Alburquerque Journal

A friend sent me this link about another newspaper biting the dust. The last day of the Albuquerque Journal is documented here in this SoundSlides presentation. Isn't this sad? And also interesting that the demise of an old medium is reported in the new medium.

News Producing: From Quinn

Quinn pointed out that a well known blogger, Josh Marshall, has just won a George Polk award (which is just under the Pulitzer in terms of esteem), indicating a change in how the powers that be are viewing journalism production. This guy, who writes Talking Points Memo, is smart, no doubt, and he thinks of himself as a journalist. But, as the New York Times writes:

His work differs, though, from big newspaper or network political reporters. It often involves synthesizing the work of other news outlets with his staff’s original reporting and tips from a highly involved readership. In the case of the United States attorneys, Talking Points Memo linked to many local articles about federal prosecutors being forced from office and drew a national picture for readers. The site “connected the dots and found a pattern of federal prosecutors being forced from office for failing to do the Bush administration’s bidding,” the Polk citation said.

Is this then journalism now? Aggregating and synthesis? I think one could argue that it has always been one of the goals of journalism, but the point could be debated. In addition, should Marshall and bloggers like him be considered part of the journalistic community, and thus held to the same standards as mainstream members of the press? Should he be? What does all this mean for how news production practices are shifting?

Geocoded News

The notion of hyperlocal has advanced into "geocoding." We are seeing it in Adrian Holovaty's EveryBlock. And now Google News is offering users to receive local headlines etc from anywhere.
Now that we can drill down to news relational only to me and my neighborhood, the opportunity for the old micro communities might enhance geographic connections.
Some other questions I have:
Is this the way around media conglomeration? (I say this because it allows people with a one-paper town to see news from other, unexpected, sources. But who's doing the journalism? Most likely the same stories by the same reporter are being repackaged with a wire service byline, but I could be wrong.)
Will this exacerbate the mass audience fragmentation? And is that a bad thing?
How will such channeling considerations ultimately affect news routines and practices?
These are just some things I am thinking about.

Facebook and Privacy

Every college senior looking for a job should read this piece about privacy and Facebook in today's New York Times. Quoting Erving Goffman, Adam Cohen makes the point that the information we present to the public creates the sense of self taken in by the rest of society. But Facebook and other companies are implementing features that distribute information not necessarily authorized by people. They are going on the assumption that people have an expanded tolerance for shared private information, whether or not they give their consent for its publication.
Here's my question: once our own presentation of self is taken away from us, what does that mean for our relationships with others, the notion of truth in self, and control over identity creation? The answers in there will indicate shifts in how we decide (collectively and individually) who we befriend, employ, converse with, remember, relate to, network, etc etc.

"The Cap Times is dying"

Shortly after the announcement that the Capital Times was moving to a twice-weekly topical edition and augmented online product, one of my colleagues asked me in the hallway "hey, did you hear that the Cap Times is dying?" I found this to be an interesting way of thinking about what is happening (you can find reaction and the video here). Other comments peppering Madison's forums have echoed this thought, with the Cap Times' people assuring people that it will simply be "an old message in a new medium."

I've long argued that newspapers print products must eventually give way to the online world, which allows new ways of mass dissemination with expanded content without the overhead of a printing and delivery system. I suspect we are going to start seeing a trickle of such announcements in the industry. Eventually, this will be a common occurence.

I find thinking about what's happening here as a death to be limiting (not to mention cynical). The Cap Times is particularly well suited to make this transition, given its partnership with the Wisconsin State Journal and the madison.com online forum. They have an opportunity to dedicate energies to all kinds of journalism projects made possible by online technologies, multimedia and interactivity. I was distressed, though, to hear about the job cuts (more than a dozen expected). Good journalism -- no matter its medium -- takes resources. And I hope the Cap Times management recognizes that right now, their news organization could be a pioneer, blazing new trails and proving all their detractors wrong.

We are at a critical juncture in journalism. I think this announcement is a mark of an evolution. We'll see if the Cap Times can evolve in the right ways to survive.

Spokesman-Review Ethics

The Spokesman Review (one of my favorite news organizations) has just revamped its ethics policy for its employees. I find it interesting how standard and traditional the new code is, with very little discussion of the new interactive exchanges happening online. I could only find this paragraph, relating to libel:

Web journalism that is interactive – that allows third parties to post information or commentary to spokesmanreview.com – differs from the newspaper in terms of the laws of defamation and privacy. As of this code’s last revision, Congress allows providers of interactive Web sites immunity from publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written by others in order to encourage free speech. This principle, however, does not override our ethics and values as a news-gathering operation. Questions about third-party information on the site or being offered to the site should be raised with a supervisor or editor. The Spokesman-Review has the discretion to refuse or pull material based on issues of obscenity, defamatory content or personal attacks.

From my perspective, this new code -- revamped because of the Internet's attributes -- firmly establishes interaction going on within the site as being something separate from Spokesman-Review journalism. There is no discussion (and perhaps this particular ethics document was not the place for such a topic) of new responsibilities and ethics for online contributions, including Q/As with reporters, for example. Kovach & Rosenstiel in their latest edition of Elements of Journalism suggested that a key dynamic of good journalism today lies with citizens. The responsibility for an informed public sphere is as much on 'regular' people as it is on journalists, even within private media organizations, Kovach & Rosenstiel wrote.

In some ways the Spokesman-Review is protecting its brand. The ethics document clearly works to normalize new features such as reporter blogs into the normative standards and practices of the industry. And that's a good thing because it starts to put some boundaries up around these web features that had the potential to run amok with rumor and irresponsible information dissemination.
On the other hand, one wonders whether normative practices should become more flexible in consideration of new ways to produce information. (I am not saying I believe this blasphemous statement, but am throwing it out there to hear reaction.)
Either way, I am not sure completely divorcing the newsroom product from the co-production by readers online, ethically, is really acknowledging how journalism practices are changing in a significant manner.

Would love to hear others' perspectives.

Database Structuring

I was at a conference for online journalists not too long ago and the focus of the event was on database structuring, using numbers organized in searchable manners to tell a story. Tech guru Adrian Holovaty spoke. At that event as well as in a Q/A with him by the Online Journalism Review, Holovaty placed the emphasis on "journalism through computer programming," saying that it's preferable to automate as much of the journalistic process as possible. He breaks down journalism into three steps: Gathering, distilling and presenting information.

I am of two minds regarding this most recent trend in journalism, and I would love to hear what people think about this. I am wondering about what gets lost in thinking about journalism in this technical, machinist manner. This article reminded me of a conversation I had last night with a computer programmer at the SuperBowl regarding the nature of "fact" and presentation in journalism as news. This individual was lamenting his disdain for the purposeful manipulation of information on the part of journalists to obscure the "truth" for political or other motivations. Adrian here seems to suggest that such intentional presentation might give way to automated fact sifting. Where is the notion of story here though? How do we reconcile narrative understandings of news and the cultural and sociological roles for the press
with this notion of journalism as computer programming?

But I think there is much to gain as well, of course. In this Q/A Holovaty goes over some of it, particularly the new call for such structuring of data in this information-rich (nay, overrun) society.

What do people think? How do these ways of looking at journalism today mesh with our traditional understandings of the press' function in society?