Save the soul of online news: Don't let Huff Post kill it
News aggregation and curation is important, it may be the future of online news, but the
social news model of Reddit.com and others is much better than the wrongly championed Huffington Post.
Online news experts such as Jeff Jarvis, Felix Salmon, Robert Niles et all say
aggregation is inevitable. They seem to suggest that
online conversation centered on issues is the only thing that matters in online news.
And since The New York Times was late to the online news innovation stakes, these experts will let you believe that the NYT should just bow to the might of Huffington Post.
Acting as gatekeepers for what is good and what is bad with online journalism, these experts probably did not take kindly to the NYT editor Bill Keller's (who, like most good editors, is a behind-the-scenes kind of guy) outburst against Arianna Huffington, who is
more in the news than the news itself. These guys look to be in awe of the promotional abilities of Arianna Huffington.
Should
the NYT should just roll over and die? Who will fund good journalism? After all, if conversation is all that matters, then there is no need for reporters to go out out daily and covering their beats. Just sit at your computer and say 'whadup?'. You are a newsperson now.
Let us examine The Huff Post Kind of aggregation. Here, dedicated editors choose news stories, using a good chunk of other's work in block quotes, so that the user doesn't have to go to the original source. The editors follow it up with slideshows, tweets about the article, shallow articles based on Google trends, and the latest celebrity scandal. This is not aggregation.
This is not online news. This is just blogging on a huge scale.
If it is '
aggregation + conversation' that is the holy grail for online news, then we already have shining examples in form of
Social news/Discussion sites such as
Reddit (and its excellent sub-reddits), Hacker News, Fark, and Slashdot. During its hey days, the conversation on Digg was also good.
In 2008, Jeff Jarvis write about the need for more explainers online. Jeff said, '
The building block of journalism is no longer the article'.
What Jeff meant was that
an article isn't enough to cover an issue. You must aggregate and curate relevant links about the issue on a regular basis, using other online sources, some thing like Wikipedia, eventually creating a hugely resourceful page onb that issue.
How many such pages has Huffington Post created? I tried searching Huff Post. Used the Search box. Put in words like
"explainer", "special", and "spotlight". All I got was a garbage collection of tweets and links to links.
Let us come back to aggregation and conversation.
You do not hear publishers complaining about Reddit linking to their stories do you? The Huffington Post has murdered the great idea of social news, with all its razzmatazz of celebrity name throwing, in your face excerpting, and clever partnering (Facebook etc.). It used the simmering right-vs.-liberal divisions in America, beating established players like Daily Kos, and eventually getting bigger traffic (and market valuation) than The New York Times.
Apologists for the Huff Post, like Paul Carr of Techcrunch (a Huff Post/AOL property now) say that despite what many may think,
thousands of writers try to submit articles for free, daily. Yes, i
f these writers were any good, they would have their own blog and a following of their own.
You will not see Tyler Cowen (Marginal revolution) or Jason Kottke needing to submit to Huff Post to raise their profiles. The kind of writers who try to submit stories to Huff Post earlier tried to submit their articles to Digg.com or any other social news sites available. Huff Post is kind of like MillionDollarPixels for bad writers or special interest groups, or PR people. Quality aggregation and conversation this isn't.
What all these experts are hoping for is that
enough momentum is generated for Huff Post so that it graduates from the mess of
pseudo-curation/aggregation and becomes a hub where local news people go to submit and share their stories, without ever having to pay anyone. The circle of online news hell goes on and on.
Meanwhile, the New York Times can look into buying Reddit from Condenast and let it run free.
Notes: A quick look at the pro-huff-post experts:
1. Jeff Jarvis - He is so pro he reposted
his defense of Huff Post on Huff Post itself.
2. Felix Salmon - On the rare occasion that NYT links to Huff Post without crediting the Huff Post writer in name, Felix chooses to use that example to
run down the Times.
3. Robert Niles - He writes correctly that
aggregation is important, but does not offer any concrete.
4. Paul Carr - Writes for Techcrunch. a Huff Post/AOL property. Paul is designated funny writer at Techcrunch, whose primary job profile is to prove that Techcrunch does quality writing too.
Also Read:
Huffington Post - Google's favorite News Content farm
Three Reasons why Web Journalism is a joke
How NYT is the main source for all major aggregators and social news sites
Update #1: Why I wrote this
I am a blogger. I link to articles. I put excerpts in blockquotes. I am not a big fan of traditional news organizations, who may be thick in the head, when it comes to online news.
But, in case of NYT vs. Huff Post, I see a certain bandwagoning happen, which is somewhat dishonest. I respect and admire NYT's content, and this is something worth standing up for.
Labels: huff post, online journalism
Felix Salmon's 5 ways Blogging has changed Journalism for better
Highlights from a interview of Felix Salmon, who is a journalist for Reuters, who explains the
positive effect blogging has had on journalists:
1. I have a more conversational voice on the blog.
I think of any given post as being part of a much broader conversation between bloggers and between me and my readers. Nearly all of my posts are reactions to something elsewhere online, and I try to be as generous as I can with links.
2. The main impact I think is the way that blog reporting can iterate.
In traditional media, you report the story and then you publish it; with blogs, you can start with something much less fully formed and then come back at it over time in many ways and from many angles.
3. Blogs can also geek out in a way that traditional journalists can’t.
There’s no space constraint online, and so if I want to spend 5,000 words writing about vulture funds, or a reporter at HuffPo wants to spend 4,000 words getting into the weeds of regulatory reform, they can.
4. Blogging has clearly given readers a much wider range of news sources to choose from.
(and) it’s great that readers are no longer confined to getting their news from a handful of outlets.
5. How Blogging is better than Twitter.
Professional journalists should always be beholden to high standards of professionalism, ethics, and accuracy. Random people with a Twitter account, not so much.
Labels: blogging, online journalism
Three reasons why “Web Journalism Is a Joke” (and what to do about it)
Former Engadget and Mashable Editor Samuel Axon writes a must read long piece about the
(sorry) state of web journalism. Samuel has written a timely post, and I have tried to summarize the post in three main points:
1. Web journalism has become a slave of search engine such as Google [The pagerank algorithm, Google trends, Google suggest...
... the rules Google uses to determine which websites gain strong rankings — and thus frequent traffic, high impressions and strong ad revenues — betray journalists and the people who need them at every turn.
And,
Google’s algorithms and the blog linking customs built around them favor those who write first, not those who write accurately.
Readability, accuracy and quality are not considerations. The only way to profit (apart from being a prophet or building a time machine) is to respond to what people are searching for.
2. Web journalism has become a slave of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
...so here we are writing 140-character posts (minus the link length) with Twitter trend words included before we’ve had time to come to terms with the information we’re reporting.
3. Most news sites/blogs are treating news as 'mass produced' commodities, tailored to demand [search trends, tweets etc.]
Learn to distinguish between hypocrites and honest ones.
I am tired of seeing TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington and Huff Po’s Arianna Huffington claim otherwise in their crusades against “old media.”
For all the flak they get, at least AOL’s Tim Armstrong, Demand Media’s Richard Rosenblatt and Mahalo’s Jason Calacanis aren’t lying through their teeth.
The result: Web journalism has gone to the dogs:
We are incentivized to offer what people want to hear, not what they need to hear.
Is there any solution to the mess Web journalism is in?
I remember Francis Ford Copolla, the famous director, saying in an interview that artists
creating wealth out of art is a relatively new thing.
Not long time ago, artists used to support themselves through patronage of rich people, doing other projects for sustenance (Copolla has a profitable wine business), or making do with little.
Web journalism/journalism needs to be somewhat like art.
See it not as means to riches but as a calling.
Because, no one else has any credible solution. Samuel says,
The responsibility lays with Google, Twitter, and other tech media companies that provide the infrastructure in which would-be journalists work. Mashable, AOL and The Huffington Post are all powerless to change anything.
Labels: online journalism
How to improve quality of online comments
At best, comments are distractions or ego-boosts , depending on the bloggers personality. Once you read the first 5-10 comments below a highly commented-upon post, you know you have read all the comments - it is rambling echo chamber, if not a free-for-all self-promotion pulpit.
Writing about the disappointing quality of online comments,
Virginia Heffernan writes in The New York Times,
Commenters, in short, rarely really sock it to a columnist. They also too often go automatic, churning out 100-word synopses of one stock ideological position after another.
But most disappointing of all, for readers, is that commenters don’t, as literary critics say, read an article against itself to show how, for example, an argument framed as incendiary is in fact banal, or one that’s meant to be feminist is retrogressive, or one that touts its originality is a knockoff.
How do we fix online commenting? Virginia offers her solution, citing the example of Slate.com:
Creating registration standards, inventive means of moderating and displaying comments, membership benefits for regular posters and ratings systems for useful comments are just some of the ways that other news outlets like Slate have improved the quality of reader responses.
Labels: howto, online journalism
The only course in Online Writing that you must take (sort of)
There are no clear cut solutions for people to money in a Google-ruled world but check this (non)course in online writing titled '
Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era' on Mcsweeney's, the list-making site for the smart set. Check out the prerequisites for the course:
Students must have completed at least two of the following.
ENG: 232WR—Advanced Tweeting: The Elements of Droll
LIT: 223—Early-21st-Century Literature: 140 Characters or Less
ENG: 102—Staring Blankly at Handheld Devices While Others Are Talking
ENG: 301—Advanced Blog and Book Skimming
ENG: 231WR—Facebook Wall Alliteration and Assonance
LIT: 202—The Literary Merits of Lolcats
LIT: 209—Internet-Age Surrealistic Narcissism and Self-Absorption
Labels: education, funny, online journalism
Why Economist must be the role model for Online Journalists
Comparing struggling newsweeklies Time and Newsweek to the thriving Economist,
Matt Pressman points out the
difference between being yourself and trying to please somebody:
...instead of filling their articles with self-serving quotes from government ministers you’ve never heard of, The Economist’s correspondents just give you the essential facts and a meaningful takeaway, whether the information came from their own reporting, the local press, or some obscure think tank.
The Economist was one Western Product even Mahatma Gandhi liked.
Time and Newsweek magazines are
'Readers' Digest meets People' for the kind of people who are now getting their time-pass fix from online sources.
What makes The Economist different and successful?
1.
It is about saying the truth as it is. Do more than original reporting and analysis.
Blunt is good.
2. Fluff is bad. Worse is fluff disguised in useless, fawning interviews. The Economist is sparse with praise and full of constructive criticism.
3
Do not listen to customers. Despite what you may have heard about Americans ignoring global news, The Economist will cover news from Bangladesh if it is important enough.
4.
Be useful: Give actionable intelligence rather some self-serving interview with some corporate 'hero'.
5.
Bylines do not matter if the words and ideas are too good to gloss over.
Labels: newspapers, online journalism, print media
How Online Journalism fared in the Pulitzers
2009 was the first time the Pulitzer awards considered Online-only news organizations. Sadly, no awards were given out
'to' or
'for' online journalism this time. Highlights about
Online Journalism in the Pulitzers:
1. The Pulitzer Awards received
65 entries from 37 different online-only organizations. 2. Out of 65,
21 entries were rejected because the sites don't primarily do original reporting.
3. Only one primarily online organization, Politico.com, a Washington-based politics news site, was a finalist - that too, in Cartooning.
[Lesson:
Politics and Cartooning are made for each other.]4.
Increasing role: Almost
One in Four of all Journalism entries had Online news component.
5.
Topics related to Online News content that were considered: Public Service News, Breaking News Reporting, Investigative Reporting, Local Reporting, National Reporting, Breaking News Photography and Feature Photography.Labels: blogging, online journalism, pulitzers
How much does it take to support investigative blogging?
The Firedoglake blog is on a mission to
raise $150,000 to fund a full-time, three-person team headed by Marcy Wheeler, who made her name with her scoop about Khalid Sheik Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times in one month. Marcy Wheeler also liveblogged the Libby trial, which is considered a breakthrough in online journalism.
On day 1 of the fund-raising campaign, they were able to raise $10,000.
For
Bighow, I hope to have a 10-person reporting/blogging team. With average salaries of Rs. 300,000 per annum, I am looking at Rs. 3 million, or $60,000 approximately. Soon, I will be crowd-sourcing for a list of things to investigate.
Labels: bighow, blogging, online journalism
What is good journalism?
I did not go to any journalism school. I have never worked for a newspaper or a magazine. As the founding Managing Editor of a Blog Network, a blogger and as the founder of a
platform for Local Journalism, this is what I have learned so far:
Labels: bighow, citizen journalism, guide, journalism, online journalism
The Nine Rules of Online Journalism
As some of you know, I have been working on a series of
guides on Online Journalism on Bighow. This presentation is a part of the exercise. Apologies for the sparse look.
Labels: bighow, guide, online journalism
"The world is not interested if you are not interested"
As a blogger and as a founder of the web's only all-in-one free online publishing tool,
Bighow.com, I look into the dark void of failure and loneliness of the
struggling entrepreneur on a regular basis.
[The image above is a screen-shot of the
publishing options at Bighow.]
Success I have yet to see. Failure is a constant companion. I try not to be seduced by failure.
A student of journalism puts out her
frustration with the state of the news business:
As I sat through most of my classes this semester, I realized the overrated-ness (if you will) of journalism. Journalist can be very ruthless, not caring about where their next story comes from - as long as it comes. I spent four years of my life studying to become a journalist, which means I sat in classes learning about the history of journalism, the technology boom, and how the news is shifting from newspapers to the Internet. I also spent a lot of time learning about the importance of “newsworthy-ness” only to realize that the only time I ever sit down and watch the news is when I’m bored, then EVERYTHING becomes newsworthy....
5 of my friends began their college careers as eager journalists. 5 of my friends are now either in a different field or no longer eager about being a journalist but eager to graduate. My choice is to go back and get another degree in Graphic Design - something that results in product that highlights as opposed to false light.
So, is journalism over-rated? Let's leave that for the pundits.
Although, out here in India, many of my colleagues who were in online publishing have moved onto
'secure' offline jobs.
Not easy: making it in the tough world of publishing, especially Online Publishing.
Not easy: Seeing so many talented journalists, writers and creative people struggling out there in the Matrix.
Don't panic.
Immortal words from the Great Douglas Adams.
Here's a short guide to succeeding in online publishing:Easy: Being positive and having a strong spine.
Easy: Being interested.
The world of online publishing is a tough place but it is a big place.
Incidentally, this is how I came with the name Bighow for my startup.
There is competition. Sure, but where isn't completion?
There is turbulence. Newer ideas and technologies threaten existing structures.
This world of ours has always been turbulent.
There is nothing called the 'good old days' except in the cliche handbooks of lazy writers and senile old people.
Quality will out.As long as you are able to serve what your community/readers/viewers/listeners require, you will do fine.
Start at finding out your own group of people who will listen to you.
In my experience, people who share your passions will be the first one to listen to you and talk with you.
This is the new reality that people from journalism backgrounds fail to grasp.
The Online Journalist is a community builder from start.
Seth Godin says,
"Build your own tribe."For that to happen, you will have to be interested in the world.
Labels: bighow, journalism, online journalism
The four models for paying journalists
I will try to summarize the three main models of paying journalists for the news they bring to the public:
1. Regular Pay: The safest option. Alas, the print advertising money that paid your salary is shrinking under the onslaught of the internet.
The problem is acute enough so that even journalism teachers are starting to
question this noble profession.
2. Micropayments: Where your readers pay you on each article read basis. Micropayment was once believed to offer reader and the writer a more flexible option than subscriptions. However, so far, no one has found a hassle free method of making micropayments.
3. Public Support: This method is currently in vogue. Web sites such as Newassignment.net have come up, channelizing outside funding to journalists who want to do investigative reporting.
Although, it appears sound (and noble as well) in nature,
the big problem is:
Who gets the money?
Since there can be an indeterminate number of people in any ongoing investigation, proportioning money can be hard. Harder than doing the investigative work itself :-)
4. Advertising: Many journalists (Oma Malik, Rafat Ali) who have left their mainstream media jobs to start their own largely blog-based news sites and blog networks find the ad model appealing.
This is something that they can easily implement - book a domain, set up wordpress, add all the necessary accessories, sign up for Google Adsense, paste the code provided by Google and Voila! You are set.
However, since the ad model is the easiest, it is also the hardest to stand you from the huge crowd.
To succeed using the ad model, you will need to:Find a profitable niche, develop a unique voice and work hours building and nurturing your target audience - commenting on other blogs, participating on forums etc. It is a long slog.
I am sure there are other models to pay journalists. Please share.
{Note: Model No. 1, the Pay Model is thriving here in India, where the print media is projected to make more money as a booming economy and a young, upwardly mobile demographic means that more Indians have access to reading matter than ever before. More on this, later]
Labels: adsense, blogging, citizen journalism, journalism, news, news business, online journalism
Free daily in Sweden pays citizen journalists through pay-per-view model
The
Swedish version of Metro, the free newspaper chain is using the pay-per-view model to pay citizen journalists.
Whenever any individual blog in the daily’s network crosses
5000 pageview per month, Metro credits the blogger’s bank account through MasterCard with US$20 (EUR 16).
Paying citizen bloggers is laudable.
However, I am not sure that pay-per-view is the right model.
I credit Metro for having a low traffic threshold of 5000 pageviews per month, but the pay-per-view model pay ensure that only topics that bring traffic are covered, much like what is happening in the blogosphere, with every blogger running after gadgets and gossip.
Some news sites are practicing pay-per-view and I wrote about it on
MediaVidea explaining how damaging it can be the cause of journalism.
Labels: blogging, citizen journalism, online journalism, pay per view
The Web needs more Journalists Entrepreneurs – Part 2
Owen Thomas, who was earlier at Business 2.0 magazine, has joined as Editor of
snarky Silicon Valley blog, Valleywag, which is part of Nick Denton (another former Journalist who rose to become a
‘Blog Moghul’). Owen Thomas, a snarky journalist himself, famous for raising questions will lead a team including talented writer Nick Douglas, who has his own take on snarkiness.
Enough of snakiness, what I wanted to say about this latest move is the phenomenon of a
‘single talented journalist’ (
Scott Carp’s phrase) can run a focused blog aided by a team of talented, often freelancing journalists, covering the stories they like, in the way they like.
You will notice that Valleywag, famed for pointing fingers at all things the Valley likes in abundance, Web 2.0 for example, is basically now run by snarky, forever questioning, ‘digging the dirt’ journalists.
Focus eventually brings you its won rewards – most importantly, a brand.Once you have an online brand fully set up in its niche, you can look at various options other than advertising income – special PDF/Print on demand versions, On-demand & appropriately formatted compilations, paid video tutorials, and maybe in the end, horrors, a print version itself.
Isn’t this what any ambitious journalist wants?
Labels: news 2.0, online journalism, snark
The web needs more journalist entrepreneurs
After Om Malik, Rafat Ali, Jason Calacanis and Nick Denton, who?
Which journalist will break out from the pack, build his own media brand, doing stories that only he/she likes?
Noting that this is a great time to start new media projects,
Dan Gilmore wants more young journalists to break free from the defeatist thinking of old media CEOs, go out and create the
best of traditional media, mixing that up with the
best of new media.
Eventually you might end up with valuable brands in the print, TV, radio and online spaces.
Exhorting young journalists to become part of a dynamic new generation, Dan says,
( generation that) figures out how to produce and, yes, sell the journalism we desperately need as a society and as citizens of a shrinking planet."
Labels: news 2.0, online journalism
