Liverpool Daily uses public FOI site for scoop

Liverpool Daily Post used what do they know

Liverpool Daily Post used democracy site "what do they know" for this story

Update: Alison has a great post on her blog about this story with some insight in to what a big cultural shift this has been for some in the newsroom

Alison Gow has just dropped me a tweet pointing me to a story on the Liverpool Daily Post website about the numbers of council workers going off sick.

The information for the story came via a website called What do they Know which facilitates the submission of Freedom of information requests by the public.  What’s esspecially pleasing is that full credit is given to the site at the end of the article

How the figures were revealed

THE figures were released after a member of the public made a Freedom of Information request.

Stephen Gradwick used democracy website www.whatdotheyknow.com to submit the enquiry.

The original request, all letters and emails and the council’s response can be found at http://bit.ly/14Xm6

Great stuff and I hope a lot more people pitch in to the site and the other great offerings from MySociety

On a personal note, I should say that I’m a bit peeved that Alison and the team have got a story from the site. I’ve been using What do they know in the training I’ve been doing with Trinity Mirror journos and now my secret weapon to wake people up as the afternoon session drags is out!

A timeline of online media landmarks

I’ve been doing a bit of ‘multimedia’ with students including maps and the wonders of Dipity timelines. Whilst picking through the backlog of posts in my reader I came across a few posts with defining moments for online journalism. So, as a bit of fun, I thought I would add them to dipity as an example to use.

I’ve used Mindy McAdams’ Timeline of breaking news and Paul Bradshaw’s post asking “Are these the biggest moments in journalism-blogging history?” as the main sources. Alf Hermida also pitched in suggesting the BBC election coverage and Death of Diana as defining moments. I agree so I’ve added them as well.

I’ll add some more when I find them or , of course, if you want to suggest any.

Like being chained to the desk?

Kristene Lowe left a comment on my post about getting out of the office, even it’s just in a virtual way, saying that one of the reasons that journalists get out of the office less is that  “online journalism has become centered around traffic, best achieved by volume, and rewriting stories”

She continues:

In fact, in today’s media reality many editors don’t dare to let their journos out of the office, as it might bring down their production due to time spent travelling etc, unless it’s to some big conference they know will generate plenty of copy (in which scenario, you might not find time to actually TALK to people while there).

So it was interesting and timley that Kristine posted a job ad she’d seen on:

Are you dreaming of traveling? Do you want to write long feature stories? Do you enjoy writing comprehensive profile interviews? Are you interested in writing about international politics? Do you think printed newspapers are more exciting than the web? Then you don’t need to apply for a job at Varden.

We are looking for a competent journalist for our newly created central news hub. You have to understand what readers are interested in; have good journalistic instincts and comprehensive local knowledge. High speed, a good attitude and an understanding of new media is a must.

She admits it was a hasty translations. Still perhaps in job ads, as in life, honesty is not always the best policiy.

There are no stories on the web

I‘ve been pondering that titular mantra for while now. I’ve got to the point where I’m wondering whether my focus on the idea that the web will not just simply cough up a story is really about a broader shift in mindset that journalists need to make or more about me getting my head around the process.

So I’m posting this to get it out of my head.

It got in my head again at the end of last week as I found myself eavesdropping on a group of students sat at their computers.

“I need to do a search for a story for my portfolio assignment” says one student who then proceeds to fire up a collection of news sites including the BBC and a number of different local news providers.

Frustrating as I find this behaviour sometimes, I know it’s not limited to students.

Reverse engineering stories – finding an article online and then unpicking the threads – is more common than I think any of us a prepared to admit. Is that a bad thing? Maybe not, but it happens. But that’s not finding a story, it’s just (re)reporting the story for your audience. It’s also a mono-media approach to the journalistic process. Everything is geared towards servicing an article at a publication point.

Web 2.0 journalism

Working the ‘Web 2.0′ way approaches the story from a different direction. It builds a critical mass of content through the appropriate application of digital technologies. Web searches, crowdsourcing, alerts and all the other good stuff can be weaved in to the ‘traditional‘ journalistic process to serve the increasingly voracious content machine.

But does that process really address where stories come from?

What you will find on the web is data and information. But they are not stories. They can help develop and support a story but they are meaningless without context. You need to know the story you are trying to tell before they become useful. You still need the story.

People make stories

Ultimately, stories come from people. They come from the collective experiences, social contexts and relevence of communities. To find a story and know why it’s a astory, you have to be part of or active in those communities. That’s something that ‘traditional’ journalism is supposed to be good at. Understanding the communities/audience they serve. Being relevant through the intimate knowledge of a patch. Having the ‘in’ at the ground floor of a story.

Of course the web will get you next to people, sometimes in the most direct and immediate way. But the web still won’t give up that story unless you approach those people in the same way you would in real life. That means going to the places where people gather and inhabiting them.

The thing to remember is that people don’t gather in the same place and, more importantly, you cannot force them to.  So even though RSS feeds and alerts will allow you to monitor the conversations effectivley (and if you arent using these tools then you should be) you need to get out there.

Platforms are places for conversation

Web 2.0 is all about platforms. Sites that enable people to do things are real honeypots. But the really successful web2.0 sites are the ones that encourage conversation between users.  We have thise platforms in real life. People will go to the post office to send a letter or the pub to get a drink.  But the conversation in those places could be about anything. The same thing happens online.

Take a look at Pistonheads – a site about motoring. The site has some very popular forums

Over 2 million posts in the general area

Over 2 million posts in the online 'pub'

Lots of good stuff about cars (in minute detail) but take a look at the Pie and Piston (general chat areas in forums are often called the pub, bar or take pub names). 2,401,820 posts. Over 2 million posts and the majority are not about motoring.

Push not pull

The thing I recognise more and more is that’s a challenge in a journalistic environment where strategy and staffing is defined by pull rather than push; the idea that you can bring everything to your desktop could be one of the reasons more journalist find themeselve effectivly desk bound.

But we can still exhibit a bit of that push behaviour when it comes to communities even if it is just virtual. Think of the platform as a place – a shop, a pub or a street corner.

Hang around long enough and someone will give you a story.

Turning dog poo in to stories

I’ve been spending a lot of time doing prep for teaching and training that I’m doing at the moment. So expect the slow appearance of a backlog of posts on video and other related issues. But I thought I would share something that has been in my radar for a few days.

I’ve been doing a lot of talking (shocking for me I know) about using the web for research – journalism toolbox stuff. And one of the things I have been stressing is that the web will very rarely just ‘give’ you a story. It will give you lots of data and information but the story is in the way you, as the journalist, put the things together. The phrase that I heard last week that best summed that up journalists are sense makers. Phil Trippenbach has a nice post on this so I won’t labour the point.

But whilst I was browsing for resources and examples to show my students and delegates I came across a site that made me wonder if I had to re-think that position – fixmystreet.co.uk

Fixmystreet.co.uk is a site by the fantastic Mysociety group who specialize in socially aware, achingly web2.0 sites. Top stuff on a number of levels and their other sites are worth a visit. Anyway, here is how they describe fixmystreet:

A site where people can report, view, or discuss local problems like graffiti, fly tipping, broken paving slabs, or street lighting.

Nearly 25,000 problems have now been reported across the UK, with our users following up many thousands with updates, news and notifications that problems have been fixed

Here’s an example of an ongoing problem with litter.

Fixmystreet.co.uk - tracking local problems

Fixmystreet.co.uk - tracking local problems

You can also sign up for an RSS feed or email alerts for a location. Told you it was brilliant.

So I’m showing my students the site today as we discussed ways that you can get a handle on a patch. They enjoyed it, not least because it offers, what must be, the most accurate geographic mapping of poo that I have yet to see on the web. With pictures! Anything scatological is a hit with students it seem.

I made the point that it shouldn’t replace physically getting out on the patch but it could provide some insight and a conversation opener when wandering around. But it wouldn’t throw up a story. Then we came across this entry.

Is this just about dog poo?

Is this just about dog poo?

Take a look and ask yourself if there is a story in that or not and if it’s a story about dog poo.

Locating the meaning

In terms of the way you would work a beat to get a story to pitch to an editor this site serves up a hell of a lot in just a few lines of comment. Perhaps it’s the fact that the story is located that adds the context you need. Maybe it did take my eyes on the story to make the connection. But one thing is for sure, fixmystreet proves that locally focused geo-mashups work.

So if the embryonic geotagging of your content or the occasional attempts at mapping this kind of thing have fallen of the radar or been dismissed as gimmicks, maybe it’s worth looking again.

Take more of a healthy interest in your audiences poo.

UPDATE:Because I am that plugged in at the moment I didn’t see this great interview with one of My society’s developers Francis Irving on Journalism.co.uk/ (thanks the Alex Lockward for the nudge)

Project:Report – Who is this for?

An interesting challenge both in terms of the competition and what it says to the industry.

But a thought struck me. Do we need a competition for this? Who is the validation for?

If the mainstream media had its reationship with the audience right then it would be highlighting the good stuff from the ‘average citizens documenting the events from their communities’  as a matter of course.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why are journalists so bad at handling breaking news online?

Bill Dunphy thinks he has some answers to that question.

Bill is a Senior reporter for a Canadian newspaper called the Hamilton Spectator. and he’s been looking at the way the media reacted to an explosion at a propane plant in Toronto, His blog post – Propane depot explosions expose shortcomings in breaking news coverage by newspapers living in a Web 2.0 world – has some really useful stuff to say about the problems of covering live events.His take?

Bottom line – in aggregate, citizens journalists out-performed their professional counterparts getting news out faster, offering more details, and better images and videos. They also made more mistakes and had a high noise to signal ratio. Mainstream media were slow off the mark and while they depended on the citizen journalists, they failed to make the most of the possibilities that material offered.

So how do you make the best of the material. In summing up, Bill has some useful advice.

When breaking news happens, start live-blogging it, relying on readers and fellow citizens to provide us with hot, local, first-person information (text, images, video – maybe even audio). Solicit it and use it — highlighting contributions while inviting more. Search the web for the contributions of others and link to the best.

At the same time let slip the hounds. Deploy  professionals to do what they do best, use their skills and tools and access to bring back hard facts and colour, great images and video, to craft analysis.

Then have skilled web editors blend the best of them all into one magnificent package. Make sure you eliminate the inevitable errors of fact that appear during the rush of breaking news commentary and reporting. Use archives and the web to add context and a deeper, richer experience. Offer readers relevant resources and a space to share thoughts, stories, and comments.

It’s a great post, well illustrated, so go an take a look

Reblog this post