The Bulls and Celtics just ended what was undoubtedly one of the greatest playoff series in NBA history last night. Unfortunately, the Bulls lost. But they gave everything Bulls fans could have asked for, and then some. What I find interesting is how sports media immediately began dubbing the series as the greatest ever played.
Following the conclusion of games four and five, ESPN had its analysts debating (on TV and online) whether the it was the greatest first-round series ever played. After an epic, three-overtime game six, those same people were arguing that it might be the greatest series, of any round, ever played. Some said yes, others said no. This was the perfect example of how anything recent in sports gets played up big in the media, which is expected and perfectly fine. After all, that is what viewers want. We want to see the great game talked about over and over.
The problem is that the sports media sometimes loses perspective, as they all get caught up in the rush. Since sports are merely games and not life and death, it's acceptable to editorialize more, as people want to hear about who is good and who is bad. But with the time element so important in journalism, one must be careful not not take anything out of proportion. While the Bulls-Celtics series lacks the proper adjectives to even be described, it probably isn't the greatest playoff series ever played.
I found this article in the LA Times, and I thought the writer did a good job of explaining why it was "the best" but not "the greatest." It's a good display of journalism in the sense that it captures the moment and respects the history that is so important to sports.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
....and this is where I run out of ideas to blog about
I've reached that point in the semester, the one where I either don't care about anything for school or I run out of ideas to blog about. So with that combination of two, I'm really reaching now for things to blog on. So I present to you....good news. That's right, a silver lining in the newspaper industry.
Professor McDonald asked us last week at the end of lecture how many of us thought newspapers would still exist in 10 years. Most of us, myself included, sat there dumbfounded and didn't share our opinion. Truth be told, we all know the industry is shifting toward the online medium. But we also realize print won't go out of favor completely. And that's what professor said -- newspapers will still be around in 10 years, and 20 years, probably 30. Smaller ones might fold, but they will always be there. That's awfully reassuring for us, considering we are about the spend four years of our lives and thousands of dollars to study the journalism industry. But really, here's an opinion from another smart person in the industry that should reassure us even more so.
Martin Langeveld is a 30-year journalism verteran who's worked at a variety of New England papers, according to his bio on the Nieman Journalism Lab page, which is a Web site run through Harvard University. Anyways, in a study that was done recently by Langeveld, he found out that more than 96 percent of newspaper reading is done via print.
Yes, you read that correctly. Put another way, just more than 3 percent of newspaper reading happens online. Langeveld says that the online industry is not overtaking print like so many people assume. And out of everyone to believe, we should trust him. He did countless calculations to come to this conclusion, none of which I will go into for the betterment of your sanity if you've read this far.
But basically, Langeveld multiplies lots of numbers to prove that way more stories and pages are read in print than online. Put simply, millions of web hits sounds great, but there are millions of "hits" (my word, not his) in print everyday when you take into account how many stories are on a page and how many pages are in a paper.
Langeveld acknowledges a few of his estimates could be off, but still says he would come to the same conclusion either way. He writes:
"Even if I’ve overestimated those by 100 percent or 200 percent, the analysis still reaches the same conclusion, which is that within the limits of newspaper readership in print and online, the public still reads newspaper content in print by an overwhelming margin."
Langeveld gives an explanation to a problem we've talked of in class several times. He attributes the newspaper industry's failure to take advantage of online advertising to the finding of his study. Put simply, advertising revenue online is falling short of expectations not so much because people in the industry have failed to come up with a solid plan, but rather because most people still read news in print. Expecting 10 percent of advertising revenue from online is unreasonable when only 3 percent of the news is being read there, he writes. He actually mentions that the online department might be overachieving, based on the circumstances.
So there you go, share your thoughts if you want. Just don't get too worked up yet, there's still hope.
Professor McDonald asked us last week at the end of lecture how many of us thought newspapers would still exist in 10 years. Most of us, myself included, sat there dumbfounded and didn't share our opinion. Truth be told, we all know the industry is shifting toward the online medium. But we also realize print won't go out of favor completely. And that's what professor said -- newspapers will still be around in 10 years, and 20 years, probably 30. Smaller ones might fold, but they will always be there. That's awfully reassuring for us, considering we are about the spend four years of our lives and thousands of dollars to study the journalism industry. But really, here's an opinion from another smart person in the industry that should reassure us even more so.
Martin Langeveld is a 30-year journalism verteran who's worked at a variety of New England papers, according to his bio on the Nieman Journalism Lab page, which is a Web site run through Harvard University. Anyways, in a study that was done recently by Langeveld, he found out that more than 96 percent of newspaper reading is done via print.
Yes, you read that correctly. Put another way, just more than 3 percent of newspaper reading happens online. Langeveld says that the online industry is not overtaking print like so many people assume. And out of everyone to believe, we should trust him. He did countless calculations to come to this conclusion, none of which I will go into for the betterment of your sanity if you've read this far.
But basically, Langeveld multiplies lots of numbers to prove that way more stories and pages are read in print than online. Put simply, millions of web hits sounds great, but there are millions of "hits" (my word, not his) in print everyday when you take into account how many stories are on a page and how many pages are in a paper.
Langeveld acknowledges a few of his estimates could be off, but still says he would come to the same conclusion either way. He writes:
"Even if I’ve overestimated those by 100 percent or 200 percent, the analysis still reaches the same conclusion, which is that within the limits of newspaper readership in print and online, the public still reads newspaper content in print by an overwhelming margin."
Langeveld gives an explanation to a problem we've talked of in class several times. He attributes the newspaper industry's failure to take advantage of online advertising to the finding of his study. Put simply, advertising revenue online is falling short of expectations not so much because people in the industry have failed to come up with a solid plan, but rather because most people still read news in print. Expecting 10 percent of advertising revenue from online is unreasonable when only 3 percent of the news is being read there, he writes. He actually mentions that the online department might be overachieving, based on the circumstances.
So there you go, share your thoughts if you want. Just don't get too worked up yet, there's still hope.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Dwindling copy editors
I found the American-Journalism Review article on copy editors to be quite the interesting read, as I was just wondering the other day how many people really see a story before it is posted these days. But the news for the news industry is, well, bad. Fewer and fewer individuals are viewing stories before they are posted online (and in the paper), and that can be dangerous.
In addition to there being fewer copy editors to read stories, articles are not copy edited as well because there is the rush to put content online as quickly as possible. Organizations always want to be the first to break news and know that every minute matters. Even though it may not seem like much, speeding up the editing process by one or two minutes can let one or two more facts slip through.
This is a big issue, and I can see both sides. Accuracy is always the number one concern and should never be overlooked. But I can only imagine from working as an editor at DI how rushed and how much pressure is on editors at an enormous professional news organization. When copy editors and desk editors are rushed, errors will slip through. For that reason, if the people want news quickly, they need to realize this will happen.
In addition to the lack of editors is the vast amount of information that now can be posted online. Stories that in past years might not run in the daily paper can be put on the web. This gives editors even more to do, but papers sure can't hire more copy editors in today's economy.
I think it's OK for headlines to be more bland (if they are still correct) and for there to be a lack of breakout boxes and extra graphics if that means keeping the integrity of stories. The truth is the foundation of a news organization. Readers may take notice of headlines and read stories they otherwise wouldn't have, but I've never heard of anyone who buys the paper simply to read the headlines. They want news, and that should always be provided in a factual manner.
I agree with one solution the AJR article suggested: having reporters become better editors themselves. Reporters should always read their own stories before filing them if they have any extra time. Even for experienced reporters, sometimes simple things can slip by them that could be easily corrected with a quick read. Also, a few sentences might need to be re-worded. Reporters should be required to attend some editing sessions every so often so they can be reminded of the basics of editing. All that is something that could save an editor precious minutes in today's world and prevent costly errors.
In addition to there being fewer copy editors to read stories, articles are not copy edited as well because there is the rush to put content online as quickly as possible. Organizations always want to be the first to break news and know that every minute matters. Even though it may not seem like much, speeding up the editing process by one or two minutes can let one or two more facts slip through.
This is a big issue, and I can see both sides. Accuracy is always the number one concern and should never be overlooked. But I can only imagine from working as an editor at DI how rushed and how much pressure is on editors at an enormous professional news organization. When copy editors and desk editors are rushed, errors will slip through. For that reason, if the people want news quickly, they need to realize this will happen.
In addition to the lack of editors is the vast amount of information that now can be posted online. Stories that in past years might not run in the daily paper can be put on the web. This gives editors even more to do, but papers sure can't hire more copy editors in today's economy.
I think it's OK for headlines to be more bland (if they are still correct) and for there to be a lack of breakout boxes and extra graphics if that means keeping the integrity of stories. The truth is the foundation of a news organization. Readers may take notice of headlines and read stories they otherwise wouldn't have, but I've never heard of anyone who buys the paper simply to read the headlines. They want news, and that should always be provided in a factual manner.
I agree with one solution the AJR article suggested: having reporters become better editors themselves. Reporters should always read their own stories before filing them if they have any extra time. Even for experienced reporters, sometimes simple things can slip by them that could be easily corrected with a quick read. Also, a few sentences might need to be re-worded. Reporters should be required to attend some editing sessions every so often so they can be reminded of the basics of editing. All that is something that could save an editor precious minutes in today's world and prevent costly errors.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Misleading with numbers
"Journalists can either be among those who spread foggy thinking, or those who reveal it and counteract it. We just need to take the necessary trouble."
Michael Roberts - Cincinnati Enquirer
So I found that quote on this Web site. Funny part was, this was an article talking about the use of numbers in journalism. The quote can definitely be attached to journalism as a whole, but in this case Mr. Roberts' quote was actually referring to numbers, and for good reason -- numbers provide as much fog in journalism as anything else.
Numbers are great. As a writer, they can be extremely helpful if you use them correctly. Reporters aren't allowed to inject their opinion, but if you use numbers to back up an assertion or claim, even if you don't have anyone quoted on the topic, then you can accurately and effectively make your point as a writer.
For example, if you want to say a coach in college basketball actually underachieves all the time and isn't really that good of an in-game coach, you can do that if you have statistics to back it up. If the coach has three first-round NBA draft picks on his roster every year but never makes say, the Final Four or Sweet Sixteen, then you can use those figures to help your argument. While columinsts often make bold statements without anything to back up their point, reporters don't have that luxury. Numbers/statistics, however, can really help reporters in that case though.
But writers must be careful in how they use numbers. Put enough numbers together and you're bound to get what you want, which can sometimes be misleading. It seems like I've seen this 100 times on Sportscenter when analysts debate whether someone belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Tim Kurkjian comes on TV and comes up with the most random of stats, often along these lines: Player X is the only player in major league baseball to hit 300 home runs, steal 300 bases, win two batting titles, win a Gold Glove, get hit by 150 pitches and never strike out 100 times in a season.
My point is, put enough figures together and you're bound to make a player stand out. But that can be misleading when arguing for someone's entry into the Hall of Fame, as you can make statistical arguments for any player. Someone who was a solid player can suddenly look like an all-time great.
So when you copy edit anything with numbers, make sure you do a double take. Even if the numbers aren't wrong, make sure they aren't misleading either -- because you can do so much when you use figures.
Michael Roberts - Cincinnati Enquirer
So I found that quote on this Web site. Funny part was, this was an article talking about the use of numbers in journalism. The quote can definitely be attached to journalism as a whole, but in this case Mr. Roberts' quote was actually referring to numbers, and for good reason -- numbers provide as much fog in journalism as anything else.
Numbers are great. As a writer, they can be extremely helpful if you use them correctly. Reporters aren't allowed to inject their opinion, but if you use numbers to back up an assertion or claim, even if you don't have anyone quoted on the topic, then you can accurately and effectively make your point as a writer.
For example, if you want to say a coach in college basketball actually underachieves all the time and isn't really that good of an in-game coach, you can do that if you have statistics to back it up. If the coach has three first-round NBA draft picks on his roster every year but never makes say, the Final Four or Sweet Sixteen, then you can use those figures to help your argument. While columinsts often make bold statements without anything to back up their point, reporters don't have that luxury. Numbers/statistics, however, can really help reporters in that case though.
But writers must be careful in how they use numbers. Put enough numbers together and you're bound to get what you want, which can sometimes be misleading. It seems like I've seen this 100 times on Sportscenter when analysts debate whether someone belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Tim Kurkjian comes on TV and comes up with the most random of stats, often along these lines: Player X is the only player in major league baseball to hit 300 home runs, steal 300 bases, win two batting titles, win a Gold Glove, get hit by 150 pitches and never strike out 100 times in a season.
My point is, put enough figures together and you're bound to make a player stand out. But that can be misleading when arguing for someone's entry into the Hall of Fame, as you can make statistical arguments for any player. Someone who was a solid player can suddenly look like an all-time great.
So when you copy edit anything with numbers, make sure you do a double take. Even if the numbers aren't wrong, make sure they aren't misleading either -- because you can do so much when you use figures.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The non-essential newspapaper
Evidently, according to Slate's Jack Shafer, newspapers are not essential to democracy. Now, I'm not claiming to know more than this man, nor am I going to go on record as saying I truly am knowledgeable about the relationship between newspapers and democracy. But for the sake of this blog, I'm going to argue against him and bring up some points that Mr. Shafer does not.
One main area that I disagree with Shafer on is when he writes, "If the Washington Post didn't endorse a presidential nominee or the New York Times failed to assemble exhaustive biographies of the candidates, I'm sure the voters would find their way to most of the relevant information."
Obviously, if papers didn't exist elections would go on, we would probably still have a solid candidate in office. But one thing newspapers do well is dig through the crap and junk in political campaigns to bring the big, meaningful issues to the table. Watching campaign coverage on TV far too often leads to clips on candidates talking themselves up. They obviously will say they are the best candidate, whereas a journalist can pick out the few meaningful words that often speak and write a well-informed article around that.
Also, it's often hard to know a candidates' take on every issue by watching TV. In the 2004 presidential election, I can recall my local paper from home spelling out in a simple chart each candidates' stances on the important issues. Something like that may not seem like a big deal, but it's things like that which make papers so valuable. They've been bringing important news to citizens for years.
While newspapers have completely legitimate Web sites, the fact that the Internet gives so many the power to share their opinions, sometimes in a blasphemous manner, makes me wary of how well the online medium could replace newspapers as being essential to democracy. There's so many political Web sites that spew opinion mixed with some information that the line is blurred online. Readers that really want true information will still surely log on and find it, but some may get lost on their way there.
Also, I feel like there is more "power," per se, behind a story that runs in the paper. I think much of that is because of the photos that run with it. When Obama won the election, the next day's photo of him standing on stage in Grant Park with his arms raised in victory gave me the chills. That photo was powerful, and it was simply something that couldn't have the same effect online, for reasons that I can't quite describe, but also reasons that I think people understand.
Slate also writes that "Until the current newspaper crisis, you rarely heard politicians or activists bleating about how important newspapers were to self-government." All I can say to that is sometimes you don't realize what you have until it's gone, or in this case, until you think it may be gone.
One main area that I disagree with Shafer on is when he writes, "If the Washington Post didn't endorse a presidential nominee or the New York Times failed to assemble exhaustive biographies of the candidates, I'm sure the voters would find their way to most of the relevant information."
Obviously, if papers didn't exist elections would go on, we would probably still have a solid candidate in office. But one thing newspapers do well is dig through the crap and junk in political campaigns to bring the big, meaningful issues to the table. Watching campaign coverage on TV far too often leads to clips on candidates talking themselves up. They obviously will say they are the best candidate, whereas a journalist can pick out the few meaningful words that often speak and write a well-informed article around that.
Also, it's often hard to know a candidates' take on every issue by watching TV. In the 2004 presidential election, I can recall my local paper from home spelling out in a simple chart each candidates' stances on the important issues. Something like that may not seem like a big deal, but it's things like that which make papers so valuable. They've been bringing important news to citizens for years.
While newspapers have completely legitimate Web sites, the fact that the Internet gives so many the power to share their opinions, sometimes in a blasphemous manner, makes me wary of how well the online medium could replace newspapers as being essential to democracy. There's so many political Web sites that spew opinion mixed with some information that the line is blurred online. Readers that really want true information will still surely log on and find it, but some may get lost on their way there.
Also, I feel like there is more "power," per se, behind a story that runs in the paper. I think much of that is because of the photos that run with it. When Obama won the election, the next day's photo of him standing on stage in Grant Park with his arms raised in victory gave me the chills. That photo was powerful, and it was simply something that couldn't have the same effect online, for reasons that I can't quite describe, but also reasons that I think people understand.
Slate also writes that "Until the current newspaper crisis, you rarely heard politicians or activists bleating about how important newspapers were to self-government." All I can say to that is sometimes you don't realize what you have until it's gone, or in this case, until you think it may be gone.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Email interviews -- is that really you?
I was kind of drawing a blank on what to blog about, so I just started surfing around. Alas, I came across tips and information on email interviews, something I've used just a few times in my young journalistic career.
On the surface, email interviews seem great. For sources not in your local area, it's a great way to get a hold of without playing phone tag, something all journalists have experienced that drives them nuts. All you have to do is send your email and then go about your daily life. No worries about your source calling while you're in an important meeting, class or at a basketball game.
Another one of my favorite things about email interviews - the quote is right there in writing for you. There's no need to listen intently to your voice recorder or write 1,000 mph to get the quote perfect. In journlism, as with most professions, time is precious, and email interviews certainly save us time. Poynter's Jonathon Dube lists the above reasons and many others as advantages to email interviews, but he cautions journalists should be wary and careful as well when using these. (Keep in mind that this article was from several years ago, I believe.)
One advantage of email interviews is also the biggest disadvantage. Email gives sources more time to repsond and formulate quality answers that convey what they want. That's good for the reporter because you can get solid, in-depth answers (the only thing that frustrates me more than a source not getting back to me is a source who I do speak with that has absolutely nothing to say). But at the same time, it takes away from the reporter's ability to ask spontaneous questions. You would have to send another entire email to do that and wait awhile again. So much of our job is our ability to pick up what is meaningful to a source when we talk with them. We shouldn't go into an interview with a set story angle. We should shape our story angle around the ideas/questions we ask and see what the source has to say. Only after we hear what our source says should we have our angle from which to write an article. Talking on the phone, or even better, talking in person, gives the reporter the best chance to ask follow-up questions when the source says something important, interesting and newsworthy. You just can't do that effectively in an email interview.
Although I couldn't find any recent instances in the news of reporters being tricked by sources on email, it does mention it at the start of the Poynter article as having happened several years ago. That is the scariest problem with email interviews. But even if the worst doesn't happen, smaller tricks could occur.
From the Poynter site, "A reporter doesn't know who is replying. That executive's e-mail may have been carefully crafted by public relations advisers. Or someone could be posing."
Maybe you're not totally duped by a random person, but a PR person repsonding for a CEO of a huge company or a professional athlete could be almost just as bad. You're not getting a true response but rather information and quotes that will make the person/organization look the best in the public eye. And we all know that's not journalism. So I guess the message is: Don't use email interviews unless compltely necessary, and even then, be careful, especially when covering well-known figures.
On the surface, email interviews seem great. For sources not in your local area, it's a great way to get a hold of without playing phone tag, something all journalists have experienced that drives them nuts. All you have to do is send your email and then go about your daily life. No worries about your source calling while you're in an important meeting, class or at a basketball game.
Another one of my favorite things about email interviews - the quote is right there in writing for you. There's no need to listen intently to your voice recorder or write 1,000 mph to get the quote perfect. In journlism, as with most professions, time is precious, and email interviews certainly save us time. Poynter's Jonathon Dube lists the above reasons and many others as advantages to email interviews, but he cautions journalists should be wary and careful as well when using these. (Keep in mind that this article was from several years ago, I believe.)
One advantage of email interviews is also the biggest disadvantage. Email gives sources more time to repsond and formulate quality answers that convey what they want. That's good for the reporter because you can get solid, in-depth answers (the only thing that frustrates me more than a source not getting back to me is a source who I do speak with that has absolutely nothing to say). But at the same time, it takes away from the reporter's ability to ask spontaneous questions. You would have to send another entire email to do that and wait awhile again. So much of our job is our ability to pick up what is meaningful to a source when we talk with them. We shouldn't go into an interview with a set story angle. We should shape our story angle around the ideas/questions we ask and see what the source has to say. Only after we hear what our source says should we have our angle from which to write an article. Talking on the phone, or even better, talking in person, gives the reporter the best chance to ask follow-up questions when the source says something important, interesting and newsworthy. You just can't do that effectively in an email interview.
Although I couldn't find any recent instances in the news of reporters being tricked by sources on email, it does mention it at the start of the Poynter article as having happened several years ago. That is the scariest problem with email interviews. But even if the worst doesn't happen, smaller tricks could occur.
From the Poynter site, "A reporter doesn't know who is replying. That executive's e-mail may have been carefully crafted by public relations advisers. Or someone could be posing."
Maybe you're not totally duped by a random person, but a PR person repsonding for a CEO of a huge company or a professional athlete could be almost just as bad. You're not getting a true response but rather information and quotes that will make the person/organization look the best in the public eye. And we all know that's not journalism. So I guess the message is: Don't use email interviews unless compltely necessary, and even then, be careful, especially when covering well-known figures.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Anonymous Sources
So I was browsing around because I didn't know what to write about, and I came across this Web site on Schurz Communications. I didn't know what it was, so I Wikipediaed (yeah I just made up that word) it and found out that it's basically a huge media conglomerate based in Indiana in charge of a bunch of newspapers and television stations. Anyway, this group has a Web site with some good tips and an ethics guide.
One part that I thought looked interesting was the section on anonymous sources. Anonymous sources sources are rarely used in student newspapers like the Daily Illini, but in professional papers you will see them often. Using these sources can come at a price, as the readers are putting a lot of trust in your paper. If your anonymous source turns out to be wrong with on something, your paper is going to take a lot of heat and readers will be skeptical in the future. But at the same time, using them can allow you to get important information, and in turn important stories.
Here's some good advice from the Schurz site:
"In an era where the credibility of the media is always under fire, it is unwise for a newspaper to go out of its way to ask readers to "trust us" by using sources anonymously. Putting the source on the record makes him or her accountable. When we allow anonymity in a news story, we are still accountable, but the nameless person is not."
Essentially, if you are an editor, you had better have a lot of trust in the anonymous source to use them because you will get burned if the information turns out to be not true. The article
Seeing as I'm interested in sports, I take notice of how often anonymous sources are used in sports. Go to ESPN.com and you're bound to hear the network reporting the latest contract negotiations or trade scenarios based on what they hear from their anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are important there because that's information that would not otherwise be allowed in the paper. But they are everywhere in sports, and it doesn't always turn out correctly. Not too long ago, multiple sports outlets reported Tyson Chandler was being traded from the New Orleans Hornets to the Oklahoma Thunder, but the trade fell through when he failed a physical. While the articles often said something about "pending a physical," if you turned on the TV, it was often not mentioned for long segments. Trades are often reported early from "high-ranking officials" who remain anonymous because the trade is completed, but there's a reason things aren't always completed yet. It just goes to show you have to be careful with anonymous sources.
And one last piece of parting advice from the Schurz Web site: "Unnecessary use of anonymous sources is antithetical to one of the newpaper's basic roles, which is to act as a forum for discussion and debate."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)