It is both an exciting and terrifying time for journalists. Print newspaper subscriber numbers are steadily declining, online readers are increasing, and newspaper companies are scrambling to find a way to continue to make a profit out of the honorable, longstanding business of newspapers.
NewsTrust may be the missing link that newspaper people have been searching for since the rise of the colossal gathering of information that we fondly refer to as the Internet. NewsTrust incorporates pieces of other successful sites like Digg.com. The rating system is simple, short and convenient. It contains the perfect amount of questions to keep a nation adled with short attention spans interested: 3. Even better, the questions are yes or no. These simple questions get straight to the point, though. Is this story factual? Is this story fair? Would you recommend this story? Audiences can therefore "digg" articles up and down based on these three important factors. And, you can add an optional comment in, if you so choose.
Another key issue that NewsTrust has delved into is the credibility of readers and commentators. You need to sign up to use NewsTrust, and comments and ratings are tied back to your name, so there are consequences for rude or biases responses. There is a system of rating for the raters of NewsTrust articles, and you must disclose any affiliation you have to an article. The rating of the raters looks at whether or not you tent to only vote positively on conservative articles, for example. It also takes in to account the number of articles you have reviewed. A seasoned reviewer’s votes have more weight that a first timer. One of many positive reviews of NewsTrust can be found here: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/886429/a_review_of_newstrustnet_pg2.html?cat=48
All of these aspects of NewsTrust are important in leading me to believe that this is the future of journalism. Articles across news companies that are rated for fairness and factuality as well as how enjoyable it is are an excellent way to bring the best news forward, and get readers into the habit of becoming discerning news viewers. To all those that are frightened about the future of newspapers: put your shades on, the future is starting to look bright.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
NPR: iPads & Huffpo
News isn't created by news companies or newspapers, it’s true. Bloggers, especially professional bloggers with journalistic chops, have the capacity to cover more subjects, and are able to take over niches in which they are covering a subject that is an area of expertise to them. This leads, in my opinion, to better journalism. I'm not the only one who thinks Arianna Huffington may be on to something: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dal-lamagna/hail-mary-or-hail-arianna_b_820239.html
One of my Pulitzer-prize winning professors was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. He said that he slowly became an expert in a dozen specific global issues, and learned everything he could about those issues. He said he had to do this because he needed some expertise in order to do his job well, but there simply wasn't enough time for him to become an expert on everything. In the NPR broadcast, it is stated that with online journalism, it is possible to "hear more voices in more ways". AOL's acquisition of the Huffington Post is not quite journalism being bought out by corporation. Arianna Huffington has said that she recognizes the importance of journalists to the extent that she hires them to be her bloggers, which is good news for journalism students worldwide.
Getting news through the iPad is another hot idea in the news media world at the moment. It remains to be seen whether or not large masses of people will be willing to pay for such a service. I could definitely see a market for niche publications on electronics like smart-phones and iPads as time progresses. I think it would be wise for the New York Times and the Washington Post to begin throwing around ideas about how to make money through smart phone and iPad readership. These companies should be investigating whether paying for the service, or getting money through advertisers is the smartest way to go about advancing the field of journalism as a whole.
One of my Pulitzer-prize winning professors was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. He said that he slowly became an expert in a dozen specific global issues, and learned everything he could about those issues. He said he had to do this because he needed some expertise in order to do his job well, but there simply wasn't enough time for him to become an expert on everything. In the NPR broadcast, it is stated that with online journalism, it is possible to "hear more voices in more ways". AOL's acquisition of the Huffington Post is not quite journalism being bought out by corporation. Arianna Huffington has said that she recognizes the importance of journalists to the extent that she hires them to be her bloggers, which is good news for journalism students worldwide.
Getting news through the iPad is another hot idea in the news media world at the moment. It remains to be seen whether or not large masses of people will be willing to pay for such a service. I could definitely see a market for niche publications on electronics like smart-phones and iPads as time progresses. I think it would be wise for the New York Times and the Washington Post to begin throwing around ideas about how to make money through smart phone and iPad readership. These companies should be investigating whether paying for the service, or getting money through advertisers is the smartest way to go about advancing the field of journalism as a whole.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
This week in my "Understanding News Audiences" class we discussed America's trust in news organizations. Clearly, this led me to examine my own trust in news organizations and media outlets. It just so happens that my trust is pretty low.
It seems that most media organizations think that if the public is skeptical of them, that it's a negative thing. I believe that unless the general public questions the media, and is selective about what they choose to believe, than there will constantly be someone in the media trying to spin things in a way to fit their own agenda.
This book review posted on Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that there is clearly a need for resources in reach of both the public and media professionals. "BLUR: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload", a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel outlines different things that citizens can do to help decide whether or not their news media can be trusted.
The book lists the following “Six Essential Tools for Interpreting the News”:
1. What kind of content am I encountering?
2. Is the information complete? If not, what's missing?
3. Who or what are the sources and why should I believe them?
4. What evidence is presented and how was it tested or vetted?
5. What might be an alternative explanation or understanding?
6. Am I learning what I need?
I think these are basic and simple “tools” that every person should already be using to figure out whether or not their source of news is legitimate. “In an age when the line between citizen and journalist is becoming increasingly unclear, Blur is a crucial guide for those who want to know what's true,” touts the review. It’s interesting to me that people might not automatically think of “rule 3” (identify the sources and why I should believe them). As a journalism major I sometimes forget that not everyone has been instructed to discriminately review each source of information and double check it against other sources. Hopefully, people will begin to use the knowledge set forth in this book to help identify news sources that are honest and trustworthy. I think that only then will American confidence in news organizations begin rising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)