Monthly Archives: September 2011

Ivory tower dispatch: RSS is like twitter.

Posted on by
8

Like others in J-school I’m getting to know new classes, spending a bit of time talking about the ‘gathering’ part of journalism and how digital tools can help. So yesterday I bullied my class of postgrads through, among other things, RSS and Google reader.

When I raised the topic, one of the class commented that “it’s just like twitter”

I initially disagreed, talking about the differences of simply gathering, organising and filtering content and actually interacting with people.  But I’ve had a little time to reflect and, do you know, I don’t think that’s a bad way to think about RSS at all.

Twitter is about building a network of people who you can engage with and (positively) use. A network that is big enough not only to give what you want but also what you thought you didn’t need. The serendipity of twitter is one of its charms.

RSS is a lot like that but with websites and not people. The bigger your ‘network’ of websites, the more chance you’ll find something of interest.

For journalists a lot of the motivations for using the tool are the same: network building; time managment etc.

Points of reference

When I introduced Reader, a few people in the room had heard of it (and used it); Most had not. That’s always a surprise to me, but not a criticism of the students. The early days of new classes are always an interesting reality check for me. My world (geeky and riven through with online as it is) is not always the real world! So it’s nice when something gives you pause to reflect.

It made me think a little more about points of reference. I’ve worked through a chronology of this stuff. Started using Reader before twitter and felt the transition in passive to active engagement as the web has developed. That makes sense to me. But a lot of people in the room have come the other way. Facebook and twitter are their point of entry and reference.

Maybe that shows that digital/online journalism is really maturing now (or maybe just my view). Like many other things it’s now as important to look back at how this stuff has developed as it is simply to use it. Even if that ‘history’ is only five or six years young!

Update Kate, the one who suggested RSS is like twitter, reminded me that I should quote my sources.

@ Aren't you supposed to attribute quotations? ;) *cough* itwasme *cough*
September 30, 2011 11:54 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@Kate_S_Mercer
Katie Siobhán Mercer

Do we need a journalism merit badge?

Posted on by
4

 

So Ivan Lewis has suggested that journalists who ‘break the rules’ should be struck off. A move which, as FleetStreetBlues blogs:

..by implication, that there should be some kind of register or licence for all journalists

A license might be a bit strong. What else could we consider…

Journalism Merit badge

What about a boy scout style merit badge system? They have one for Journalism. They also have them for law. I couldn’t find one for PA or shorthand.

Or maybe we could go the McDonalds star route. You could lose a star for each ‘transgression’ of regulations. Gain one for an exclusive.

But seriously, do we really need to be thinking about this at all?

Fleet street fox rounds off a good response to Ivan Lewis with this:

No-one’s needed a licence to be a journalist in the 300 years since the first paper was printed in Fleet Street. You just have to be nosy and a little bit mad, the kind of person no-one else wants in their club.

A good headline? A storm in a teacup? All of that and more.

License or badge?

O'Reilly's code of conduct badge

In 2007, Tim O’reilly suggested that we needed a blogging code of conduct. A suggestion that was roundly turned on in some quarters . His reasoning was there needed to be some way of controlling the increasing amount of poor behaviour on blogs.  Blogs that followed the code and enforced it got to be deputised in to the code and wear a badge – yep, a sheriffs badge.

In the same way that we can argue that Lewis’ suggestions amount to an attempt to license, you could also argue that would legitimise professional journalists. beyond the NUJ card. This would be legally sanctioned journalists.  Yes, state sanctioned but it would give them rights and access above all others.  Especially the simply nosey or mad or worse still, those “Local nosey parkers with mobile phones “

Given the attitude of the industry to regulation, the public and citizen journalism, be forgiven for thinking that many journalists  already consider themselves to be licensed already. I would imagine there are some who would welcome the differentiation.

 

 

Fusion tables and maps: Post office map revisited

Posted on by
10

A few years ago I wrote a post about mapping post office closures using google maps and yahoo pipes.  I used that combination because of an issue with google maps and post codes. I needed to convert the posts codes in to a lat, long format – yahoo pipes did that job.

I noted that @patrickolszo mentioned that post on twitter today and I realised it was a bit long in the tooth and, of course, things have moved on considerably.  So here is how I’d do that now using googledocs and google fusion tables. 

I’ll use the data from the original map which came from publicservice.co.uk which is not current but at least it keeps the link across the posts!

Importing the data

In the previous example I noted that I did a fair bit of manipulation on the information splitting the text up to make columns I could use.

If you look at the sheet you can see it is actually a bit of a mess in places but it’s raw data. Truth be told I went through excel to do some column splitting and then combining to get the postcode out of the address.

Now I guess you could explore tools like Google Refine to help with that kind of thing. But I’ve shared a version of the spreadsheet on Google docs which you will need to save in to your own google docs account. Once you have the spreadsheet, you can import it in to a fusion table. In google docs

  • Click Create new and select Table
  • Click Google Spreadsheets from the Import new table options
  • Find your saved version of the post office spreadsheet and click Select

A version of the spreadsheet will be loaded. At this point you can make changes to the column headers – I changed Address three to complete address for example. The last screen prompts you to add contextual information. It’s really worth doing this.

Always add context to your data when given the chance

When its loaded in the data is not that different from the spreadsheet. Fusion tables splits it across a number of pages, 100 rows at a time but that’s all that’s really obvious. I’m not going to go in to the functionality etc. of fusion tables here though. I’ll just do the basics to get us to the map.

Mapping the data

The first thing we need to do is tell fusion tables what data we are going to map each row.

  • Select Edit > Modify columns
  • Select the Post Code column and change the Type to Location
  • Select File > Geocode and select Post Code from the drop down
  • Click Geocode

Changing the post code column type to location

Fusion tables will then generate location data based on the post codes in the table. Much easier than the Yahoo pipes solution! You can also try geocoding more generic information. You could, for example, set the Address two column type to location as well and geocode that. But if you have more than one post office in the same town that might cause problems.

Generating the map

No you have the location information

  • Select Visualize > Map

Fusion tables will take the data and put it on the map. You’ll need to zoom in and move around to see the points in detail. Clicking on a point will open a standard speech bubble with more data. But overall it’s looking pretty good. Well, almost. One of our post offices seems to have moved from Sevenoakes to Northern France!

The basic map but with a problem

Checking the data, it seems that the post code is TN13 IHZ when it should be TN13 1HZ. It isn’t the only one but I’ll just correct that postcode for now :

  • Click Visualize > Table to switch back to table view
  • Click the Address two header
  • Select Sort Desc
  • Find Sevenoaks and change the appropriate Post Code Entry
  • Click Visualize > Map to go to the map view
Sorted.

The updated map

Editing the map
Changing the data on the map is simply a case of updating the table. But you can also edit the content of the bubble using the Configure info window link and even the marker by using the Configure styles link.
One nice trick here is to add an extra column to your spreadsheet and add a custom icon to use on your map. In the example below I added a column to my spreadsheet called logo. I added ‘post_office’ to each entry. When I import that in to Fusion tables I can use the Configure styles link to choose the logo column as the icon.

Using a custom icon on the map

Sharing the map.
When you’re happy with the map you can share it with others in a similar way to other google documents.
  • Click on the share button in the top-right of the page
  • Change the settings to suit

The share settings in fusion tables

Once that is done you’re good to go. Here’s an embedded version of the map.

Note: The embed works using an iframe so if you’re using WordPress.com, sorry, you’re out of luck when it comes to adding the map to a post.

Conclusions.

The process of mapping is obviously a lot simpler with something like Fusion tables and I think that underlines just how far we’ve moved. That’s not just in terms of the underlying technology which, when you think about it, is pretty amazing. It also shows just how far and how quickly data, geocoded or otherwise, has become mainstream.

Anyway, it’s a simple little example and there is a tonne more that you can do with fusion tables but I hope it’s a useful insight.

Daily mail student media awards?

Posted on by
2

Yeah, wouldn’t happen. But should it?

The always interesting Wannabehacks posted yesterday stating that The industry isn’t doing enough to support student journalists. The post really should have been titled The Guardian isn’t doing enough to support student journalists as it takes a pop at the frankly risible prize the Guardian is offering for its Guardian student media award:

[T]he quality of prizes has diminished year on year: “Seven weeks of placement with expenses paid (offered 2003-2006) is a good way to spend the summer. Two weeks of self-funded work experience is an insult to supposedly the best student journalists in Britain.”

It’s a fair point. Just how good you have to be to actually be paid to work at the Guardian?

Maybe we are being unfair to the Guardian though. Why do they need to carry this stuff? I know plenty of students who don’t want to work for the Guardian. So why don’t more papers step up? If it’s about spotting talent then shouldn’t every media org have a media award?

Truth is there is a bit of black hole out there when it comes to awards. Aspiring journos could be forgiven for thinking that there is very little on offer between that letter writing competition the local paper runs for schoolkids and the Guardian awards. There are actually quite a few – the NUS student awards for example. But none with the direct association of the Guardian awards.

But maybe it’s not about the award. The wannabe hacks post (and the letter it references) suggests that there is more a problem of expectation here.

The Guardian is a very attractive proposition to many aspiring journos. In a lot of respects it plays on that strength; it presents itself as a like the paper where things are happening. But there is a danger that things like competitions exploit that aspiration and begin to suggest a slightly dysfunctional relationship - aspiring journos trying their best to please the indifferent and aloof object of their affection.

Show them the money.

This isn’t just a print problem. The truth is the industry has a bit of problem of putting its money where it’s mouth is when it comes to student journos.

As an academic I see more offers of valuable experience than paid opportunities in my inbox. They tend to coincide with large events where industry doesn’t have the manpower to match their plans for coverage. In that sense there is no secret here, the industry is living beyond its means and it’s increasingly relying on low and no paid input to keep newsrooms running. But student journo’s bear the brunt of that. Yes, they get experience, but not much else.

No return on investment

Of course the flip-side to that argument is that many of those who enter the competitions would happily benefit from the association but don’t put back in. I wonder how many people who enter the Guardian student media awards have regularly bought the paper rather than accessing the (free) website?  You could argue the same when talking about work experience. How many students actually buy the product they aspire to work on?

But the reality is that, regardless of how much is put in, if you court an audience, you have to live up to their expectations – unreasonable or otherwise.

This is happening at a time when those same newsrooms are reporting on the commercial realities of education and how students need to demand value from their investment. As someone trying to respond to those expectations, perhaps I can offer some advice.  Perhaps the industry need to reflect on their advice to prospective students the next time they reach out or connect with student journalists.  Just how much are you expecting them to invest in your newsroom and what’s the return?

 

Newspaper video: Time to reconsider your video strategy?

Posted on by
3

A few issues have popped up in my reading round the web that make me think that if online video has fallen off your agenda then it may be worth thinking again. A few things make me think that.

Engagement with HTML5 by publishers means that the idea of cross platform (web, tablet etc) video becomes a reality. The recent announcement by FT that they were moving away from the apple fold to deliver their apps from a web base shows a certain maturity in that area. It may not be universal but those publishers who engaged with apps with half an eye to html5 and associated tech are starting to see the benefit. They also have an exit route from Apple’s walled garden.

The announcement that the WSJ is upping it’s online video would, on the surface, seem to be a simple illustration of the point. But theres a bit more to it:

The Journal has expanded its video content in spite of its contract with CNBC, the leading business news network on television, and in spite of the fact that The Journal’s parent has its own business network, Fox Business.  The CNBC contract expires in about 15 months, but already Journal reporters tend to appear more often on Fox than on CNBC.

The shifting approaches of print in particular to the challenge of keeping your voice in a spreading market, often rests on the idea of impartiality. An alignment to Fox is as blunt a move to prove the point as you can get. But if you want to establish a ‘voice’ then video can be a key part of that changing ‘brand’.

Newsless broadcast

But there is also a shift on the other side of that relationship. There is a very clear by broadcasters towards product and not a service focus. That will leave a gap that print will have to backfill. Yes there is a big investment in online delivery services but the commercial driver is very much a product proposition. Most of the large broadcasters are seeing a real benefit in exclusive and value-added programming online. The ‘watch again’ of the iplayer-like channels, the webisodes and web exclusive episodes are all examples of how broadcast has ‘finally’ found its feet online.

I think that news is low on the agenda in a broadcasters strategy. For broadcasters, news is very much a service. It’s often something they have to do as a requirement to a license or a sop to public service. It’s easier to advertise around the x-factor than it is news at ten and that’s where the money will go. Non-broadcast providers will pay the price for that.

If you buy in your video from a third party, expect the prices to go up and the quality, range and relevance to go down. 

LocalTV

Here in the UK, we also have the looming Spector of localTV. There is obviously a new market to explore there. I’m skeptical about the range, depth and return that market will have for journalism but, hey, it never hurts to consider it.

So video gives you a good opportunity to extend your identity and cut free those ties with an increasingly newsless broadcast sector. Just invest a little in understanding the technology underlying the new platforms.In the long run it might be a better investment than simply paying to be on those platforms.

 

Visible not critical: What next journalism?

Posted on by
3

I read a few interesting posts over the last few days. The first was I’m Glad We Didn’t Have Facebook or Twitter on 9/11.

That’s the real problem with attempting to make sense of 9/11 using social media: The former requires deep thought while the latter feeds on immediacy. Ten years and millions of articles after 9/11, we’re still trying to come to terms with what happened that day. We’re still sifting through the debris and our collective emotions in order to find whatever it is we lost, or to explain why things are the way they are now. I have a hard time believing 9/11 tweets or Facebook updates would have changed any of that for the better. And by now they’d be forgotten anyway, buried under 10 years of more shouting into the abyss.

The second was (a trail for) a piece in the press gazette by the Guardians Paul Lewis on the way the riots have proved the need for paid journalists

“Some people argued the digital era would see paid journalists replaced by an army of citizen reporters,” he said.

“The riots proved otherwise: people might consume news differently, but they still want it told straight, and by reporters on the ground.”

I found myself agreeing with both posts but was a little uncomfortable about that.

The 9/11 post made so much sense given the recent experience of the coverage of the riots on twitter. Not that I am, for one moment, equating the events. No, its more the position that the rumour and hearsay where dangerous, pervasive and perhaps even a distraction from more important stuff.

Perhaps Lewis’ point about the need for journalists in that is even more valid but that in itself makes me feel uncomfortable.

What next, Journalism?

I suppose I can sum up my discomfort in terms of a question. “Ok journalism,. What are you going to do next?”

If you are that important and social media needs your influence and control what are you going to do to keep your place at the table? Do we have to wait for another riot or MP’s expenses or wikipedia to prove that you are doing journalism? All great work but not a huge hit rate given the number of you out there.

Visible not critical

Of course the truth is that there are loads of journo’s doing loads of great things at every level. Really good journalism. But we don’t hear about them. At least we don’t hear about them because we are often too busy telling people why all the other stuff is not as good.

So maybe I feel uncomfortable because, whilst twitter would have had a roll to play the rumour and lack of facts would have been a nightmare. But maybe it would have been a necessary evil. Maybe it would have had to be there to fill a gap.

 

BBC Social media guidelines updated.

Posted on by
10

The BBC editors site has a post on the update to the BBC’s social media guidelines for journalists and for ‘official’ social media streams for correspondents.

The reasoning for that distinction was interesting:

We label the Twitter accounts of some presenters and correspondents as “official” – and are also today publishing some specific guidance for them [64KB PDF]. This activity is regarded as BBC News output and tweets should normally be consistent with this, reflecting and focusing on areas relevant to the role or specialism, and avoiding personal interests or unrelated issues. A senior editor keeps an eye on tweets from these accounts after they’re sent out.

Given some of my recent posts about tweeting as a journalist during the riots, this stuck out. I agree with the idea of consistency; if you are a BBC person then always tweet like you are the BBC. I think that is a point worth taking further. If you are a journalist, always tweet like a journalist.

Another point that caught my eye was

Finally, we remind people that programme or genre content – like @BBCBreaking andBBC News on Facebook - should normally be checked by a second person before it goes out. The guidance also urges people to think carefully about the practicalities and editorial purpose of this activity. It shouldn’t be started “because it’s what everyone does these days”.

The statement actually suggest that it should only be started if you have the resources to see it through. In principle, sound advice. In practice it could be a charter to simply not do it.

Credit where credit is due

The guidelines are pretty much concerned with output – what BBC people put out on social networks. But it’s the area of attribution that generates the most comment (when people are not bemoaning the character limit). The BBC came in for a bit of stick during the riots for crediting platforms not people for pictures from social networking sites. Pictures where from Twitter and not the person who put them there.

It seems that some people think that the ‘undue prominence’ argument is a suitable lever to get the BBC to change their approach. I think that’s a red herring. In this context they are sources first and commercial entities second. Taking that approach would suggest that no commercial company could be mentioned during the news. Perhaps the best you could argue is that there is an ‘undue reliance’ on social media instead of putting journalists on the street.

But I digress. FishFingers flags the issue asking:

if a comment is sent to the BBC and it is read on air or posted as part of “live” coverage, why are we told that it came from Twitter? Why does the communication medium have to even be mentioned? Why not simply say that the person sent a message?

It’s a good point but I think you do need to say where it came from as well as who said/posted it. Credit where credit is due but as journalists we should where possible, always cite our sources – makes it a bit more transparent doesn’t it?