March 25

In "Code of Ethics..." I was a little disappointed that there wasn't more specific guidelines for "professional electronic journalists." I thought most of it was pretty straight forward, and honestly not all that different from what a code of ethics for a print journalist should look like. Though, perhaps that is the lesson here, that no matter what medium you use as a journalist ethics still apply. But I think, and when we create our mission for our Web site we should consider this, that there should be some outlines for creating Web content that would be more specific, and rules regarding using public sites for information and being wary of all sources on the Web.
I was happy to see "Guidelines for Ethical Video..." after my last paragraph. This was a little bit closer to what I was thinking electronic journalists should follow also. Because the news on the Web is made up of all of these different components it is important to include video and sound bites to the list of rules. I really thought the part of about slow motion was interesting, something that I never thought of before but it is true. Also the use of music and how it could possibly show editorial judgment is a good rule of thumb to include.
"Ethics in Digital Photography," is something that I think non-journalists should read also. As a news consumer, most times, you never even think that a photograph you see on a newspaper, Web site or TV package is altered so you don't look for that kind of thing. Until I worked with the technology that can do these edits and changes flawlessly I didn't really think about it either, but now that I know it is out there it is a real worry of mine as an editor. I think in our mission, Final Draft should include a clause about using photos from credible sources, our own photographers, or freelancers whom we have a good, stable working relationship with.
In "Photojournalism Ethics Guides," I really thought the Sarasota (FL) Herald-Tribune did a great job of highlighting the problems areas of photojournalism and offered a clear and cohesive outline for how photographers and editors can go about discussing and deciding what to do if an ethical situtation was to arise. I think something like that would be useful and smart in our own guideline. I also liked how all of the papers stressed the importance of clearly indicating if the photo was a set up portrait or an actual action shot. I think this is something that a lot of papers do with giving it a second thought as to the ethical implications that calling a set-up shot truth can bring.
I thought Steele did a good job in his blog addressing the problems news organizations on the Web are facing when it comes to ethics. His list from the panel about areas of online media that could bring about problems is helpful and definitely something our group should look at. By outlining the problems it will be easier to come up with clearer solutions. And, to be honest, I wasn't surprised about the list of ways news organizations deal with these problems compiled by the panel. Of course there is some confusion, because the medium is still pretty new. Things like citizen journalism are still be figured out, and so knowing what ethical challenges will be faced and how to deal with them are pretty new too.
The "Guidelines from the Conference" were really impressive. I specifically found the parts about clarifying between opinion, commentary and news important seeing that many online organizations do a poor job at it. I also thought the discussion on monitoring ways readers contribute to the discussion useful. And I liked that they kind of addressed the "good enough" idea of journalism that is being developed from the immediacy required by the Internet, even including production quality in the discussion.

March 18

In "Redesigned Newspapers" I really liked getting to see what all three papers did to update their look. I think each had some great ideas, but my favorite was The Hartford Courant's new look. I really loved how they used a vertical head and incorporated the dot com. Fantastic! It is a great way to show readers that you are a Web site news organization that just so happens to run a solid daily paper also. I also really loved the design aspect of using one large eye-catching photograph. The Hartford Courant seems to have a more magazine feel, which is something that a lot of people still respond to. It's nice to know that one of the oldest newspapers in the country can adapt and roll with the times. Something as little as redesigning the front page can really rejuvenate readers and reporters working on the paper. I also really liked The Oklahoman's idea of making the newspaper smaller, at 44 inches. It makes the paper easier to hold and more portable, something that the actual holding of a paper still wins in over Web-based news, even though portable devices are becoming more popular the majority of the population doesn't read its news on a cell phone...yet. I think using this smaller size is something Final Draft should do in the actual print edition of the paper, and also using our actual web address name as the name of the paper also.
In "Next Generation of Visual Thinkers..." it makes me depressed that I didn't go to school at Michigan state! When I went to the college newspaper conference at Kansas City last semester with the Ithacan I saw so many interesting graphics and designs used to tell stories in a stronger way than just words. I wish all the time that I could do that, or knew how to do that. I think that using graphics, almost like a magazine, is what will help keep newspapers alive in the future of visual readers who are looking for quick and interesting information. Something I think we should defintely use at Final Draft.
In "One Image, One Word," I have to agree that when the story is big enough one picture, or word is all that is needed. I do think this practice can be abused, however, when papers use the design technique all of the time. This is something that I think Final Draft wouldn't use unles something major happened in the hyper-local area that we will be covering.
In "Is the Web a Tab?" I'm not really sure if I have an opinion on this one. I think she is write, readers want their information to be short and accessable, so that is what we will do!
I thought "Debunking Myths" was a lot of fun to read. When I first started at The Ithacan I would constantly hear all of these rules about design such as the don't pick a photo where the person is looking off of the page, the person's head needs to be the size of a dime etc. And I would ask why? Because I was curious and eager to learn everything at once. And all I would get back in response was "well, I don't know. You just don't do it." So it was nice to have the author agree with me on some of these things. I do, however, feel that knowing and understanding these rules is important for beginners (including myself) so that one can later respectfully break the rules when coming up with more creative designs. I hadn't heard of the dollar bill one before though -- I kind of liked that one!
I was at Friday's class before break so I'm not going to blog on the last reading.

March 4

In "The Morgue," I appreciated hearing Matthew's point of view about what is going on in the LA Times, and across the country for that matter. It must have been very difficult for him to write about it, given the close ties he has to the paper. But sadly, this is a story we as journalism students have heard over and over again, and I quite frankly am not in the mood for it today. The main lesson I can take away from this that might be beneficial to our media site, besides scrapping it all together and getting another major, is to concentrate on the local. Like he mentioned, he can still get good news about Washington from the Post. In today's cut-backs all newspapers can do is cling to what they do best, covering what is right outside their doors.
In "The Platform," I thought the question of who owns the news an important one to consider when discussing this, I also thought the connection between bailing out banks and possibly bailing out metro dailies an interesting one to make. Why not? Well, of course we know why not. Because tax payers will say it's not up to them to bail out news corporations that dug themselves into a hole -- even though that is essentially what banks did. But for some reason we have sympathy and a need to help those bankers with their flashy suits and money-filled pockets, but when it comes to the scrappy reporter in the tweed carrying around a notebook it's a different story. Grrr....but maybe the reason why it has never been thought that the government and the people who consume the news should help us out everyonce in a while is because we, as the medium (I think I used that correctly) are constantly publishing our woes, telling everyone it's our own fault for not getting with the program sooner. Instead we should play dumb like those smart bankers...and maybe then we'd get a bail out.
In "Imagining a City Without its Daily," I again shut down reading these stories. I think it's important to know what is going on in our own business, but one of these is enough and I'm not sure how else to comment, other than telling the Courant to keep on trucking -- hold ground and do what you do best -- cover the local news and continue investigative pieces.
In "A Nonprofit Panacea..." I think the idea of having a media organziation that is nonprofit is interesting and clearly successful, if the organizaiton finds a family like the Sandler's to fund it. I think using ProPublica's content is a smart idea and something that I would consider doing on our media organizaiton to fill any voids in investigative journalism. I also think that Warren Buffet should fund our project. That's my best idea yet...

Feb. 25

I do appreciate the efforts of the founder of Spot.Us. I think it is noble to take risks in this current journalism crisis to find an alternative that will survive. I do not, however, think this is an appropriate business model that is going to work. I could be completely wrong, but honestly hope that I am not. I don't feel comfortable with news organizations strictly producing content based off of what the consumer is willing to pay for, isn't that what got us into this mess? Of course no one can really peg what created the Britney Spears-style news coverage. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But I feel that creating content based off of a $10 donation just isn't going to cut it. And yes, he does point this out in the article that this model may not work, which for the sake of figuring out one that does work I'm glad Spot.Us is out there, but I don't think it is something that I would want to use.
In "Curating the Web" I'm not exactly sure what is going on. Maybe would could discuss this more in class. From my understanding, and I could be right or wrong on this one, is that this author's business model is to just have a Web site that links to various sources around set topics. This makes sense to me, and I agree that it would shake up the boring AP wire that most news organizations rely too much on. But I'm not sure what Korr was talking about when he said individual journalists could do this also. I see the importance of linking to related stories on a journalist's blog but I'm not sure if I was following it all.
In "No Time Left..." I thought the AP's willingness to understand young readers fascinating. I love that they used anthro. studies to figure out reading patterns -- very smart. I was a little surprised by their finding that readers wanted more. I've always been under the impression that young readers like short, concise blog posts that were updated constantly. But I can see that there is a lacking of background information that is needed to understand the constant stream of information coming at us all the time. I think that in many business models this could be helped by updating archieve abilities and linking to related stories.
In "A Retired Newspaper Journalists..." I was excited to read about the hyperlocal site that he started up, in Final Draft that is what we are hoping to do. Though, I am sure there must be a way to make money off of it. I really enjoyed this piece, as it pertained to what we are hoping to accomplish. I did take notice of what he said about not getting local writers or comments like he wanted to, I hadn't really thought of that happening. Being young, we just assumed that everyone would want to participate so I guess we'll have to come up with alternative plans to combat that when it happens. Perhaps we'll stick with our original Plan B in all cases -- hire lots of interns to work for free. Lots of them.

Feb. 18

In "the wisdom of the crowd," I have to admit I was a little nervous of the idea of "crowdsourcing." This sounds even more threatening than "citizen journalist." I am not surprised to find that when asked to ordinary citizens did not want to write feature length articles, and to be honest who would have wanted to read them anyway. One of my biggest problems with using user-generated content on the Web is the amount of comments and articles you see that have no bearing on the larger community. But it is interesting that the Q and As turned out productive. As for Gannett, I find they do too much "crowdsourcing," and audience created content. It clutters the page and makes me go someplace else for my news.
In "when journalists blog," I think our media outlet could utilize the blogging by journalists. I like the idea of being able to "put out the call" to readers when working on a story. I also really like the idea of updating a story every time the journalist makes a phone call, finds out something new. It lends itself to the immediacy of news on the Web, allowing readers to be informed without having to wait for a writer to compose a pyramid story and then have it go through edits, copy and design. The idea of also have shorter blogs is good. I think that is what mainstream media blogs tend to miss -- that advid blog readers like their information in short bursts and quick.
In "Digging into social media" I found it interesting that only 40 percent of a newspapers traffic comes from a reader typing in a specific URL, I'm one of those readers. I never knew that there was really any other way because I seem to be in the dark ages these days. I love the idea that a newspaper can have a social network alter ego, and we will definitely be using this. Using social networks was something Final Draft had decided to do already but this is just a great way to use it.
In "Ethical Values..." I completely agree with the idea that community bloggers have to be questioned about ethics, just like any journalist. The Web is a new free medium and the idea of a "page-view whore" is real and out there. And yes there needs to be a "truth alert" for editors who use citizen journalists, but of course there isn't. I think ultimately it is up to the readers to use their best judgement in deciding if a story is credible or not.
In "Suggest a topic," I think the idea of creating a brand out of your media outlet is a smart business model to use. I have to admit, I think this idea that a story is a growing thing, no longer a product, is kind of a hoax -- a myth of the online world. I see some Web sites do it, but not affectively. I'm not buying it yet.

Feb. 11 Reading

The author of "multitasking in the news," brings up some interesting points about how audience members consume the news. With short attention spans most readers don't get past a story's headline and lede. I must admit that I find myself most morning quickly reading the headlines on the New York Time's Web site, or scanning over the headlines on Twitter. Rarely, maybe twice a day, do I actually click on a story to read. I think this comes from being bombarded by information, after awhile I become immune to news. In our news organization we've talked about how to cater to our readers who can only consume short bits of information but also how to stop this culture of distraction. We've discussed keeping the daily reporting short and sweet, while having a few reporters focus on longer pieces for weeky investigative reporting.
In "Tracking behavioral changes on the Web," I think the idea of calling readers promisciuos is funny and true. I've never thought of myself in that way. I like to think I'm a regular reader of certain publications Web sites, but on the whole I am willing to check out other sites because there is so much information out there. The whole idea of "bouncing" is true to. That is the beauty of the Web, you don't have to commit to anything for a set period of time. I suggest that our online site take advantage of this need to bounce from one site to another and allow users to access other sites of interest as a sidebar, not like advertisements but more like additional places to get information. Or making sure there are tons of hyperlinks.
In "Mapping out the Blogosphere," creating a "flow map" is an appropriate way to not only generate a certain type of user and guide them to other sites similar to your own, but also could be a useful tool in advertising. Using both static and dynamic links is one way to make sure you build a steady readership. Keeping things that are static, or look similar can make a reader feel comfortable. While using dynamic capabilities can keep a site new and exciting.
Miel's article I thought the idea of losing faith and conversion was a funny, yet well articulated label to the whole new media crisis journalism students are going through right now. I also much prefer the term "participatory media," to "citizen journalist," it just sounds friendlier to me...it also sounds like I haven't wasted four years in journalism school. To be honest I wasn't really sure where he was going with this article but I do like the idea that when we're building our online media outlets we should bring the community together, not try to build a whole new one. I think this mantra would be a good one for the Final Draft group.
In his conclusions I really found this to be interesting: In the changing media environment, news consumers risk relying on news sources that are neither credible nor comprehensive.
This is really important and crucial, new media is not picking up after mainstream media like its suppose to apparently. Something we should all think about.

Feb. 4

In "Serendipity" the author points out a theme we read about last week, the overwhelming amount of news readers have to choose from online. Ethan makes an interesting connection between the "birds of a feather..." concept and how people consume media. It is true that readers will take a cue from their peers; read stories e-mailed to them, vote on stories and develop their own communities online. I also agree with that losing the "serendipity" of stumbling across a story I would not normally read would be tragic to news. It is our job, as journalists, to expose readers to stories, issues that they might not have been interested in. In my group, I would suggest we utilize some of these network sharing tools, such as e-mailing stories and voting on contests to engage readers and allow the "birds of a feather to stick together," but I would also caution against a completely user-generated Web site.
In "Passion Replaces the Dullness..." I have to say that I grew nervous over a professor who was thrilled his students' main chosen source for news was "The Daily Show." I've always cowered in the corner when these mainstream-media mudslinging discussions come up. I'm afraid to admit that I'm not completely sold on this idea of a world informed only by bloggers and independent, biased media outlets. But reading further I found that I did agree with his argument that there needs to be more passion in the newsroom, in journalists in general.
"Accepting the challenge," starts off with the same old story I've read a thousand times -- you know how to use that crazy-flying machine, the Internet! You'll be saved, we'll all be saved! Ok. But later in the article he offers some good advice for our group's idea, "content and community." This is basically, I think, what we have decided to create by doing a hyper-local site. But adding Twitter, as suggested, might not be a bad idea.
In "Journalism and Citzenship..." there were some interesting and concrete numbers concerning our generation and our relationship to news. It's sad to think only 20 percent of us read a newspaper everyday, and I have to admit there are days when I am not a member of that percentage myself. Developing a news habit is crucial, and I must admit that my love of the Washington Post came from Scully's insistence that we read it while studying in Washington. But I wonder, how can news organizations make their readers read? Is it up to schools and colleges to pick up where journalists are failing? Scary thought... In the end I agree that we, as journalists, need to push forward and return to the days when ratings and circulation didn't matter as much as telling the stories. That's the only way we can gain readers trust back.