Digital media producers and managers need to know HTML but don't necessarily need to know Flash. And the intangible talents and skills that journalists needed in the ancient world of newspapers, radio and television are the same in the digital world.
These are some of the inferences that can be drawn from a study by C. Max Magee of skills used and needed by digital journalists every day. You can get a PDF of the full study here.
Since online journalists spend a lot of their time repurposing material from one medium to another, copy editing skills are more important than they might be in a traditional newsroom. As might be expected, those who work at larger organizations put a bigger emphasis on editing rather than reporting and creating original material. At smaller sites unaffiliated with a major news organization, the opposite is true.
Magee based the study on responses from 438 journalists, with more than half the responses generated from members of the Online News Association.
HTML, use of content management systems and Photoshop were the three most highly rated skills.
Be sure to have a look at the color-coded charts at the end of the study which rank all 35 skills and talents measured.
There are other articles and surveys on the topic referenced in this piece published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
miércoles, 30 de abril de 2008
domingo, 27 de abril de 2008
jueves, 24 de abril de 2008
New web-based magazine starts with multimedia reporting
For newspaper journalists, integrating print, video, audio and other multimedia forms tends to start with the printed medium as a base. But Flypmedia has a model that begins with an integrated online product.
The site is in beta and will launch officially soon. Editor Juanita Leon is getting her team ready.
She says that to do something multimedia you have to think as a multimedia journalist from the beginning, trying to create a totally immersive environment in the way that videogames do.
Flyp reflects that. The user can choose where to start on any page, and there are many choices among video, audio, text and interactive graphics.
The key, she says, is learning to think in different ways about media, that it's really a conversation and the reader or viewer is in charge. It's not about journalists being the authority and in control of the presentation.
Still, the eternal verities hold for journalists, she says. They have to be good writers and reporters.
Juanita's recommended multimedia sites
Leon, who is from Colombia, has a worldwide perspective on multimedia, so her recommendations of sites to check out reflect that.
One of her favorites is semana.com in Colombia, which regularly produces impressive multimedia packages. Also a German site, magwerk.
Another of her favorites is a site by and for South Koreans called ohmynews international whose reporters are more than 50,000 citizen journalists around the world.
Flypmedia is a sister publication of Indigo Media, which reports mainly on Mexico.
The site is in beta and will launch officially soon. Editor Juanita Leon is getting her team ready. She says that to do something multimedia you have to think as a multimedia journalist from the beginning, trying to create a totally immersive environment in the way that videogames do.
Flyp reflects that. The user can choose where to start on any page, and there are many choices among video, audio, text and interactive graphics.
The key, she says, is learning to think in different ways about media, that it's really a conversation and the reader or viewer is in charge. It's not about journalists being the authority and in control of the presentation.
Still, the eternal verities hold for journalists, she says. They have to be good writers and reporters.
Juanita's recommended multimedia sites
Leon, who is from Colombia, has a worldwide perspective on multimedia, so her recommendations of sites to check out reflect that.
One of her favorites is semana.com in Colombia, which regularly produces impressive multimedia packages. Also a German site, magwerk.
Another of her favorites is a site by and for South Koreans called ohmynews international whose reporters are more than 50,000 citizen journalists around the world.
Flypmedia is a sister publication of Indigo Media, which reports mainly on Mexico.
miércoles, 9 de abril de 2008
Citizen media challenges the mainstream
As the big media companies cut staff and coverage, hyperlocal websites are springing up to fill the gap.
These sites are driven by people with passion for their communities rather than interest in profits. They are aided by technology that lets them produce and distribute their products much cheaper than traditional print and broadcast media.
Journalists who look down their noses at some of these sites do so at their own risk. The citizen media don´t practice traditional journalism, but they have attracted local audiences. These are among the findings of a study, Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News? produced by Jan Schaffer, executive director of the J-Lab in College Park, Md.
J-Lab identified hundreds of citizen media sites, surveyed 191 site operators and interviewed 31 in depth.
The key findings:
More information and resources are available at
The Knight Citizen News Network, which is an initiative of J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism, a center of the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. It is funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
These sites are driven by people with passion for their communities rather than interest in profits. They are aided by technology that lets them produce and distribute their products much cheaper than traditional print and broadcast media.
Journalists who look down their noses at some of these sites do so at their own risk. The citizen media don´t practice traditional journalism, but they have attracted local audiences. These are among the findings of a study, Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News? produced by Jan Schaffer, executive director of the J-Lab in College Park, Md.J-Lab identified hundreds of citizen media sites, surveyed 191 site operators and interviewed 31 in depth.
The key findings:
-- Citizen media is emerging as a form of bridge media, linking traditional media with forms of civic participation.
-- No one size fits all; there are many models.
-- Instead of being comprehensive sources of news, sites are forming as fusions of news and schmooze.
-- Most citizen sites don't use traditional metrics -- unique visitors, page views or revenues -- to measure their success.
-- Success is often defined as impact on their community.
-- Half of our respondents said their sites don't need to make money to continue.
-- Yet there are new kinds of media companies starting to emerge.
-- There is a high degree of optimism that citizen news sites are here to stay.
-- Finding ways to attract more contributors and some operating support are major challenges.
We think citizen media sites will become an enduring part of the emerging newscape.
While we think many individual sites will collapse as their founders burn out, others will arise to take their place. With this study, we urge those who can help build capacity in this arena to pay attention.
Legacy media companies: Think about partnering -- and even supporting -- successful sites, not competing with them. Journalism schools: Pursue the possibilities of citizen media sites as learning laboratories. Community foundations: Be alert to real possibilities for building community capacity.
More information and resources are available at
The Knight Citizen News Network, which is an initiative of J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism, a center of the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. It is funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
martes, 8 de abril de 2008
Online crebility gap
A survey of 1,251 editors and 500 members of the general public found some big differences in how they perceive online journalism.
For example, the public is far more tolerant than editors of letting web users remain anonymous when they post comments on a newspaper's website.
The public also is more likely than editors to see the benefit of having reporters express their opinions online.
These are some of the findings of a study just published by the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri and the Associated Press Managing Editors. (An executive summary is at the end of this post.
When asked “do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require
names?” 64% of the editors thought it was a bad idea to allow anonymity, and 24% a good idea. Meanwhile, the public was split almost evenly: 40% thought it was a bad idea, and 45% a good idea.
Half of the public surveyed believed that “journalists joining the conversation online
and giving personal views” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, compared to a combined 27% of the editors thinking so.
The study doesn't go into an explanation of the difference, but one interpretation could be that the public wants reporters to explain what events mean rather than just describing them.
Editors are far more worried about the practice of journalists giving personal views: 58% thought it would be either somewhat or very harmful to good journalism online.
Other findings:
Executive Summary
The Online Credibility Gap: Local Readers and the Newsroom
Why This Research Was Undertaken
Across the country, newspapers are swiftly expanding online news coverage.
And, as that trend continues, the mixing of print and web cultures raises questions inside the newsroom and some confusion outside.
Can, and should, news organizations monitor and edit the free-flowing public
conversation on their web sites, comment that sometimes veers far from traditional civil discourse, with postings that are racist, accusatory and crude?
Are news organizations establishing priorities, policies and practices for web-based
journalism that serve the overall community?
How can and should journalists and the public share responsibility for creating good
journalism on the web?
These questions and others led the Associated Press Managing Editors and the Donald
W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at Missouri to survey editors and citizens about their views of the credibility of news on the web.
APME is a professional, non-profit organization of top editors at more than 1,500
newspapers affiliated with The Associated Press. Its mission is to assist editors in coping creatively and effectively with newsroom management challenges. During the past
decade, APME took the national lead in helping newsrooms incorporate attention to news
credibility and community connections into the daily life of American journalism.
The Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) focuses on studies in journalism values,
practices and technologies, and the role of journalism in democratic societies. The
Institute was established in 2004 with an award of $31million from the Donald W.
Reynolds Foundation.
The Online Journalism Credibility Project is intended to create discussion,
collaboration and action by newspaper editors, online news leaders and the public to
establish model policies, practices and programs for trustworthy online news coverage.
Between August and October of 2007, the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute
(RJI), in partnership with the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME), conducted a
comprehensive study of credibility of online local journalism. The purpose of the study was to examine opinions of the general public as well as newsroom editors regarding the credibility of
online local news content, interaction between newsroom and readers, and the attributes that comprise good journalism practice online.
As of October 12, 2007, 500 interviews were randomly completed with adults 18 years of
age or older throughout the United States, as well as 1,251 interviews with newsroom editors selected from U.S. daily newspapers. The surveys were conducted by the Center for Advanced Social Research (CASR) at the Missouri’s School of Journalism.
What follows are insights from the survey.
Newsroom transformation
-- Of the 1,251 daily newspapers editors, 491 (39.2%) were print editors, 241 (19.3%) were online editors, and 519 (41.5%) were responsible for both print and online.
Use of online local news
-- Of the 500 adults interviewed, 32% went online for local news. Of the users, 67%
sought out local news, 25% happened to come across it, and 8% reported “some of both.”
-- 37% of the general public users went to the website of a newspaper for local news, 28% went to the website of a television station, 26% went to an independent website (such as MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc.), and six percent went to “others.”
Trustworthiness of local news content online
-- When asked “How trustworthy do you find the local news content on your news
organization’s website?” on a seven-point scale (7 = very trustworthy), the editors gave a rating of 6.61. Similarly, the public that went online for local news gave a rating of 5.60. This suggests that both the public and editors highly trusted the local news content online. (For the general public, “website” was defined as the site they most frequently visit for local news; for editors, it was defined as their newspaper’s website.)
-- Comparing the trustworthiness of what was online with that of the sponsoring news
organization, 74% of the editors and 75% of the public were indifferent. Nearly one fourth of the editors (24%) trusted print newspaper more, compared to 15% of the public.
Three percent of the editors trusted web report more, compared to 10% of the public.
Interaction between newsroom and readers
-- Two-thirds of the general public users of online local news (67%) thought the websites they most frequently visited invited users to comment on news stories and/or take part in online discussions of specific tops or issues, compared to 78% of the editors. Meanwhile,
-- 13% of the public users either were not sure or did not know whether websites had the function, compared to 1% of the editors.
-- 68% of the editors knew their websites did not require those who comment to provide
their real names, more than 53% of the public users saying so. In addition, 35% of the
public were either not sure or did not know, compared to nine percent of the editors.
-- Similarly, half of the public (50%) thought the websites they most frequently visited for local news invited users to comment without giving their names, while 35% were not sure of the policy on anonymity. In comparison, 58% of the editors
knew that their websites invited users to comment without giving their names, while 10% were not sure of their paper’s online policy regarding anonymity.
-- When asked “do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require names?”
-- 64% of the editors thought it was a bad idea, and 24% a good idea. Meanwhile,
40% of the public thought it was a bad idea, and 45% a good idea, showing more split on this issue than did the editors. The difference was statistically significant.
-- Regarding the likelihood of their posting a comment if they must provide their names, 27% of the public said “very likely,” 20% “somewhat likely,” 20% “somewhat unlikely,” and 27% “very unlikely,” suggesting that public opinion is split.
Attributes of good journalism practice online
Twenty-five question items were used to explore which attributes were thought to
comprise good journalism online by both editors and the public. Responses were coded
on a 7-point scale ranging from “1” (very harmful to good journalism online) to “7” (very beneficial to good journalism online). Further analysis resulted in three attributes of good journalism online. They are labeled as “basics of good journalism,” “interaction with readers,” and “depth of local coverage.”
-- Both the public and editors thought all the basics such as “verifying information,”
“getting the facts right,” “correcting mistakes,” and both journalists and users “taking responsibility for accuracy” should be practiced to support good journalism online.
-- A combined 50% of the public believed that “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, compared to a combined 27% of the editors thinking so. Meanwhile, a
combined 58% of the editors thought the practice would be either somewhat or very
harmful to good journalism online, significantly higher than 36% of the public.
-- Both groups thought that “asking for user comments on many stories” would be
beneficial to good journalism online. In response to “requiring users who participate to state their real identities,” a combined 70% of the editors thought it would support good journalism online, compared to a combined 45% of the public thinking so.
-- A combined 45% of the public thought “inviting users to participate without using their real identities” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to a combined 22% of the editors saying so.
-- A majority of both the public and editors agreed that it would be beneficial to good journalism online if journalists (1) “provide depth by links to content published by other sources,” (2) “provide depth by providing many layers of content produced by local journalists,” and (3) “provide depth by providing databases or similar information that users can explore on their own to find answers to their questions” online.
-- Both the public (74%) and editors (69%) agreed that “applying same standards to news produced by citizens as to the news written by journalists” would be beneficial to good journalism online. A combined 92% of the editors thought “creating content intended to attract a diverse group of users” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to 68% of the public;
-- In response to “allowing citizens to report their own stories in their own ways,” there were two similar normal distribution patterns. In editors, 44% thought it would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, 38% thought it would be
harmful, and 18% were neutral. Among the public, 49% believed it would be beneficial,
37% harmful, and 15% neutral.
-- 49% of the editors thought “letting users’ interests and views determine what ideas and opinions are posted online” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, 33% harmful, and 18% neutral. Similarly, 45% of the public thought
it would be beneficial, 39% harmful, and 15% neutral.
-- 91% of the editors and 72% of the public thought “journalists actively seeking varied viewpoints from people to comment on the news” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online. Likewise, 92% of the editors and 73% of the public believed “giving the public ways to provide information for news stories” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
-- 88% of the editors and 79% of the public believe “journalists enforcing standards on such matters as crude language and personal attacks” will support good journalism
online. 70% of the editors and 74% of the public thought “users enforcing standards on
such matters as crude language and personal attacks” would be somewhat or very
beneficial to good journalism online.
-- Regarding “journalists limiting their roles to being independent observers and producing fair news coverage or clearly labeled commentary,” 92% of the editors and 91% of the public believe it will be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
-- Concerning “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views,” the two groups showed different opinions. In the editors, 27% thought it will be beneficial to good journalism online, 58% harmful, and 15% neutral. In comparison, 50% of the public said it will be beneficial, 36% harmful, and 14% neutral.
For example, the public is far more tolerant than editors of letting web users remain anonymous when they post comments on a newspaper's website.
The public also is more likely than editors to see the benefit of having reporters express their opinions online.
These are some of the findings of a study just published by the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri and the Associated Press Managing Editors. (An executive summary is at the end of this post.
When asked “do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require
names?” 64% of the editors thought it was a bad idea to allow anonymity, and 24% a good idea. Meanwhile, the public was split almost evenly: 40% thought it was a bad idea, and 45% a good idea.
Half of the public surveyed believed that “journalists joining the conversation online
and giving personal views” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, compared to a combined 27% of the editors thinking so.
The study doesn't go into an explanation of the difference, but one interpretation could be that the public wants reporters to explain what events mean rather than just describing them.
Editors are far more worried about the practice of journalists giving personal views: 58% thought it would be either somewhat or very harmful to good journalism online.
Other findings:
The online audience believes in basics of good journalism: getting the facts right, verifying information, correcting errors, labeling news and opinion. Their belief that these things are beneficial matches editors' viewpoints.
The readers still support clear labels for news and advertising, but they are more likely than editors to find benefits in convenient links from news to related advertising.
Executive Summary
The Online Credibility Gap: Local Readers and the Newsroom
Why This Research Was Undertaken
Across the country, newspapers are swiftly expanding online news coverage.
And, as that trend continues, the mixing of print and web cultures raises questions inside the newsroom and some confusion outside.
Can, and should, news organizations monitor and edit the free-flowing public
conversation on their web sites, comment that sometimes veers far from traditional civil discourse, with postings that are racist, accusatory and crude?
Are news organizations establishing priorities, policies and practices for web-based
journalism that serve the overall community?
How can and should journalists and the public share responsibility for creating good
journalism on the web?
These questions and others led the Associated Press Managing Editors and the Donald
W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at Missouri to survey editors and citizens about their views of the credibility of news on the web.
APME is a professional, non-profit organization of top editors at more than 1,500
newspapers affiliated with The Associated Press. Its mission is to assist editors in coping creatively and effectively with newsroom management challenges. During the past
decade, APME took the national lead in helping newsrooms incorporate attention to news
credibility and community connections into the daily life of American journalism.
The Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) focuses on studies in journalism values,
practices and technologies, and the role of journalism in democratic societies. The
Institute was established in 2004 with an award of $31million from the Donald W.
Reynolds Foundation.
The Online Journalism Credibility Project is intended to create discussion,
collaboration and action by newspaper editors, online news leaders and the public to
establish model policies, practices and programs for trustworthy online news coverage.
Between August and October of 2007, the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute
(RJI), in partnership with the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME), conducted a
comprehensive study of credibility of online local journalism. The purpose of the study was to examine opinions of the general public as well as newsroom editors regarding the credibility of
online local news content, interaction between newsroom and readers, and the attributes that comprise good journalism practice online.
As of October 12, 2007, 500 interviews were randomly completed with adults 18 years of
age or older throughout the United States, as well as 1,251 interviews with newsroom editors selected from U.S. daily newspapers. The surveys were conducted by the Center for Advanced Social Research (CASR) at the Missouri’s School of Journalism.
What follows are insights from the survey.
Newsroom transformation
-- Of the 1,251 daily newspapers editors, 491 (39.2%) were print editors, 241 (19.3%) were online editors, and 519 (41.5%) were responsible for both print and online.
Use of online local news
-- Of the 500 adults interviewed, 32% went online for local news. Of the users, 67%
sought out local news, 25% happened to come across it, and 8% reported “some of both.”
-- 37% of the general public users went to the website of a newspaper for local news, 28% went to the website of a television station, 26% went to an independent website (such as MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc.), and six percent went to “others.”
Trustworthiness of local news content online
-- When asked “How trustworthy do you find the local news content on your news
organization’s website?” on a seven-point scale (7 = very trustworthy), the editors gave a rating of 6.61. Similarly, the public that went online for local news gave a rating of 5.60. This suggests that both the public and editors highly trusted the local news content online. (For the general public, “website” was defined as the site they most frequently visit for local news; for editors, it was defined as their newspaper’s website.)
-- Comparing the trustworthiness of what was online with that of the sponsoring news
organization, 74% of the editors and 75% of the public were indifferent. Nearly one fourth of the editors (24%) trusted print newspaper more, compared to 15% of the public.
Three percent of the editors trusted web report more, compared to 10% of the public.
Interaction between newsroom and readers
-- Two-thirds of the general public users of online local news (67%) thought the websites they most frequently visited invited users to comment on news stories and/or take part in online discussions of specific tops or issues, compared to 78% of the editors. Meanwhile,
-- 13% of the public users either were not sure or did not know whether websites had the function, compared to 1% of the editors.
-- 68% of the editors knew their websites did not require those who comment to provide
their real names, more than 53% of the public users saying so. In addition, 35% of the
public were either not sure or did not know, compared to nine percent of the editors.
-- Similarly, half of the public (50%) thought the websites they most frequently visited for local news invited users to comment without giving their names, while 35% were not sure of the policy on anonymity. In comparison, 58% of the editors
knew that their websites invited users to comment without giving their names, while 10% were not sure of their paper’s online policy regarding anonymity.
-- When asked “do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require names?”
-- 64% of the editors thought it was a bad idea, and 24% a good idea. Meanwhile,
40% of the public thought it was a bad idea, and 45% a good idea, showing more split on this issue than did the editors. The difference was statistically significant.
-- Regarding the likelihood of their posting a comment if they must provide their names, 27% of the public said “very likely,” 20% “somewhat likely,” 20% “somewhat unlikely,” and 27% “very unlikely,” suggesting that public opinion is split.
Attributes of good journalism practice online
Twenty-five question items were used to explore which attributes were thought to
comprise good journalism online by both editors and the public. Responses were coded
on a 7-point scale ranging from “1” (very harmful to good journalism online) to “7” (very beneficial to good journalism online). Further analysis resulted in three attributes of good journalism online. They are labeled as “basics of good journalism,” “interaction with readers,” and “depth of local coverage.”
-- Both the public and editors thought all the basics such as “verifying information,”
“getting the facts right,” “correcting mistakes,” and both journalists and users “taking responsibility for accuracy” should be practiced to support good journalism online.
-- A combined 50% of the public believed that “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, compared to a combined 27% of the editors thinking so. Meanwhile, a
combined 58% of the editors thought the practice would be either somewhat or very
harmful to good journalism online, significantly higher than 36% of the public.
-- Both groups thought that “asking for user comments on many stories” would be
beneficial to good journalism online. In response to “requiring users who participate to state their real identities,” a combined 70% of the editors thought it would support good journalism online, compared to a combined 45% of the public thinking so.
-- A combined 45% of the public thought “inviting users to participate without using their real identities” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to a combined 22% of the editors saying so.
-- A majority of both the public and editors agreed that it would be beneficial to good journalism online if journalists (1) “provide depth by links to content published by other sources,” (2) “provide depth by providing many layers of content produced by local journalists,” and (3) “provide depth by providing databases or similar information that users can explore on their own to find answers to their questions” online.
-- Both the public (74%) and editors (69%) agreed that “applying same standards to news produced by citizens as to the news written by journalists” would be beneficial to good journalism online. A combined 92% of the editors thought “creating content intended to attract a diverse group of users” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to 68% of the public;
-- In response to “allowing citizens to report their own stories in their own ways,” there were two similar normal distribution patterns. In editors, 44% thought it would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, 38% thought it would be
harmful, and 18% were neutral. Among the public, 49% believed it would be beneficial,
37% harmful, and 15% neutral.
-- 49% of the editors thought “letting users’ interests and views determine what ideas and opinions are posted online” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good
journalism online, 33% harmful, and 18% neutral. Similarly, 45% of the public thought
it would be beneficial, 39% harmful, and 15% neutral.
-- 91% of the editors and 72% of the public thought “journalists actively seeking varied viewpoints from people to comment on the news” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online. Likewise, 92% of the editors and 73% of the public believed “giving the public ways to provide information for news stories” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
-- 88% of the editors and 79% of the public believe “journalists enforcing standards on such matters as crude language and personal attacks” will support good journalism
online. 70% of the editors and 74% of the public thought “users enforcing standards on
such matters as crude language and personal attacks” would be somewhat or very
beneficial to good journalism online.
-- Regarding “journalists limiting their roles to being independent observers and producing fair news coverage or clearly labeled commentary,” 92% of the editors and 91% of the public believe it will be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
-- Concerning “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views,” the two groups showed different opinions. In the editors, 27% thought it will be beneficial to good journalism online, 58% harmful, and 15% neutral. In comparison, 50% of the public said it will be beneficial, 36% harmful, and 14% neutral.
viernes, 28 de marzo de 2008
Web training in Latin America
A survey of 43 major web operations in Latin America has found that their biggest training needs are in the area of creating multimedia packages and writing for the Internet. More than half the sites do not rewrite print stories for their web editions.
The researchers, Guillermo Franco, Julio César Guzmán and Mauricio Romero, are all editors with El Tiempo and eltiempo.com in Colombia. The survey, published on the Poynter Institute's website last year, was done by web and telephone and includes the leaders of these online operations as opposed to a random sample.
Staffing levels and training
"The Internet continues to be a marginal operation in most of newspapers in Latin America. Evidence for this is the small number of journalists who work in Web departments (42 percent of the newpapers operate with three or fewer journalists, whereas 66 percent employ eight or fewer people)."
Forty-five percent of the journalists working on these sites have degrees in digital journalism.
"In 71 percent of the Web sites, the average age of their journalists is between 20 and 30 years old (down from 87 percent in the previous survey [in 2004])."
These news operations generally focus on editing and rewrite. Only 7 percent say that reporting is their main focus. This gibes with the heavy dependence on the print edition for their content.
At the same time, two-thirds of these web operations report that they have autonomy in terms of writing headlines, choosing story angles and establishing story hierarchy.
Other notable findings
- Only half the organizations provide the email addresses of the reporters with their stories.
- 59 percent of all surveyed media stated they had no e-commerce operation whatsoever, and 70 percent do not see the Internet as a threat to their classified ad business. (Evidently, they don't have anything like craigslist competing in their markets.)
- 68 percent consider user content generation a revolution for journalism. However, 30 percent think users should be controlled so that they do not cause more harm than good.
The authors cited limitations in their research. An examination of websites included in the survey found major discrepancies between what some said their practices were and what was actually observed. "For example, when asked about Flash-generated content, 52 percent say that they do it systematically and frequently. By surfing their Web sites, it is revealed that this is not so true."
My own recent experience of looking for a place to rent in Mexico's second-largest city, Guadlajara, found virtually no online classifieds on the daily newspaper sites. As of yet, there does not appear to be a strong online competitor for classifieds there.
The researchers, Guillermo Franco, Julio César Guzmán and Mauricio Romero, are all editors with El Tiempo and eltiempo.com in Colombia. The survey, published on the Poynter Institute's website last year, was done by web and telephone and includes the leaders of these online operations as opposed to a random sample.
Staffing levels and training
"The Internet continues to be a marginal operation in most of newspapers in Latin America. Evidence for this is the small number of journalists who work in Web departments (42 percent of the newpapers operate with three or fewer journalists, whereas 66 percent employ eight or fewer people)."
Forty-five percent of the journalists working on these sites have degrees in digital journalism.
"In 71 percent of the Web sites, the average age of their journalists is between 20 and 30 years old (down from 87 percent in the previous survey [in 2004])."
These news operations generally focus on editing and rewrite. Only 7 percent say that reporting is their main focus. This gibes with the heavy dependence on the print edition for their content.
At the same time, two-thirds of these web operations report that they have autonomy in terms of writing headlines, choosing story angles and establishing story hierarchy.
Other notable findings
- Only half the organizations provide the email addresses of the reporters with their stories.
- 59 percent of all surveyed media stated they had no e-commerce operation whatsoever, and 70 percent do not see the Internet as a threat to their classified ad business. (Evidently, they don't have anything like craigslist competing in their markets.)
- 68 percent consider user content generation a revolution for journalism. However, 30 percent think users should be controlled so that they do not cause more harm than good.
The authors cited limitations in their research. An examination of websites included in the survey found major discrepancies between what some said their practices were and what was actually observed. "For example, when asked about Flash-generated content, 52 percent say that they do it systematically and frequently. By surfing their Web sites, it is revealed that this is not so true."
My own recent experience of looking for a place to rent in Mexico's second-largest city, Guadlajara, found virtually no online classifieds on the daily newspaper sites. As of yet, there does not appear to be a strong online competitor for classifieds there.
martes, 18 de marzo de 2008
Handling the tough cases
The tough cases for bosses are the people who are on the margin. Entire books have been written on the subject, but what follows is a few tips based on my own experience and from helping others.
Here are three tough cases:
-- The charming longtime employee who has evaded all attempts to get him to adapt to new technology. For a small organization to compete, every person has to contribute. You can't afford to have someone who is marginally productive.
-- The above-average performer who treats other people badly and won't contribute to the team effort. In other words, this is a self-centered person who meets individual performance goals, and no more.
-- The average performer who makes derogatory comments about others behind their back, rolls her eyes when asked to do anything she considers outside her own narrow definition of her job and generally oozes negativity. The negativity is infecting others.
You can't wait
As a boss, you have to take action as soon as you see that this person's performance is affecting the performance of others and the organization. You can't wait for this person to provide you with the perfect excuse to take action. The biggest mistake we all make is waiting too long.
Set a time for a private meeting. Make it clear that this is important and the person must attend. Ask a lot of questions during the meeting. What does the person think his job is? What problems is that person having in the job? What does the person want more of and less of in his job? Find out what's going on. Probe for information.
Set expectations and draw boundaries
Once you have some understanding of that person's perspective, you can take the opportunity to set expectations and draw boundaries. If the person's idea of job responsibilities is not in synch with yours, this is the time to make that clear.
Here are some examples of language you might use:
-- "Starting today, you need to change the tone you use when you speak to your fellow employees. Dismissive comments like "whatever" are not acceptable. One-word answers to your supervisor's questions are not acceptable. That has to change, starting right now."
-- "You have to become conversant with this new software package we use in accounting. Starting this week, you will begin a program of training so that you can fill out the online forms required to process orders, invoices and customer requests. You will be performing at X level by such-and-such a date. But the effort begins now."
-- "Starting today, your goal will be for everyone to say that you are a pleasure to work with. Making derogatory comments about the company or others is not acceptable and must stop immediately. If you are unhappy here, you need to keep that to yourself. You might consider what kind of work or company will make you happy. What do you think that might be?"
Consequences
Ultimately, there have to be consequences for failure to perform. It could be loss of a bonus, no pay raise, a cut in pay, or ultimately termination.
Every organization has its own rules about how to handle this, but a clear statement of expectations and the consequences for not meeting expectations will go a long way toward getting someone's attention.
My experience is that some people will change and some won't. Some people want you to set boundaries, and others will bridle. Getting into action will make this clear.
Finally, if you are so unhappy with an employee that you are considering termination, it seems only fair to tell that person the truth: unless you change, you're in danger of losing your job. Give them a chance to change.
What do you think?
There is much more that could be said on this topic. What are your experiences? How do you handle these situations?
Here are three tough cases:
-- The charming longtime employee who has evaded all attempts to get him to adapt to new technology. For a small organization to compete, every person has to contribute. You can't afford to have someone who is marginally productive.
-- The above-average performer who treats other people badly and won't contribute to the team effort. In other words, this is a self-centered person who meets individual performance goals, and no more.
-- The average performer who makes derogatory comments about others behind their back, rolls her eyes when asked to do anything she considers outside her own narrow definition of her job and generally oozes negativity. The negativity is infecting others.
You can't wait
As a boss, you have to take action as soon as you see that this person's performance is affecting the performance of others and the organization. You can't wait for this person to provide you with the perfect excuse to take action. The biggest mistake we all make is waiting too long.
Set a time for a private meeting. Make it clear that this is important and the person must attend. Ask a lot of questions during the meeting. What does the person think his job is? What problems is that person having in the job? What does the person want more of and less of in his job? Find out what's going on. Probe for information.
Set expectations and draw boundaries
Once you have some understanding of that person's perspective, you can take the opportunity to set expectations and draw boundaries. If the person's idea of job responsibilities is not in synch with yours, this is the time to make that clear.
Here are some examples of language you might use:
-- "Starting today, you need to change the tone you use when you speak to your fellow employees. Dismissive comments like "whatever" are not acceptable. One-word answers to your supervisor's questions are not acceptable. That has to change, starting right now."
-- "You have to become conversant with this new software package we use in accounting. Starting this week, you will begin a program of training so that you can fill out the online forms required to process orders, invoices and customer requests. You will be performing at X level by such-and-such a date. But the effort begins now."
-- "Starting today, your goal will be for everyone to say that you are a pleasure to work with. Making derogatory comments about the company or others is not acceptable and must stop immediately. If you are unhappy here, you need to keep that to yourself. You might consider what kind of work or company will make you happy. What do you think that might be?"
Consequences
Ultimately, there have to be consequences for failure to perform. It could be loss of a bonus, no pay raise, a cut in pay, or ultimately termination.
Every organization has its own rules about how to handle this, but a clear statement of expectations and the consequences for not meeting expectations will go a long way toward getting someone's attention.
My experience is that some people will change and some won't. Some people want you to set boundaries, and others will bridle. Getting into action will make this clear.
Finally, if you are so unhappy with an employee that you are considering termination, it seems only fair to tell that person the truth: unless you change, you're in danger of losing your job. Give them a chance to change.
What do you think?
There is much more that could be said on this topic. What are your experiences? How do you handle these situations?
miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2008
How Juan Thomassie leads in multimedia
Juan Thomassie, senior designer for UsaToday.com, is a model for how editors will have to lead in the multimedia environment.First and foremost he is a journalist and storyteller. He understands that we serve our audiences best with immediacy, accuracy and relevance.
He is a skilled craftsman. He understands how to harness images and design to create powerful messages.
He is a master technician and orchestrator. He understands how to pull together sound, image, database information and words to create packages.
He is a collaborator. What Juan told a group of editors at a multimedia seminar at the Poynter Institute was that in order for us to harness the full power of the web, we need to create teams with the right people and the right talents.
USA Today's interactive Candidate Match Game required close collaboration between designers and the political editors, who compiled the positions of 17 candidates on 11 issues that matter to voters. 
The jazz model
A good model for leading in multimedia is the jazz combo. You have five or six outstanding performers, each an expert on how to do their own thing. But in a jazz environment, each musician is always listening to all the others and taking cues from the changes in rhythm, melody and tone. Each takes a turn soloing, but if you listen closely you notice that the trumpet soloist is picking up little cues from the piano and bass, and vice versa. They look to complement each other while still maintaining an individual voice. There is a leader who calls the tune, but everyone works to make the whole experience exciting for the listener. The parts make for a richer whole.
All a-Twitter
The technologies are emerging so fast that it can be daunting, from widgets and gadgets to Twitter news feeds for cell phones. Rob King, vice president/editor-in-chief of espn.com, showed us some of the features of his website aimed at delivering news and video to cell phones. Fans want information now, and they want it in depth. King is in a daily sprint to meet their needs as platforms and devices change.
Don't sweat it if you don't understand all of the technology, he told us. Focus on your mission. Keep coming back to that, and it will guide you through the uncharted territory.
Collaboration is key
We saw a number of impressive projects that combined, video, audio, slide shows, blogs, links to print and other ways of storytelling.
Ben de La Cruz, senior editor/multimedia for WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive, described how the print and web departments of the Post achieved success in their series on Being a Black Man because they planned together from the beginning, kept each other informed, shared information and broke through the silos. The Post's series worked in spite of the fact that the web and print teams work on opposite sides of the river.
The importance of culture
High performing teams share a common culture, says Kenny Irby, visual journalism group leader and director of diversity.
That means they share values, they have a common vocabulary, they plan together, they coordinate their actions and they share workspace.
This doesn't occur by accident. It requires teaching of these values so that they reach through the generations of journalists working in an organization. The Post series embodied that.
Multimedia response to breaking news
Regina McCombs, senior producer for multimedia for StarTribune.com, showed how multimedia can provide rich reporting on deadline with the Star Tribune's coverage of the collapse of of the I-35 bridge, a special package called 13 Seconds in August
She urged us to draft a disaster-response plan. It begins with creating a culture of urgency so that people develop the right habits before disaster strikes. Have enough gear on hand so that many people can shoot video. Make sure everyone has each other's cell phone numbers.
When disaster strikes, have a plan in place for how information and news should flow. Have one person handle editing of video and sound for speed and to avoid duplication. Understand that cell phone towers get overloaded when a disaster strikes (Text messages can break through even when voice can't). Have people work in teams; it makes both more effective.
The Strib has used the elements of breaking news to create a longer-term project of telling the stories of everyone on the bridge. As more of these stories are discovered, they are added to a database and the stories are told in the best medium available -- text, video, audio or a combination.
High anxiety shared
During a session led by Chip Scanlan, senior faculty member at Poynter, all of us learned that we have anxieties and fears about this technology.
We should relax, roll with it. Don't expect to know it all. Learn what we can. Draw on the strengths of others all around us. We're all a bit scared.
Important takeaways for newsroom leaders
-- Communicate the passion. We're giving power to the people. The new technology puts us closer to the people than ever before. It's an exciting time, and the traffic is flying toward us at freeway speed. This is nothing less than a communications revolution. If ever a free press could support true democracy, it's now.
-- Relax. No, you don't know about action script and dynamic databases. But chances are, someone on your staff does and might be willing to teach you.
-- Match tasks with talents. Give all your people a chance to try and learn all the new technologies. Encourage them but don't force-feed them. Put them on teams with other talented people and let them self select the directions they want to go.
-- Lead by example. Be the first to start communication, provide information and share resources. Make it safe for people to say "I don't know how to do that." Make it safe for people to question authority. Make decisions and then be willing to admit that they might have been wrong.
-- Open your processes to readers. Be transparent about how you've made decisions. They have a right to know, and they will respect you for your honesty.
viernes, 22 de febrero de 2008
He's feeling swamped
An editor of a web-based news operation told me he sometimes feels he isn't finishing anything.
He faces daily challenges from competitors on the web, and he also has to plan for long-term upgrades in his product. He has many projects on his plate, not enough people to do them all and not enough time. New projects appear regularly.
What should he do? He is organized but not compulsively organized. He has run large, complex publishing enterprises before. What's different now is that he is not always in control of what shows up on his plate, and his own long-term goals often have to go on the back burner.
Start with a list
Here's what I suggested. Start with a list of projects outstanding, when they were assigned, what's been accomplished, which tasks need to be completed on each project, who can do them and an estimated time commitment needed for each task. In short, show yourself and your team and your boss where you are. Measure the problem so that it can be understood better. Then it isn't one big crushing weight but a series of discrete issues that can be dealt with separately.
Put it on paper -- maybe facing pages of a notebook for each of the dozen or two dozen projects -- or put it on a spreadsheet, but put it all down somewhere where it can be reviewed quickly. You need to understand the size and scope of the challenge.
Review your progress
If you're reviewing progress weekly, you and your staff can then have some sense of accomplishment, that you're moving forward.
The weekly review also allows you and your team to re-set priorities when appropriate. Your people will understand better what they're doing and why they're doing it.
If you lay out the specifics for the boss, it gives him or her a chance to make some informed decisions about priorities. And you won't come off as someone who can't get things done or is a whiner. Bosses can be unrealistic at times, or so some of my people have told me.
David Allen's book on what he calls "stress-free productivity," "Getting Things Done" might help in managing multiple priorities.
Stephen Covey's Seven Habits has good sections on getting organized, but as he lays out so clearly, it all starts with deciding what the goals are and working from there to set priorities for your activity.
He faces daily challenges from competitors on the web, and he also has to plan for long-term upgrades in his product. He has many projects on his plate, not enough people to do them all and not enough time. New projects appear regularly.What should he do? He is organized but not compulsively organized. He has run large, complex publishing enterprises before. What's different now is that he is not always in control of what shows up on his plate, and his own long-term goals often have to go on the back burner.
Start with a list
Here's what I suggested. Start with a list of projects outstanding, when they were assigned, what's been accomplished, which tasks need to be completed on each project, who can do them and an estimated time commitment needed for each task. In short, show yourself and your team and your boss where you are. Measure the problem so that it can be understood better. Then it isn't one big crushing weight but a series of discrete issues that can be dealt with separately.
Put it on paper -- maybe facing pages of a notebook for each of the dozen or two dozen projects -- or put it on a spreadsheet, but put it all down somewhere where it can be reviewed quickly. You need to understand the size and scope of the challenge.
Review your progress
If you're reviewing progress weekly, you and your staff can then have some sense of accomplishment, that you're moving forward.
The weekly review also allows you and your team to re-set priorities when appropriate. Your people will understand better what they're doing and why they're doing it.
If you lay out the specifics for the boss, it gives him or her a chance to make some informed decisions about priorities. And you won't come off as someone who can't get things done or is a whiner. Bosses can be unrealistic at times, or so some of my people have told me.
David Allen's book on what he calls "stress-free productivity," "Getting Things Done" might help in managing multiple priorities.
Stephen Covey's Seven Habits has good sections on getting organized, but as he lays out so clearly, it all starts with deciding what the goals are and working from there to set priorities for your activity.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)