Blogging, as I'm learning, isn't just about writing down my opinion for all the world to see and then walking away. It's about experimenting, blurring the lines between professional and amateur news, and using mixed media to present a message. Keeping all this in mind, I've recorded an audio clip modeled after the NPR segment "This I Believe" to prove that even reporters who are used to stepping back and remaining anonymous can stick their necks out--21st-century style.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
How Local is Too Local?
I'm pretty sure that, of all the news in my home county newspaper, about .00001 percent of it mentions the street on which I grew up. I'm not terribly disturbed that more news about my street isn't regularly published, not only because hardly anything newsworthy happens on my street and also because there are thousands more streets competing for attention in the rest of the county.
But seriously, how cool would it be to know why that ambulance roared by my bedroom window at 2 a.m. the other day?
A while ago, it occurred to Adrian Holovaty that people of the 21st century crave information they don't have, probably because so much of it is at our fingertips that we're intrigued when it is not. He created EveryBlock, where residents of 11 densely populated cities across the U.S. can check out the latest news, police blotters, photos and more from their own backyards. While each city has a main portal site where news from all over converges, locals can use filters to only display an area, neighborhood or even street of interest.
Some newspapers have observed this trend of megalocal news coverage from both locals and professionals like Holovaty with interest, wondering how they can incorporate the really local into their own general news. They know they need to pull readers in, especially in the face of plummeting revenue, and what better way than to talk about what's going on at the neighbors'? But newspapers probably won't gain anything focusing on superlocal coverage, at least not without losing other vital parts of the paper.
Some non-newspaper websites that have tackled local-local news, as it is sometimes called, by going straight to the source: the locals themselves. These websites serve as portals for discussions on street- and neighborhood-specific issues between its residents and is not necessarily newsworthy. (Every neighborhood has its stereotypical old grouch who always finds something to complain about, hot-button issue or not.) However, some of the issues brought up on these sites can't be gleaned from town hall meetings, police briefings or other public events reporters have access to--thus, these sites should clearly be on a reporter's radar.
The question that remains, then, is how a reporter who finds pertinent, newsworthy local information on such websites should use it. The best way is to use these online discussion panels as a starting point for a larger story, perhaps even one that connects with a national issue. (For example, my hometown paper has of late focused on the locals' angry reception of the downtured California State Prop 8.) Seeing these discussions at least gives a reporter an idea of the general public feeling and can show the reporter how a story might go based on personal and phone interviews with similar locals.
I've given references to my very localized hometown newspaper, one that gets all its international news from wire services, one whose reporters cover nothing but news that occurs inside Santa Cruz County lines. So what of huge papers with bureaus all over the U.S. and the world, like the New York Times? Can they benefit from websites like EveryBlock? Only to a very small degree, I think. Since their readership expects thorough coverage not only from within the city but throughout the entire country and world, their Bronx beat reporter should make efforts at crowd-sourcing through sites like these. The guy stationed in Tel Aviv needn't bother.
But seriously, how cool would it be to know why that ambulance roared by my bedroom window at 2 a.m. the other day?
A while ago, it occurred to Adrian Holovaty that people of the 21st century crave information they don't have, probably because so much of it is at our fingertips that we're intrigued when it is not. He created EveryBlock, where residents of 11 densely populated cities across the U.S. can check out the latest news, police blotters, photos and more from their own backyards. While each city has a main portal site where news from all over converges, locals can use filters to only display an area, neighborhood or even street of interest.
Some newspapers have observed this trend of megalocal news coverage from both locals and professionals like Holovaty with interest, wondering how they can incorporate the really local into their own general news. They know they need to pull readers in, especially in the face of plummeting revenue, and what better way than to talk about what's going on at the neighbors'? But newspapers probably won't gain anything focusing on superlocal coverage, at least not without losing other vital parts of the paper.
Some non-newspaper websites that have tackled local-local news, as it is sometimes called, by going straight to the source: the locals themselves. These websites serve as portals for discussions on street- and neighborhood-specific issues between its residents and is not necessarily newsworthy. (Every neighborhood has its stereotypical old grouch who always finds something to complain about, hot-button issue or not.) However, some of the issues brought up on these sites can't be gleaned from town hall meetings, police briefings or other public events reporters have access to--thus, these sites should clearly be on a reporter's radar.
The question that remains, then, is how a reporter who finds pertinent, newsworthy local information on such websites should use it. The best way is to use these online discussion panels as a starting point for a larger story, perhaps even one that connects with a national issue. (For example, my hometown paper has of late focused on the locals' angry reception of the downtured California State Prop 8.) Seeing these discussions at least gives a reporter an idea of the general public feeling and can show the reporter how a story might go based on personal and phone interviews with similar locals.
I've given references to my very localized hometown newspaper, one that gets all its international news from wire services, one whose reporters cover nothing but news that occurs inside Santa Cruz County lines. So what of huge papers with bureaus all over the U.S. and the world, like the New York Times? Can they benefit from websites like EveryBlock? Only to a very small degree, I think. Since their readership expects thorough coverage not only from within the city but throughout the entire country and world, their Bronx beat reporter should make efforts at crowd-sourcing through sites like these. The guy stationed in Tel Aviv needn't bother.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Stuffy News Sources Step it Up with Video
In 2004, the video was as much of a novelty as was the blog--in terms of covering the election.
But traditional news was already losing its grip on public interest and advertising revenue four years ago, and newspapers in particular knew they had to change the way they presented the facts to the public--but how? It should have been an easy answer--after all, it wasn't as if the video camera was a brand-new invention at the turn of the 21st century--but the video didn't burst onto the news scene in one day. It's slowly crept from novelty and experiment in 2004 into what we now view as the norm on any newspaper's web site. No matter what newspaper it is, if it has any credibility at all, some video will be featured above the fold--er, at the top of the screen.
The New York Times, though its dusty old-guard reputation precedes it, picked up on the video craze fairly early and has now officially gone video crazy. With every hour, it isn't just the headline story that changes on www.nytimes.com, it's also the featured video! The New York Times now has a membership on YouTube and has in just one year posted more than 700 videos to its profile. Here's one of the latest videos, dealing with the topic that hasn't yet escaped the forefront of Americans' minds: the 2008 election.
Just viewing this one-and-a-half-minute clip shows why the New York Times has so violently embraced the video as a source for news: it tells the story of a revolution in The Bronx better than text and any amount of photos could.
But traditional news was already losing its grip on public interest and advertising revenue four years ago, and newspapers in particular knew they had to change the way they presented the facts to the public--but how? It should have been an easy answer--after all, it wasn't as if the video camera was a brand-new invention at the turn of the 21st century--but the video didn't burst onto the news scene in one day. It's slowly crept from novelty and experiment in 2004 into what we now view as the norm on any newspaper's web site. No matter what newspaper it is, if it has any credibility at all, some video will be featured above the fold--er, at the top of the screen.
The New York Times, though its dusty old-guard reputation precedes it, picked up on the video craze fairly early and has now officially gone video crazy. With every hour, it isn't just the headline story that changes on www.nytimes.com, it's also the featured video! The New York Times now has a membership on YouTube and has in just one year posted more than 700 videos to its profile. Here's one of the latest videos, dealing with the topic that hasn't yet escaped the forefront of Americans' minds: the 2008 election.
Just viewing this one-and-a-half-minute clip shows why the New York Times has so violently embraced the video as a source for news: it tells the story of a revolution in The Bronx better than text and any amount of photos could.
An Epic American Night...In Italy
It's now 2:30 p.m. in what will probably pass as one of the most important political days in my young adult life, but there's a good chance I won't remember a minute of it.
Last night, I stayed up without sleeping until 6:30 a.m. (9 p.m. on the West Coast) to watch all the states' returns come in and to see what everyone already knew was coming--Barack Obama's acceptance speech. I'll remember the excitement I felt every time a new state flashed on the MSNBC virtual map, leading us closer to a conclusion to the stat-packed night, and I'll remember watching the interesting patterns developing in the form of blue and red clumps in the counties of battleground states. And I'll most certainly remember the first address of the first black president, one delivered with such determined fervor that I could tell Obama knew the serious trouble he was getting himself into and knew he could conquer it all.
But my memory will probably go fuzzy after the time that I fell into bed at 6:30, especially considering that I had to wake up a mere three hours later. All the more reason, then, to document my findings from newspapers from all over the world in this blog.
I looked up the online translated version of Il Messaggero, the most widely read newspaper in Rome, and my beliefs were instantly confirmed: that most of Italy was overjoyed by Obama's victory. The paper proclaimed Obama won "by an avalanche of votes"; a reader in support of the outcome wrote in a comment "long live REAL democracy." European leaders hailed the new president's election as "a turning point" that made the year a very strong one for democracy in the U.S. and the world (EU president Jose Barroso), a "wonderful example of democracy given from the United States to the world" (Nicolas Sarkozy), and a testament to new "progressive values and a vision for the future" (Britain's PM Gordon Brown). Even Russia welcomed Obama with open arms, assuring him a "full partership of trust."
It's a shame I couldn't have been right in the middle of the action--say, celebrating on campus with fellow U of O students or dancing on tops of cars with other Santa Cruzans (yes, they really did do that)--but in a way, being in a foreign country for these elections has made me see the importance of the perspective of the world, not just that of the U.S., in these elections. I think the American media focus so much on Americans' reactions to the election results that they don't immediately take into account what foreign leaders--and foreign equivalents of the average joe--are saying. Thus, had I been in the U.S. while this was happening, I wouldn't have thought to read up on foreign perspective.
Thank goodness for the Internet--and thank goodness for study abroad!
Last night, I stayed up without sleeping until 6:30 a.m. (9 p.m. on the West Coast) to watch all the states' returns come in and to see what everyone already knew was coming--Barack Obama's acceptance speech. I'll remember the excitement I felt every time a new state flashed on the MSNBC virtual map, leading us closer to a conclusion to the stat-packed night, and I'll remember watching the interesting patterns developing in the form of blue and red clumps in the counties of battleground states. And I'll most certainly remember the first address of the first black president, one delivered with such determined fervor that I could tell Obama knew the serious trouble he was getting himself into and knew he could conquer it all.
But my memory will probably go fuzzy after the time that I fell into bed at 6:30, especially considering that I had to wake up a mere three hours later. All the more reason, then, to document my findings from newspapers from all over the world in this blog.
I looked up the online translated version of Il Messaggero, the most widely read newspaper in Rome, and my beliefs were instantly confirmed: that most of Italy was overjoyed by Obama's victory. The paper proclaimed Obama won "by an avalanche of votes"; a reader in support of the outcome wrote in a comment "long live REAL democracy." European leaders hailed the new president's election as "a turning point" that made the year a very strong one for democracy in the U.S. and the world (EU president Jose Barroso), a "wonderful example of democracy given from the United States to the world" (Nicolas Sarkozy), and a testament to new "progressive values and a vision for the future" (Britain's PM Gordon Brown). Even Russia welcomed Obama with open arms, assuring him a "full partership of trust."
It's a shame I couldn't have been right in the middle of the action--say, celebrating on campus with fellow U of O students or dancing on tops of cars with other Santa Cruzans (yes, they really did do that)--but in a way, being in a foreign country for these elections has made me see the importance of the perspective of the world, not just that of the U.S., in these elections. I think the American media focus so much on Americans' reactions to the election results that they don't immediately take into account what foreign leaders--and foreign equivalents of the average joe--are saying. Thus, had I been in the U.S. while this was happening, I wouldn't have thought to read up on foreign perspective.
Thank goodness for the Internet--and thank goodness for study abroad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
