: Blogs are often only read by people who are searching for the specific topic the blog discusses. They may be good for the peopl interested because it gives them a chance to comment back and discuss with other people who are as interested in something as they are, but it is hard to reach a wide demographic of people.

I always believed that blogs reached more people, because they are on the internet--which is worldwide. But Andrew Revkin brought up the point that in a newspaper, people who wouldn't normally read about the environment or scientific developments will come across his article and read it just because they usually read the people front to back; thus, reaching a larger demographic of people.

He also mentioned finding a way for people to call into the blog and post voice comments on his blog, which I thought was a very interesting idea, although some downfalls might be having to censor what people say. But discussing the popularity of blogs and their multi-media capability--the good and the bad--gives me the chance to have more to say in my paper. :)

-Kristina Kercher

New Media in Baghdad

I thought this might be of interest to someone. I went to a State Department briefing today where we were told that a delegation of executives from several "new media" companies (including AT&T, Google and Blue State Digital, among others) are currently in Baghdad. The spokesman said the eventual goal is to foster transparency in Iraq through developing the new media industry.

I'm sure more about this will show up in the news soon. The trip began yesterday and it will go until April 23.

Read about the "Statusphere"

Forgive me if this was discussed in class. Brian Solis, of TechCrunch, blogs on the subject here.

The part that really struck me is high up in the piece:

Solis asks "Are newspapers worth saving?”

Walt Mossberg, of the Wall Street Journal, answers.

“It’s the wrong question to ask. The real question we should ask is if whether or not we can save good journalism. Think about it. Of the hundreds, thousands, of newspapers around the country, there are really only a few that matter. Good journalism and journalists, on the other hand, are worth saving.”

Solis goes on to discuss several other topics, including "The Human Network and the Future of Socialized Journalism." Under this subhead, he covers creating a community around one's "personal brand."

"If you are a journalist, it’s now your responsibility to create a dedicated tribe that supports, shares, and responds to your work and personal interaction in both the Statusphere and also at the point of origin. It’s the only way to build a valuable and portable community around you and what you represent."

I think this shift mirrors the shift in political campaigning, to a degree. In many ways, candidates also must foster seemingly personal interaction with constituents -- through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook or any other effective means.

It's food for thought...


-Caitlyn

Shifting Campaign Style, Coverage

Since listening to both of the keynote speakers and one of the panels from the Shuneman Symposium, I have given considerable thought to the connection between new media and Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Over time, presidential campaigns have evolved significantly – since William McKinley’s presidency campaigns have typically been “consultant-based.” However, with Obama’s very successful and innovative campaign strategy, I’m interested in whether the predominant campaign style (and as a result, campaign coverage) will shift.

Any campaign now that neglects new media seems destined to fail. Campaigns must be ever more responsive to deal with the growing number of bloggers and Twitter users. In the same vein, any news outlet that does not utilize these budding media options will lose out to competitors.

As Steve Hildebrand said, reporters changed the way they covered the campaign cycle during this election. It can certainly be said that the campaign style itself also changed. So, what does this mean for the traditional political reporter? It’s tough to say. But, with the emergence of new outlets like Scoop08, evolution appears necessary for reporters’ survival. I think it would be interesting to look at the evolution of the political campaign in connection with the evolution of new media.

I was also interested in the “Political New Media” panel, particularly GWU professor Albert May’s comments. He focused on the online and local TV explosion in coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The first appearance of the Internet in presidential campaigns was in 1996, he said. Now, with several of the 2008 presidential candidates announcing their candidacies on YouTube, it’s clear that a new brand of political campaigning is on the way.

Other statements of note:

Amy Goodman
-The media is moving towards fewer moguls owning more spaces.
- The closing of newspapers means the shutting down of local voices.
- We need to make sure that the Internet remains open and free.
-While the Internet is full of valuable information, it is also a great global rumor mill.
- When the mainstream media got the WMD stories so wrong, smaller places had the story. My question: Are bloggers the new watchdogs?

- Caitlyn Zachry

Can advertising work in the online world?

Yesterday, an article entitled "Why newspapers are like department stores" ran on Salon.com, the gist of which was that newspapers, like department stores, are outmoded business models that need to change in order to survive in an increasingly online world. After attending the first annual Schuneman Symposium, the questions facing journalism seem to be larger than how is the very nature of the profession changing? Instead, the overriding issue seems to be can journalism survive these changes and still make money?

Undeniably, news is becoming more specified, as people are beginning to pick and choose the pieces of news that they want to see by using programs such as Google Reader or, to some degree, Digg and Reddit. This means, as one of the panelists (not totally positive which one) on the New Media Vs. Traditional Journalism panel said, that people aren't going to the main pages of websites as much, but are instead clicking into the content that they want to see, exclusively.

What this means for journalism as an industry is less clicks, which means that advertisers generally want to pay less for advertising, because they are not guaranteed the views that they are if they put their ads in the actual newspapers. As printed newspapers continue to wither away, however, the advertisers are increasingly finding other places to place their ads.

I think that an interesting project would be to attempt to figure out how newspapers could best utilize advertising online, meaning how they could make best make money without turning to subscriber-only content, something that the online community has shown itself to be vehemently against. That may mean customizing ads to certain customers, which could be done by requiring users to register with a site in order to access its content and, in the process, take an advertising survey that would tailor content to their interests. It could mean tracking what articles people click on a regular basis and building their ad content off of that.

Or, of course, none of these could be viable, and the only solution may be, eventually, some type of subscription-based content, something that would, unfortunately, push the news into the hands of the elite and cause a step back in the news revolution that has occurred over the last fifteen or so years.

The digital divide is more than just a geographic problem!

Don P. Jason III
Dj320306@ohio.edu


I have isolated my topic to barriers to the accessibility of new technology: Bridging the digital divide. I found an article titled “The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-Government Use,” written by France Bélanger. ”The article discusses the impact of the digital divide on the access to online government information and services, also called e-government. The digital divide is defined as both the gap between those who have access to the Internet and those that don't have Internet access as well as the gap between those with the skills necessary to interact with the government online and those that don't. Other topics include demographic factors affecting technology usage including gender and ethnicity and U.S. government spending on e-government initiatives,” (EBSCOhost abstract article description)


I want to talk about the digital divide in general; however I want to specialize on everyday things people do that not everyone has access to. Things such as emailing a city councilman/woman or a mayor or using a government Web site to pay a fine or ticket. The nature of American society places a great importance on the internet; when on TV government officials rarely give phone numbers as means of getting more information to the public, they give out Web sites. While, Web sites are easier to remember and are open 24 hours a day as apposed to phone numbers that often go to voicemail after business hours, Web sites are only useful sources of information if a person has the ability to connect with the internet. This article gave shocking statistic about the digital divide, “In 2001 60% of white households in the U.S. had internet access, while only 34% of African American and 38% of Latino households did. Similarly… 78% of high income families had internet access compared to only 40% of low income families.“ This quote shows that the digital divide is more than just a geographic phenomenon; it is a racial and socioeconomic one as well. The article also talks about age and gender in relation to internet access.


I also found an article talking about how social networking and new technology is making the digital divide worst. The article starts off talking about a juror that had to be thrown into contempt of court because he was posting twitter updates about his on-going jury deliberations. In this same case jurors were caught using cell phones to surf the internet to find evidence not presented in court. In an article titled “Tweet! (You won't believe what I'm doing right now!)” Don Campbell talks about how new technologies such as Twitter have underscored “how the digital divide has changed and is growing wider as creators of newer and newer technology cater exclusively to people driven by impudent self-indulgence and a voyeuristic interest in the minutiae of other people’s lives.”

New Direction

I just freaked out a little about our research projects. I spent the past week after the Symposium reading up on satirical media. I think in any other year, this would be just as valuable a topic as any of the other ideas listed on our class blog. But as I read through the posts again, I noticed how much my topic didn't fit. But what I did notice was how many times I saw the word Twitter. It was everywhere, in the form of verbs, nouns and adjectives. For the past few months, I’ve been so sick of talking about this thing. But like I said in a previous post, I really don’t know anything about it, aside from the fact that it has made a huge splash in the communication world.

So maybe a better fitting topic (one that would benefit the class and myself) would be to look at Twitter specifically. I would want to do some basic stuff, such as what it is and how it started. But I think the more beneficial component would be to look at its effects on community and businesses. After the article that was in The Post about Twitter, I think there would be more local businesses that I could find to see if and how they are using the new form of media. I could even see how local student organizations are utilizing the tool. There are a lot of directions to go in, but I think this fits in to what Don was talking about(the idea of having access to technology), and in to someone else’s who wanted to investigate the usefulness and effects of blogging. (I know there were several posts on blogging, so this would fit in with a few of them I think.) If anyone has any thoughts on this, let me know. Also, if I missed something in the posts and someone already mentioned doing this specifically, let me know also. I don’t want to research something that someone has already put time and work into.

And who knows, maybe after I do this project I’ll find myself tweeting all the time.

Rethinking research

My first idea, unfortunately, seems to be falling kind of flat. I haven't found much research on changing standards for news thanks to the Web, though I have considered just doing a lot of interviews with editors.

That said, I'm considering a new route: a study comparing traditional media coverage of major natural disasters versus Web 2.0 coverage of similar disasters. For example, Hurricane Katrina would be a great case study to compare with, say, Hurricane Andrew.

This study analyzed what words popped up on the Internet during a certain time frame to determine whether the natural disasters were a heavy topic of discussion.

I want to find out what people consider a reliable news source in a time of crisis. Are the displaced going to wait for the newspaper the next day? Are people in Ohio with family in New Orleans going to wait for something to come on television? Unlikely. I think people are going to the Internet in droves to get this information.

The real topic that my research should address, though, is how media changed the way they covered these natural disasters with new tools at their disposal.

Journalism More Progressive in New Media

A week ago today I attended the first ever Schuneman Symposium. The full day event included a panel from distinguished professionals in the journalism spectrum, a speech from Democracy Now! co-host and producer, Amy Goodman and a keynote address to finish the evening from Steve Hildebrand. In attending one of the panels and hearing from Goodman, I was able to walk away better informed about the future of new media. I was especially delighted to hear what Goodman had to say because of her resistant and untamed persona. Goodman embodies what journalism should be and possibly what it will be in the future. Journalist should very well be the watchdog of the people in power and should hold them all accountable for their actions and statements. "We're not there to please, we're there to question", says Goodman. I absolutely agree! Too often I witness journalist fail to ask the pressing questions, and get down to the bottom of what relevant. Yes those we question as journalist holds our access and can snatch it away like a baby offered candy but nonetheless we must question and not befriend. I am not saying burn bridges but I am saying to your job and do it effectively.  If not than as move further into further into "new media" old journalist will began to find themselves out of work.

The millennial generation wants truth and they demand to have it in new ways.  "Without question,the Internet and new media- text messaging, video messaging, twittering, all of that is changing the way people communicate, the way they learn, the way people organize", says Hildebrand. The election of Obama affirms this. His campaign was able to bring young people to the poles and focused on reaching Americans aside from traditional media tactics. Panel participants agree that media is continuing to evolve but they all seemed to be unsure about what the future holds. One thing for sure is that it is not going to stand still for anyone so as journalist it is important that we make it first to the punch. Better to act than be forced to react.

Andrew Sullivan

I have been researching the positive and negative aspects of blogging being a professional form of journalism. Many people question whether blogging is an accurate, reliable source, and I have found an article on the defensive side for blogging. Andrew Sullivan, a political blogger for The Atlantic, wrote a blog titled Why I Blog.

The article talks about the spontaneous expression that blogging allows for, and the personality that goes into blogging. Many people want to read a blog because it seems more personal, and the audience likes personal. Blogging also reaches a larger demographic of people than print journalism, and talks about a journalist's responsibility to their public. The article only argues the positive things of blogging, so I would need to find a counter-part article to fully conclude my research.

With print, an editor will fix a journalist's mistakes before the article goes to print; if more mistakes occur, people will send in letters to the editor and then the problem must be notably fixed in a following issue of the newspaper or magazine. Journalists are never specifically pin-pointed for their mistakes, because the editors take all the heat. Blogging, however, allows the mistakes to be pointed out directly in a responding post, therefore making the blogger/journalist take full responsibility for their mistakes. As Sullivan says in his article, "It transforms this most personal and retrospective of forms into a painfully public and immediate one...exposes the author in a manner no author has ever been exposed before." You should not blog if you cannot handle the criticisms that people will throw your way.

-Kristina Kercher

Brainstorming With YouTube

After spending the past few hours watching YouTube videos of The Colbert Report and reading an extremely lengthy article on the show, I am starting to generate some more specific ideas about my tentative research topic.

I came across the word “infotainment” in one piece. This word intrigued me as I was watching clips of the show. Colbert’s interviews were with politicians, and although it wasn’t a hard-hitting news program, I was getting a look at these figures in a way that I don’t on traditional news programs. It was different than a talk show atmosphere though. To me, I felt like I was getting important information through this entertaining style—through that “infotainment.” But is that news? If it is, how will this affect online journalism, and journalism as a whole? Unlike traditional media, these funny guys don’t have the same rules as media professionals. But is the absence of rules creating a valuable forum to critique society in an alternative way? Going over clips of the show, Colbert criticized the media also. Is this infotainment a sort of watchdog of the so-called watchdog journalists? I’m asking because I think this could have effects on the role of traditional journalists.

Those are just some thoughts that are running around my head right now. I still don’t have a definite topic direction, but I am hoping it will come to me after some more reading.

Thinking Hyperlocal....a business model?

To address Jillian's last comment--about the future of journalism depending on who finds a viable business model with the Internet as their main source of revenue--please read this New York Times piece on hyperlocal Web sites delivering news.

Further if we think about creating an informed citizenry, what better place to start then focusing on communities and delivering news that individuals in the community need?

As Bob Benz said, advertising is most effective when it is local and targeted to specific audiences....same thing with news. Can we see a marriage between the two that produces a viable business model?

--Jen Lovejoy

Change is gonna come...

Last week I attended several panels and speakers during the Schuneman Symposium, all of which affirmed what I already know to be true about the media world: Change is on its way, and for the most part, change is already happening. As someone who has been trying to explain the death of newspapers to my lo-tech parents for months, I was most interested in attending the Traditional Media vs. New Media panel. It also helped that one of my favorite media professionals ever, Bob Benz, was a member of the panel. My interest was peaked and the panel delivered.

Looking over my notes from the session, I jump from topics including personal branding and an entrepreneurial approach to journalism, political campaigns not needing the media as much now that social media tools exist more ubiquitously, the precision of the Internet, and of course, the major problems with the journalism business model online. All of these are hefty topics, so I've come up with a list of related research ideas that are a bit more focused.

1. Why is does it have to be traditional media versus new media? Don't both forms of media benefit from the existence of each other? For example, new media (in the form of blogs) depends on the newsgathering capabilities of traditional media (such as newspapers). What is the effect on blogs, which often point to newspapers and even magazines for sources, if traditional media is "dying"? <--- This is a question I posed to the panel during the Q&A session, and the answer I got was essentially, many traditional media outlets screwed themselves by bucking new media and by having a negative attitude toward it.

2. Does the niche nature of the internet segregate readers to a fault? Are some online news consumers surpassing general news coverage ("current events"-type coverage) because they have the option to consume only the specialty news they desire (such as sports or entertainment coverage)? What kind of news consumers is the niche nature of online journalism breeding?

3. Money-making in the blogosphere. Does ad revenue correlate with perceived credibility from readers?

4. Magazines online vs. newspapers online -- exploring which suffers more from giving away content online for free. In what ways is the issue of free content online different on magazine Web sites versus newspaper sites?

5. The new role of journalists online: Standing out among Web "shit." How is legacy media credibility maintained in a media organization's online presence when it is put on what some might call a more level playing field as self-publishers?

6. Does branding surpass "good" reporting skills in terms of importance for journalists trying to create an online presence?

I would also like to point out a quote uttered during the Traditional Media vs. New Media panel. I can't remember which panelist said it, but I copied it down verbatim:

"The future of the newspaper market depends on if and how new business models emerge that use the internet as their main source of revenue."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Change has already happened and now we must react to it. If not, prepare to die, media world.

More Project Ideas

As I am thinking about my research assignment, I have been looking into articles concerning entertainment and media. I would like to examine television shows such as SNL and The Daily Show, as well as publications like The Onion, and find out how they are playing a role in the communications world. I found several articles on InfoTree, but I know there has to be more recent work done. I want to find books that focus more specifically on the programs, and I want to shy away from talking to general. Anyone have any search suggestions or ideas on how I can make this topic work better? I don't want to pick a topic that isn't going to be useful or that does not fully relate to the class. But with the media attention that SNL received during the election, I think this could be an interesting paper.
-Sarah L:)

The Internet Becomes the Main Source of News

I attended the New Media vs. Traditional Journalism panel and learned some interesting things from Bob Benz and Bernard Debatin. Debatin spoke on advertising in the media. Advertising seems to be the one thing keeping print journalism floating in this country as we watch more and more long-time-running newspapers fail. I believe this is an interesting topic, but since there is not much evdience as to exactly how much readers are affected by the advertisements they see, it is hard to do much more reasearch on the topic. I do agree, however, that adversiting on the internet is much more effective because people can interact with the ads by clicking them for more (or even less) information, and some ads are hard to avoid altogether when they invade your computer screen.

The one idea that struck my fancy was the Ohio University graduate, whose name escapes me, who spoke on using Twitter and how his Twitter account would be the last thing he would ever want to have to give up. Bob Benz also mentioned how people like to read blogs more often, because they come from "normal, every day people." I think blogging is very important to often keeping newspaper websites alive by giving readers a more in-depth and personal story.

I would like to continue my research on the use of blogs on several newspaper websites, and their affects on the audience. I would like to speak on the positive and negative aspects of blogging, as well as how blogging is becoming professional journalism.

-Kristina Kercher

A Transfer of Power

Carlyn Lynch
carlyn.lynch@gmail.com

Accountability. Without it, people can get away with anything. Independent journalist Amy Goodman said it is the media's job "to hold those in power accountable" and that journalists cannot "trade truth for access." This is becoming increasingly more difficult for reporters as media outlets continue to be consolidated by corporations. She sees new media as the "exception to the rulers" and I couldn't agree more.

Ms. Goodman discussed the accomplishments of I.F. Stone, who started his own publication to combat McCarthyism, racism in the military, the Vietnam War and other controversial issues of his time. Today, she said, he probably would have been a blogger. There are so many pressing issues facing the world today, so many life and death decisions being made. That is why we need someone watching. The media used to be considered that loyal "watchdog" for society, but not anymore. The public is overwhelmingly suspect of the traditional journalist for arguably very good reasons.

Enter bloggers. The internet has provided a platform for the public to inform the public, mobilize the public and spur powerful entities to action. A video of Amy Goodman's arrest at the Republican National Convention was posted to YouTube where it was viewed by thousands. The public outcry prompted her release. Facebook and other social networking sites were hugely influential in this year's presidential election. Independent opinions, discoveries, and dissent on the part of the silent majority are being publicized and making waves.

Everyone is talking about what these ominous waters mean for journalism, but what about politics? Newsrooms across the country are making the effort to be more transparent to prevent falling prey to criticism from meddling bloggers. Some traditional journalists view new media as the catalyst for the collapse of journalistic integrity. It scares them. Is it scaring Washington too? Corporations aren't immune either, no one is. All of a sudden, any Tom, Dick or Harry can rally an audience of millions with one eye-opening blog entry.

I will be conducting more in-depth research into how the political game is changing, now that it's under new media's microscope. The public is no longer limited to interpreting rhetoric from a press conference. Is bureaucracy in trouble? Also, how often has this technological communication been a tool for organizing physical demonstrations for the public voice in places where it is normally silenced? How will more oppressive governments be affected by the exponential growth of information sharing? All of a sudden anyone can have power, regardless of location, age, race or religion. What does power in the hands of so many mean for the power structures that be?

The hegemonic blogosphere.

I attended the New Media vs. Traditional Journalism and Political New Media panels. It provided me more inspiration than I’ve managed to cling to in a while. Both sessions were thought provoking and brought me to an epiphany that could become into an in-depth research topic.

In the second session, Albert May, associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, discussed his book, Campaign 2008: It's On You Tube. The power of social networks (bloggers included) and video sharing became even clearer to me with examples from the 2008 election. Bloggers usually parrot the media and ride the waves of agendas put forth by traditional gatekeepers. However, within this complex network of contributors is a hegemony that set its own agendas and steers the collective voice. There’s an apparent hegemony in the blogosphere that obviously affects even the news agendas of traditional media outlets.

I’ve learned that bloggers carry a “gate watching” role, but I think there’s a rigid, and ever-undulating, structure that has perhaps not taken power away from traditional media outlets, but transferred some of the power from old, affluent, white gatekeepers to young, affluent, white gatekeepers. This theory is based on the anecdotes and statistics from the sessions and several Pew studies. For my thesis, I’d perhaps like to examine the gatekeeping process in the blogosphere. Additionally, I would like to examine the working of this blogosphere upper crust in relation to the lower class of bloggers.

It's amazing social structure that has the potential to make things happen.

Social Change and New Technology in Journalism

I was able to make it to most of the 9 a.m. panel and the two keynote speakers yesterday, and I came away with some half-baked ideas that I think are worth considering:

 1.)   How can the immediate and sometimes viral tendencies of online content affect social/political/etc. change? I’ll give you an example: Goodman talked about when she was arrested at the Republican Party’s most recent presidential convention in St. Paul. She said that she was arrested while covering a protest that was happening on the streets of the city, despite the fact that she had her press credentials dangling from her neck in clear view. Luckily her arrest was videotaped and posted on the Internet. Within days, she said, the video had spread across the Web at an astonishing pace, and because of that she and rest of her crew, who had also been arrested, were released. Interesting story. Interesting topic as well.

 2.)   An idea that I got from the first panel was the use of portable equipment to transfer content from one place to another while a reporter/photog is abroad. I was specifically thinking about solo journalism, in this case. With the increased need to cut costs at media outlets, some journalists have decided to become not only reporters, but videographers and photojournalists as well. These solo journalists go out on their own and cover a story by writing about it, taking some still photographs and shooting some video and/or sound and wrapping it all into one nice package to be published on the Web. Now to do this, they obviously have to use equipment that is small and light enough to be carried long distances. They also have to have specialized equipment so that they can transfer massive amount of info over satellite Internet connections, like in the case of a foreign correspondent who needs to send his or her content stateside from wherever they are in the world.

 Now the debate over solo journalism is a contentious one. Some believe that this is just a way to cut out photographers and only pay one person to do multiple people’s jobs, therefore cutting costs while diminishing the quality of content. This is a valid argument, I think, but I am hoping to keep that debate out of this idea. I think that if I were to do this as my project, I would simply present this as another way to gather information, and leave the debate up to the audience.

This is all I have now, but I’m sure more will come to me once I fully digest what I heard during the symposium.

 

A blend of journalism and social networking....

Here is yet another model of journalism forging the online sphere: True/Slant.com. As Mossberg's review of the site (for the Wall Street Journal) points out, one of the unique features is that news contributors are required to engage with readers of the site and with other contributors as well: A blend of journalism and social networking.

It is definitely worth checking out.

--Jen Lovejoy

Web leading to lower standards?

Yesterday’s early session at the Schuneman Symposium was full of hilarious photographs and war stories from the panelist’s pasts.

And that’s a great panel for anyone to watch, but it’s also a little defeatist to the idea of progress as it relates to new media. As journalists, we cannot focus on past glory days, but instead need to look to the future.

After wading through the fun, the panelists hit the problem on the head: we’re just not sure what works on the Web yet. Matthew Craig, a photographer for the Memphis Commercial Appeal, talked about how companies had invested lots of time and resources into doing video, but then realized that video didn’t draw as much traffic as clickable slideshows.

His statement is a real testament to both how quickly things can change on the Web and how little we know. I had a professor last year who was so convinced about the pervasiveness of video that he believed we would eventually wear video screens on our clothes.

The panel discussion really fed my insecurity about whether the ship would right itself soon, but I did come away with a vague research idea. Craig talked about feeding the monster, or posting sometimes innocuous information to the Web as quickly as possible.

I wonder if many media companies have changed editing policies to post content to the Web quickly. It’s entirely possible that in some places they’ve eliminated editing for a Web update altogether just to get the story first. For all the doom and gloom that the Web has pushed on our industry, it’s certainly fostered greater competition.

Another great question is “have the standards of ‘news’ changed with the proliferation of news on the Internet?” That same competition that drives us to want the story first also pokes at an editor’s greatest insecurity: not having a potentially big story that everyone else has. Such insecurity can very easily lead to a less selective attitude when posting content to the Web.

Making online journalism and new technology accessible to all?

I went to the Political-New Media and Company symposium from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. and it only got interesting to me when it was almost over, during the question and answer session. At this seminar people asked about the ramifications of new technology on people with limited or no access to the technology. No real answer to this question was provided. Faculty at Scripps push podcasting, blogging and using twitter; however, many students in the journalism school struggle with these inventions. How can we expect low income or ill-informed people in inner cities and rural areas to know what these technologies are and how to use them if students don’t know about them? I know the question was asked towards the end of the Q and A session so the panelist really didn’t have time to get into the issue of journalism being "elitist."

I feel that journalism is not elitist however faculty and students at Scripps sometimes forget about how blessed/ privileged we are to have the knowledge that we do. The student panelist answered the question by saying that anyone can find access to new technologies if they want. I agree there are always libraries that provide free access to the internet. However, how will anyone know about "Youtube," "Twitter," "blogger/blogspot," "Linked In" and other resources if no one tells them that they exist? The internet is so vast that one must tell someone what to look for on the internet in order for the internet to be effective.

To me, this would have been an innovative topic for a whole panel discussion. I would have liked to see a dialogue on how Scripps and the panelist plan to introduce new technology to everyone. This could be a good topic for me; not new technology in online journalism, but the accessibility of online journalism and the technology we already have to different segments of the population. If people can't access new technology or don’t know what to do with new technology when they can access it: what good is new technology?

Don Jason
dj320306@ohio.edu

Schuneman Symposium

After attending both morning discussions, I can't help but feel a little more stressed out about finding a job after I graduate. It feels like there is a race going on to find out what is going to work in the communications industry. Although it is nerve-wracking to think about, the seminar made it apparent that this is something that we, journalism students and professionals, need to wrap our heads around. It makes me want to do my research project on something that is really useful.

While the first panel was very interesting, I found the second to be more helpful with getting some thoughts about my project down on paper. Peter Shaplen asked the room several questions about where they find information. I was one of those people who admitted to only going to a single online publication for an overall sweep of
information. I was also amazed to see how many people use Twitter as their main news source, as I do not even have a Twitter account. I think an interesting research topic would be to investigate more specifically how normal people (not fellow journalists or journalism students) get their information. What do people care about? Who do people trust to be their reporters? Maybe it is a network of Twitterers, bloggers and social media junkies. But what about the idea of how entertainment is blurred with actual news content? Do people see these shows as news? Are publications such as The Onion, for example, some people's primary source? I think this topic needs polishing, so I would love to hear any other thoughts on it. This could be too general of an idea, but I am really interested in looking at what viewers and readers trustsocial media, traditional networks, bloggers or even
entertainment talk shows.

It may be too broad, but I think it's an idea that is worth considering. Any thoughts? I may have some more to add after I attend the next speaker.

Politics and New Media Ideas

I attended the Politics and New Media panel, which largely focused on the Internet as it was used in the 2008 presidential election campaign.

One of the recurring, though underlying, themes of the discussion was the blurring of the lines between professional and amateur journalists. One panelist mentioned that it is increasingly difficult for the public to tell the difference between blogs and news sites, while a student in attendance asked how journalists could maintain a gate keeping function on the Internet with so many bloggers disseminating their version of the news. This is certainly something that could merit further research.

Confusion over who is considered a journalist can be viewed as both a positive and negative aspect of the Internet. Citizen journalism can have its benefits and was encouraged by Janelle Huelsman, director of public relations for Scoop08. Scoop08 was a news site that covered the 2008 elections through articles submitted by (mainly) college students across the country. (It has since become Scoop44, a site dedicated to reporting on the Obama administration.) The good thing about sites like these is that they allow anyone who witnesses or researches news to report it.

The downside to everyone essentially being a journalist is a lack of professionalism and accountability. Some bloggers are committed to presenting the truth of a situation, but it is often difficult to distinguish these from people simply spreading rumor.

Another subject discussed by the panel (that I'll admit I haven't heard much about) was the digital divide. This is the gap between people with and without access to the Internet. With an upcoming switch to digital television and so many cities losing their newspapers, Cary Frith expressed concern that some people may be left without an adequate method of informing themselves. Among the many ways to go about researching this issue, one could look into what other countries have done to combat the problem (a subject mentioned by one of the panelists).

-Annie Elliott

Self-serving vs. Social responsibility

I just attended the panel on New Media vs. Traditional Media and as pointed out, even the name of the panel's title is outdated. What is traditional media anymore anyway? There is hardly a newspaper that does not, at the very least, have a Web site or working on launching one.

The panelists were great--making many points worth summarizing, including, but not limited to:

1. The journalism industry is in crisis and crisis creates opportunity (Bob Benz)
   
2. Journalists must be incredibly good at filtering, synthesizing, making sense of complex issues, and offering a comprehensive path through the jungle of information available (Bernhard Debatin)
   
3. Each of us is our own individual journalism business--through tweets, Facebook, blogging, and other social networking tools--and the currency is being helpful to others by providing daily information (Gary Moneysmith)
   
4. Many of the "gotcha" moments in the 2008 presidential election came from ordinary citizens who captured soundbites, quotes, or pictures themselves and then posted on a personal Web site or blog and had the mainstream media pick it up (Peter Shaplen).

Together, the room mused about the lack of a viable, profitable business model in journalism; the convergence of who is considered a journalist and who can be a journalist (anybody...); the absolute necessity of becoming your own brand in the journalism industry; the obsession of paying attention to information shared online.

What the panelists and the audience didn't talk about were the consequences (intended or unintended) of becoming a society that is twitter-based, soundbite obsessed, computer screen tanned, and self-serving. Almost 10 years ago, Robert Putnam wrote in "Bowling Alone" about a technological society that was increasingly disconnected from everything but ourselves.

Although Moneysmith's point about using his twitter followers to get reliable information quickly is noteworthy, my point is that journalism, in a shortened, self-serving form doesn't serve the public's interest or advance the public discourse in a way that creates a robust, active citizenry....that is intent on the well-being of each other and their community as well as the well-being of the self.

So, one idea that was sparked by the panel was to investigate models of innovative journalism that were utilizing Web 2.0 and all the bells and whistles of technology to still serve the public's interest. There is one Web site (Spot.us) that is a nonprofit model where a story idea is pitched to the general public (the community) and then community members can donate money to that specific story idea if they want to see it done. This adds a whole new spin on investigative reporting--meaning if you have a vested interest in investigating a local community issue but do not have the time to do it yourself, you can, in essence, make a tax deductible donation to see it done.

As Bernhard reminded us, the Huffington Post is hiring three new investigative reporters. What are the innovative online journalism ventures seeking to serve the public's interest first and foremost and, perhaps in the process, provide a viable model for the future of journalism?

If you haven't done so already, check out CurrentTV or Current.com: One community model created for peer-to-peer news and information network.

--Jen Lovejoy

Mine+Sift the Schuneman Symposium

folks, I just emailed out an "invitation" for the class "blog," which also is serving as the syllabus for the course. It is located at:

http://onlinejseminar.blogspot.com/

As you recall from our class session last Friday, you are to attend at least one session of the Schuneman Symposium this Thursday and write a blog entry that details ideas for research projects related to our topic, online journalism. The purpose of this exercise is that you use your blog entry to sift through the ideas picked up from various panels and speakers. You may well end up picking one of these for your presentation!

Let me know if you have any problem with the blog.

rks

Online Journalism Seminar

GOAL: To educate ourselves, our classmates and our jschool about online journalism (circa 2009)

END PRODUCT: research, to be presented at an end-of-quarter "conference," open to the jschool and the public (and the online audience)

GRADE is based on three parts:

1. research paper 12-15 pages for 416; 15-20 pages for 516 (30 %)
2. online presentation -- video/slideshow/etc (30%)
3. conference presentation (30%)
4. regular (weekly) blog updates about your topic on this blog (10%)