Digital Journalism: the highs and lows.
The thing I like most about digital journalism is opening up the dialogue between the reporter and the reader. It’s ironic that in the journalism field, the one thing that had been missing was communication. The end of print journalism as we know it has changed a lot of things. Yes, newspapers have folded. Yes, people have been laid off. Yes, organizations have cut back. They have been stretched thin, and yes, reporters have been asked to do too much.
But in the midst of the turmoil, reporters and organizations had to begin to rely on each other. News organizations have begun to aggregate information. And for better and sometimes for worse, media outlets are paying more attention to what their audience wants. The reason why this is so important is because it makes the reader personally invested in their news. If they feel that they are being heard, they are more likely to listen.
There is a downside, of course. There is a fine line between writing about what the audience wants to read and selling out. We want people to read our work and we want to make money, so the best way to do that is to have people interested in what we are writing. At the same time it does not mean that the reporters should stop covering important events and spend all their time with celebrity gossip, scandals, etc.
I think that the most encouraging aspect of online journalism is that it is still evolving, and there does not seem to be an endpoint in sign. The web, unlike print news, can be altered, adjusted, linked to the other news, updated, and enhanced. Even more encouraging is that there are so many opportunities to experiment and try new things. This gives me comfort for my future career in journalism, something that I once thought of with a twinge of fear. I’m comforted most by websites like the Voice of San Diego and MinnPost, where local news is given a new twist and contains a relevance that it previously lacked. When I used to think of local news, I thought of dying papers and obituaries. But by making news more user-friendly and reader-conscious, these news sites are able to provide local audiences with information that is relevant to them in a format that is aesthetically appealing.
Web design and interactivity of VOSD
The Voice of San Diego creates a lot of avenues to make a local news more accessible and interactive for its users. They give the viewer easy access to reporters' blog sites, Facebook and Twitter pages, and continually as for feedback from their readers. The site is specifically targeted to a specific region, which further emphasizes their need for local involvement. But while they have created all these outlets for the reader to become more involved, they seem to fall flat when it comes to real, in-depth dialogue. As discussed in one of my earliest posts, the VOSD gets a lot of response from its readers, however, they do little with it. This can be seen in their coverage of the Baja California 7.2 magnitude earthquake. On Sunday, April 4th, the site created a new post, "The Web's Best Quake Coverage." The page was a conglomerate of news coverage of the earthquake from different media outlets. While some of the coverage was linked to major news sources, others linked to footage taken by -- for lack of a better phrase -- "citizen journalists." Also known as, normal, everyday people.
At the very top of the post was a link to an email address where readers could submit photos or videos. This creates a great way for a news outlet and its readers to interact. The audience feels like part of the process and in turn, the VOSD gets some free publicity and some free, first-hand reporting.
However, the page only has one comment, which make leads me to believe that readers may not feel so included by the VOSD's effort. But if you go to their Facebook page - the response is much greater. This may have less to do with the Voice of San Diego and more do to with how the audience chooses to interact on the web.
VOSD’s web design
If there is one thing the Voice of San Diego is good at - it is simplicity. The site is straight and to the point. Black font on a white background, with a splash of orange and navy blue headlines. The site looks clean, simple, and modern -- without looking under-developed or amateur.
But the VOSD makes one or two fairly serious web design errors that could potentially drive some readers to different websites. Firstly, where is the most important news? The home page does not seem to be sectioned off in any obvious pattern. Rather, it is just a mish-mash of different stories labeled with catchy sayings like "Nerds Eye View" or "In Case You Missed It." (And the headlines don't give the audience any more clues about the story-lines, which I discussed in this previous post.) I'm unsure of the criteria that the VOSD uses for their homepage picks, the most updated posts dates range from today (April 11th) to as far back as April 5th.
The homepage also has a fairly length scroll-bar, something that Smashing Magazine warns against in their article "10 Principles Of Effective Web Design." And while I never really thought about it before, pages that go on forever are actually really annoying. I have a short attention span, along with the rest of America.
Something that really redeems the sight for me is the toolbar at the top of the page, which allows the viewer to easily and quickly identify what topic they would like to read about. And then it gets even more specific. For instance, if you were to run your mouse over "quality of life," (an novel topic for a news outlet to begin with) you are given the a multitude of choices.
Even better, above the black toolbar is a list options that allow the viewer to take advantage of more of the VOSD's services. These options include short links to register and log in to their sight, sign up for email updates, view their Twitter and Facebook pages, and their RSS feed. Registering for the morning report is simple, and consists of only one page and an email notification. While the site does a good job of keeping complicated registration obstacles from deterring viewers, the links could probably be a little more visible, as to encourage followers of the site to become more interactive. I like that VOSD has all the tools to for navigate their site, still, they could provide a little more direction.
Photos from a roadside memorial
These photos are of a makeshift memorial after 13-year-old Robert Mitchell was killed by a LANTA bus while riding his bike in Easton, Pennsylvania earlier this week. The photographs were taken on Friday, March 19th on Northampton Road.
I chose this photo because I thought it showed a lot of detail. It follows the rules of threes because it is broken up vertically into three sections. The focal point is the far right side of the photo, where the makeshift memorial is. There is also a lot of contrast in this photo and bright colors.
I took this photo because there were a group of people congregated on the other side of the street, opposite from the memorial, pictured above. This photo also follows the rules of thirds. The viewer is drawn to the first third of the photo, where the two women are standing on the porch.
This photo is a good example of perspective. Not only is the focus on the right side of the photograph, as opposed to the middle, but on the opposite side of the street is another, smaller memorial. While the majority of the photo is gray and dull colors, the memorials are very colorful.
Again, this photograph was chosen due to perspective. I attempted to make the objects appear larger than they really were by holding the camera on the ground. The focus is on the angel, which is slightly off-center to the right.
This image was taken in a similar method. There is a lot of color contrast, and the focus is on the candle and the note, on the right side of the photograph.
Voiceofsandiego.org – where are your videos?
At first I thought it was me. I couldn't find the videos. I could only find NBC's videos. I thought I was doing something wrong, so I kept looking, but to no avail. I think it's safe to say that the Voice Of San Diego could use some original multimedia on their site.
I can't really figure it out. I want to say that it has to do with a lack of reporters, but I don't think that's the reason. It doesn't take much more effort to send a reporter out with their digital reporter, which I'm sure they do anyway, and have them shoot some video. I'm sure its not that they don't know how to shoot video - I'll give them more credit than that. So I'm going to do something that goes against every journalistic bone in my body and assume (yes, ass= you +me, I know) that the VOSD is not very confident in their video-making skills, or they don't care. I don't know which one is worse.
While the Voice of San Diego does have news reports videos on their site, they're all by NBC San Diego. It's a little bit of a cop-out, but I would guess that most of their audience really doesn't see a difference. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But it was all the way back in 2007 that Scott Lewis posted the VOSD's first in-house produced video. Unfortunately, all I see is a turquoise box. Not many other videos, if any, have been created by the news site since. So in my eyes, yeah, I think it's kind of broken. Maybe there isn't a quick fix though, and by using "partner" NBC, it relieves some of the financial burden. Definitely not a bad idea, in my opinion, as long as they are also creating original vids, too.
Although, I will say I like their San Diego Fact Check idea, which runs on NBC 7 and 39 every Friday's 6 pm news. For "Fact Check TV: Drugs, Firefighters, and UCSD's Enrollment," VOSD began their broadcast by saying, "we've spent a lot of time weeding out the misleading the untruthful and the propaganda." Scott Lewis and Andrew Donohue spent time looking over statements that people had made in the news and determining its validity based on the accuracy of the facts. This is a novel concept. The three-minute video is concise, entertaining, and most importantly, informative. Plus, by joining forces with NBC, it gives the VOSD a platform to gain viewers.
Voiceofsandiego.org does Twitter better
While I criticized the voiceofsandiego.org for not utilizing Facebook, I have to commend them on their use of Twitter, where VOSD reporters do a much better job of communicating with their audience. Instead of just plugging stories, they hold a dialog with followers. Education reporter Emily Alpert does a great job of discussing education issues via Twitter. Unlike some reporters who Twitter to promote their writing, Alpert Twitters to find things to write about. She posts questions, comments, thoughts, and routinely asks for feedback from her audience. For example, Alpert asks the Twittersphere what she should ask to an interviewee:
emilyschoolsyou: I'm doing a Q & A with a high school English teacher who teaches about race, culture and sensitive issues of identity. What should I ask?
Alpert also shows interest in her followers experiences:
emilyschoolsyou: Just learned some fascinating stuff about students who return to Mexico from the US and the unique challenges they face. Share your stories!
emilyschoolsyou: Who's the most interesting San Diegan we haven't talked to? Send me your suggestions for a weekend Q & A.
emilyschoolsyou: Started reading "Game Change" about the 2008 election. CANNOT STOP. Makes me want to find all the intrigue in the school board race ...emilyschoolsyou: The school board endorsement parade goes on: Just heard that the school police union endorsed Kevin Beiser, who is challenging Nakamura.
Alpert also is not afraid to voice her own opinions on Twitter.
emilyschoolsyou: Can't believe I just heard someone call in to KPBS and invoke the "model minority" stereotype for Asian students. Yuck.
By allowing her opinions to shine through, it makes her a more trustworthy source. Her audience knows where she stands, and is allowed to become a part of the conversation and thus, a part of the news process.
Oops….
So in order to keep these posts as accurate and honest as possible, I have to confess -- I made a mistake. It has come to my attention that I inaccurately criticized VOSD for refusing an invite to Tiger Woods' press conference. Turns out -- they never actually got that invite.
Scott Lewis, CEO of VoiceofSanDiego.org filled me in:
Hi Emily, good points. But just so you know, every morning, for the Facebook and Twitter link to the daily “Morning Report” we make up a little joke. We didn’t really get invited to Tiger’s press conference. It was just a joke (apparently not that funny).
Alas, we don’t have the money to travel to such faraway press conferences with shamed athletes and our donors and supporters would probably recoil at spending it on that if we did.
So I just wanted to clarify - voiceofsandiego.org never got invited to that press conference. In my defense, I wasn't the only one who took that post at face[book] value, but this isn't the first time sarcastic comments zipped by right over my head. I'm sure it won't be the last.
The Voice of San Diego’s commitment to local news leaves little room for new followers
The Voice of San Diego commits itself to local news. And if you weren't aware of it before, just check out their Facebook page - where they pat themselves on the back for denying an exclusive invitation to Tiger Woods press conference.
voiceofsandiego.org The Morning Report was one of the media invited to Tiger Woods' exclusive meeting today, but declined. Local news only. http://bit.ly/a7H0wW
Local News Only. While I find this an impressive gesture, I wonder if others feel the same way: only three individuals "liked" this status, and only one commented on it. Don't get me wrong, other posts are similarly ignored. Not one recent post received more than five comments. While I commend the Voice of San Diego for sticking to their values and not selling out - it's still important that their selling something. And in this case - that something should be their stories. If they played their cards right, they could have tweeted or facebooked at that interview. They could have created hashtags for the story they wrote after. And when people who were not avid readers or even occasionally glancers (yes I made up that word) searched for "Tiger Woods," they could have hit the Voice's site.
I'm not saying that the Voice should start writing about Jon Gosselin and Chloe Kardashian's shotgun wedding, but if they want to gain exposure, they should be writing about what people want to read. And to be honest, the fact that Woods finally opened his mouth only to give his fans the most rehearsed and vague "apology" ever uttered, IS pretty newsworthy.
Regardless, I commend the Voice of San Diego for sticking up for what they choose to write about. But if they want to attract a local following, they better start working on their home-town feel. They rarely ever respond to their audiences comments. When they do, it isn't to engage in discussion or answer questions, but as a compulsory "hey thanks for the comments" response. Lame.
How twitter is saving journalism, one retweet at a time.
For the past two years, I have seen journalists bash the internet, public ignorance, and the likes of TMZ for the demise of traditional journalism. "People don't care about the news, they care about Britney Spears." "People don't check news sites, they check Facebook." 'The American public does not care about current events, they care about public scandals" (see Tiger Woods). The notion of a dying field is scary for someone who has devoted thousands of dollars, many all-nighters, and a whole lot of coffee to the idea that a journalism degree will provide a paycheck and hopefully some expensive shoes.
I don't think I've walked into one journalism class in college that didn't start out with the annual "where is journalism going and what does this mean for you and your future carreer" discussion. This question is followed by the traditional debate over the fate of newspapers, if people even read newspapers anymore, and the ultimate doomsday question: has the internet killed journalism?
At the end of this ritual, the instructor always ends with an attempt at words of encouragement. "Journalism isn't dying, it's just evolvvvvvinggg, please-don't-drop-this-class."
At the end of every single first day of every single journalism class, I think, "Shit. I have got to find a new major."
This fear of unemployment has periodically consumed me for some time. But after a skype session with John Cutter during my online journalism class at the University of Maryland, I had an epiphany.
Journalism really isn't dying! It really IS changing!
Peopele aren't sick of news! PEOPLE ARE SICK OF JOURNALISTS. And I don't mean for the inevitable stereotypical nosiness and obnoxiousness that is attributed to reporters, but the actual reporters themselves. People are sick of the silent curtain, the idea that journalists don't interact with the real world, but just observe it. People don't want to just read about the news that we tell them is important, they want to be apart of the process.
This epiphany came to me when Cutter began talking about Twitter. Twitter, according to Cutter, is used to create a dialog with the audience. While it's a great marketing tool to promote stories, its even more important to interact with people. Not only does it show readers that yes, journalists are real people and not robots equipped with a microphone and keyboard, but it shows the public that reporters are interested in what they are telling us, not just what we are telling them. And its beneficial, it lets reporters know what we should be focusing on, and it gives a better relationship with our audience.
I think that people turned to the internet for their news because they wanted an outlet where they could create a dialog, not because they were sick of buying a 50 cent newspaper. Granted, I'm not intentionally overlooking the technological advances that have created a lesser demand for print. But instead of focusing on how to save newspapers, we should focus on saving our audience. And our audience is trying to send us a message. So maybe we should tweet them back.