Monday, June 13, 2011

Journalists: To Tweet or Not to Tweet?


Twitter is changing the media landscape and has changed the way journalists are doing their jobs.  I made my Twitter account over a year ago, unwillingly.  I heard about the site and was told journalists were using it more and more.  As an aspiring journalist I figured I should see what it was all about.  At first I wasn’t sure how to use it.  I attended a social media workshop at a Society of Professional Journalists conference in NYC, taught by Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at Columbia’s Journalism School. 

He talked about the proper way to use Twitter and gave some guidelines.  I took points away that I thought were important; such as only one in every five tweets should be about you and reach out to other users (retweet and mention). 

After I had a better understanding of the site, I became addicted to the real-time news updates.  While having my account, I have seen many others who have used the site well, and others who do not.
Journalists rarely make their tweets private, and sometimes what they tweet can cause controversy. In February 2011 it was reported that CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the Egyptian uprising.  Nir Rosen, a journalist who held a position at New York University, tweeted negatively about the incident.

Rosen tweeted Logan was trying to outdo CNN’s Anderson Cooper who was punched in the face during the uprising.  He also tweeted, “i apologize for being insensitive, its always wrong, that’s obvious, but i’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.”  Rosen resigned from his position and his comments were condoned by NYU.  He apologized on Cooper’s show saying, “I was a jerk and I was being thoughtless.”  Watch reporters discuss the controversy here.

Journalists should also make sure their tweets are accurate as well as timely.  For example, during the media frenzy that occurred when the news broke about Osama bin Laden’s death; MSNBC reporter Norah O'Donnell tweeted "Obama shot and killed," citing her source as Jim Miklaszewski, NBC Chief Pentagon Correspondent.  Spell check and auto correct can make changes automatically, which can be overlooked.  Double checking one’s tweet only takes an extra minute, and can make a world of difference; especially today  when instant news is in high demand.


Fact checking is also an important step.  Journalists regularly fact check for stories, and they should follow this practice for sources they find on social media.  For example, during the recent tsunami in Japan, CNN brought a viewer on air via telephone that had been supposedly tweeting real time updates from Japan.  It turned out the viewer had been watching news coverage, and was not actually in Japan.  The phone call was terminated, but the situation could have been avoided if the source had been checked in advance.  While citizen journalists can be a resourceful and useful tool, news agencies utilizing them should precede carefully.

Despite the controversies, Twitter is a resourceful tool for journalists.  They can spread accurate information by sending out tweets that other users retweet on their own accounts, make contacts, send out their stories, follow real-time breaking news updates, find first person accounts for stories, etc.  Some news organizations are already doing this. The Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief.  The Huffington Post itself has over one million followers, and Arianna has over 600 thousand.  She tweets pictures, retweets other accounts, promotes Huffington Post articles, mentions followers, etc; making her account interesting for her followers.

How are journalists using Twitter effectively? Ineffectively? If you're a journalist, what tips do you have for using the platform?

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Bin Laden and Breaking News

CNN reports Osama bin Laden is dead. #history
Photo by: Frank Gruber
Late evening on May 1, 2011, the news broke around the world that Osama bin Laden died.  This is being called a significant moment in American history, and even the history of the world.  The media coverage of the event has been overwhelming via every medium; television, phone calls, social media, news sites, etc.  There are real time updates of everything about the situation including breaking news tweets, status updates, blog posts, timelines, articles, extended coverage, and more.

The coverage of breaking news events has changed significantly with the progress of the Internet.  Before the Internet, social media sites, and smart phones; one found out about news via word of mouth and the next days paper.  Now there is real time updates of every type of breaking news.  For example, President Obama addressed the nation around 11:30 p.m.  His speech was broadcast on every major or news network in addition to being streamed live online.  The coverage is fueled by demand of the public, consumers want their news as fast as possible.  Check out this story from Poynter about the spread of the news via Twitter.
Really , Fox , really
Photo by: Kennedy Parmar

In leiu of this demand for instant news however, media sources need to be careful in what they report and the accuracy of these reports.  For example, an MSNBC reporter tweeted "Obama shot and killed," saying her source was Jim Miklaszewski, NBC Chief Pentagon Correspondent.  A local Fox station labeled their report, "Obama Bin Laden Dead."  On national Fox news, Osama's name was spelled "Usama."  To keep the trust of the public, the credibility of the news sources, as well as the journalists themselves; checking sources and spell checking still needs to be a top priority even when releasing news quickly.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The New York Times: Print vs. Digital

One of the main concerns that many consumers have about the journalism industry is that print journalism is on the way out.  Newspapers and magazines are a thing of the past, everything is going digital.  The New York Times, which is a constant in the print journalism world, recently erected a paywall for their website.  The Times recently released they have 100,000 new subscribers since they installed this new policy, which brings in an estimated $26 million in revenue.  Evercore Partners analyst Doug Arthur said about the new subscribers, "It's an excellent figure...I (was) only looking for 200,000 subscribers in year one."  An estimated $13 million is being spent to promote the new online subscriptions.
Old News at Postmasters, March 2009
Photo credit: mandiberg
The downside of the policy is that there has been a 15 percent drop in the overall traffic of the site because of the article limitations, which was expected. The new subscribers are coming at a good time for The Times, their print advertising revenue is on the decline.  Their revenue declined 4.4 percent on a 7.5 percent drop in print ad revenue, even though their digital ad revenue rose 4.5 percent during the first quarter. Their net income fell 57.6 percent to 5.4 million (4 cents per share) from 12.8 million (8 cents per share) a year ago.

Other newspapers have also reported disappointing quarter results such as Gannett and Media General.  Other newspapers who have had success with charging for online access have been few, such as the News Corp's Wall Street Journal and Pearson Plc's Financial Times.

In this constant digital evolution, will there be room for print papers, even The New York Times?  Some have a more positive outlook than others.  The Onion, trying to find humor in the decline, released an article, "Why Did No One Inform Us Of the Imminent Death of the American Newspaper Industry?"  You can read it here.

What do you think?  Do you think the imminent death of the newspaper industry is inevitable or do you think consumers will never get enough of their print newspapers?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Journalists Utilize Facebook

Social media has become an essential tool for journalists.  From sources to breaking news to interacting with the audience; sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become integral in journalists' everyday routine.  Top executives from Facebook have said they are looking to "strengthen its relationship with the news media and has already helped boost traffic to to news websites," according to the Huffington Post.

News sites and blogs have been using the Facebook "like" button as well as the recommend option more and more.  This leads to sharing between social  media friends and online connections.  This helps connections between these users.  Chief Operating Officer of Facebook Sheryl Sandberg said their site can help boost traffic as well as revenue, in addition to the advantage of real time.

Facebook also recently made pages for journalists who can connect with other journalists so they can take advantage of pages such as Journalists on Facebook and Facebook + Media.  This is meant to help journalists use social media as a tool for their reporting and sources.  Journalists will even be able to take classes to learn how to utilize this tool.

facebook logo
Photo credit: AJ Cann

Monday, April 11, 2011

Bias in the Media

     Bias is always a subject at the forefront of journalist's minds.  One of the number one rules in ethics of journalism is to remain unbiased.  Ethical journalists are always striving to show both sides of the story and use only facts, not assumptions.
     For example, the Society of Professional Journalists have a Code of Ethics.  This code of ethics promotes the idea that "public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.  The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues...Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."
     For example, some of the responsibilities in the Code of Ethics include, "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error, deliberate distortion is never permissible, support the open exchange of views, even views they found repugnant," and many others.

Below, Saturday Night Live recently poked fun at Fox News.


Fox News has the slogan "fair and balanced."  However, this may not be as true as people think.  According to a study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, it shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than those who consume their news from other sources.  For example, out of the following statements below, Fox News was in the first percentile of misinformed viewers.
  • 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
  • 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
  • 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
  • 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
  • 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
  • 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
  • 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
  • 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
  • 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
Even though Fox was in the first percentile, the study also stated CNN, MSNBC, and other broadcast networks also have a way to go before they can claim complete unbias.  You can see the full study here.

NPR Sign
Photo credit: Mr. T in DC
National Public Radio (NPR) has also been in the news recently concerning bias.  Former CEO Vivian Schiller resigned after videos surfaced of her and NPR's senior vice president Ron Schiller making comments about the Tea Party.  Schiller called the Tea Party "fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental[ly] Christian - I wouldn't even call it Christian...basically they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting - it's pretty scary.  They're seriously racist, racist people."  Both executives resigned.  It turned out the video (which you can check out here) was purposely edited by James O'Keefe, a conservative activist, who set up the meeting and secret video cameras.  Even though the video was edited did leave out other parts of the conversation, the House of Representatives did vote to take away NPR federal funding.  NPR is also seen by many as being liberally bias.

Today, many Americans feel as if it is difficult to find unbiased news.  According to the Boston Phoenix, in a Gallup poll last September, a majority of Americans, 57 percent, have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly."  In addition, with the plethora of news sources available, it can also be tough to know reporting from opinion.  This is why Americans look to national news sources for all the facts and information.  These sources need to be able to give this to America, and work on earning back their trust as well as remaining unbiased.

TV Shows We Used To Watch - 1955 Television advertising
Photo credit: Paul Townsead

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

New York Times Paywall: Success or Bust?

The New York Times recently installed a subscription system on their website.  After a user exhausts his or her 20 free articles each month, they are asked to buy a subscription (see previous post for more details).  As soon as 24-hours after the paywall was erected, users found ways to get around the it.
New York Times
Photo Credit: Ciccio Pizzettaro
  • A user in Canada named David Hayes created an applications, "NYClean."  It works by dragging the NYClean bookmark to the toolbar of your browser.  Anytime you are on the Times website and are blocked, click it.  You will be able to read the article as you were before the paywall was put into place.
  • The paywall does not work on Twitter and other social media sites.  If you click on an link that was posted to an account, it does not count against your 20 free articles. There are feeds such as @timeswiretap and @freeNYTimes that constantly tweet recent articles as they are posted.
  • Mashable reported two of their readers Dmitry Beniaminov and Yuri Victor discovered that if readers remove "?gwh=numbers" from the URL, this will let readers continue reading.  They also discovered if readers clear their browser caches or switch browsers once they hit 20 articles, this will also solve the problem.
  • According to Newspaper Death Watch, the Times prevents readers from reading more than 20 articles a month with a Javascript overlay.  This means the article is visible in the background with the pop-up asking the reader to subscribe in front of it.  Many browsers block Javascript by default, and the NYTClean also takes care of the HTML which overrides the Javascript.
Wall
Photo Credit: zebble
There are many different views about the paywall.  The Times is supporting their plan, confident in their prices and the idea.  Times writer David Carr wrote, "People, real actual people, went and reported that information, some of it at personal peril and certainly at giganitc institutional expense.  So the Times is turning toward its customers to bear some of the cost.  The Times is hardly alone: AFP, Reuters, The Associated Press, Dow Jones, the BBC and NPR are all part of a muscular journalistic ecosystem."  He admits his bias since he does write for the Times, but he writes in support of the cost and his company.

There are also other professionals who agree with the Times.  Larry Kramer wrote why he will pay the subscription fee, "I want my NY Times information frequently and easily and I will do what it takes, including paying for it, to make sure I get full access to everything produced by the 1100 journalists who work there...In the case of the Times, the content has already prove its value to me over the many years I have consumed it, in print and on line.  I know I want it and I know I need it.  I may have loved getting it for free online over the years, but I also know how good it is and that it has value to me."

However, not everyone is as positive as Carr and Kramer.  Steve Outing, a blogger, said he was disappointed in the paywall and he believes it is a bad move.  "I hope someone from the NY Times management will respond to my criticims.  If they do, I expect that the justification for this announced pricing model will be they can't do harm to the newspaper product.  I guess that's the way it is.  But in my view, this over-priced metered-paywall mistaken strategy puts the "Gray Lady" a step closer to the grave rather than getting a chance at a new life."  The Onion, a parody news source, also got their word in on the subject with an article titled, "NYTimes.com's Plan to Charge People Money For Consuming Goods, Services Called Bold Business Move."

I can see the pros and cons of the subscription service.  We will need to wait and see if readers use the methods to get around the fees or if they are willing to pay for a news source they enjoy reading.

Do you think the subscription will work out for the Times, or do you think it will negatively affect their business?
Money tunnel
Photo Credit: RambergMediaImages

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The New York Times Paywall Subscription

On March 17, The New York Times announced their new system involving digital subscriptions. In the letter to readers, it states the transition is "...an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform."  You can read the entire official announcement here.

The company announced that starting March 28, digital subscriptions would start being offered in the United States.  The plan consists of viewing 20 articles per month for free but if you view more than 20 articles you will be asked to become a subscriber.  Phone apps fall under this category asp well.  There is currently a special happening with all variations of the subscriptions, where each costs 99 cents per plan for the first four weeks.
The digital subscriptions consist of the following:

  • NYTimes.com + Smartphone App = Access from any computer or device plus an app for Blackberry, iPhone or Android smartphones. 
    •  Cost: $3.75 per week, billed every 4 weeks ($15.00)
  • NYTimes.com + Tablet App = Access from any computer or device plus an app for iPod.  Plus Times Reader 2.0 and NYTimes App for Chrome Web Store.
    • Cost: $5.00 per week, billed every 4 weeks ($20.00)
  • All Digital Access = Access from any computer or device, plus Smartphone App and Tablet App.  This is also free for all print subscribers and home delivery subscribers.  
    • Cost: $8.75 per week, billed every 4 weeks ($35.00)

This model took 14 months and 40 million dollars to develop.  All other questions are answer in their  FAQ section about the subscriptions.

Will this new payment system work?  Will other companies follow suit?  In my opinion, I do think there needs to be a business model developed for journalism online.  Television and radio forms of journalism have business methods and I do not think online journalism should be different.  Is this the right model?  Is this the right model?  Should other sites implement similar models?  This is to be determined.  In the upcoming months we will have to gauge the success of the new subscription, and see whether it is detrimental to The New York Times's business or beneficial.

Below is a video from Newsy Videos debating if this new plan will work or not.



Do you think The New York Times paywall will be effective?  Will they lose business?  Or will they be successful and set the business model?