TheWayoftheWeb

Content and Digital Marketing Specialists

publishing

UK regional newspaper opens up to live input

By

Just saw this via @adrianmoss on Twitter. The Liverpool Daily Post is live blogging today about how the paper and website are put together, and inviting readers/users to share ideas and talk about what they want to read.

It’s going on until midnight, and there seems to be a constant stream of questions coming in from interested readers, ranging from debates about content to finding out if the editorial staff need to drink a lot of coffee to stay awake.

It’s a really good initiative for a number of reasons, including the fact that it conveys the enthusiasm and excitement of working for the paper, as well as giving more accessibility and greater insights into the paper – and into the readers. And seeing as the Liverpool Daily Post is part of the Trinity Mirror group, if this is successful it could be carried across to a lot more titles. I just hope this is the start of something, and not just a one off initiative. Certainly the comments of the Editor, Mark Thomas, indicate there’s a reason to be hopeful:

“I’m sure a lot of people will be surprised at the decision to make our next day’s stories public before they are published, but our readers are intelligent, questioning people whose input will enhance our news-gathering operation. I look forward to sharing my thoughts with them and hearing their own views as the day progresses.”

Max Gogarty and The Guardian – From mistake, to farce, to learning

By

I was ready to lay into The Guardian again, as the whole Max Gogarty controversy seemed to be missing the basic point of blogging. Besides the issues of nepotism, and class, the controversy would have been much less if blogging had been explained and implemented properly, criticism had been pro-actively responded to, and it The Guardian hadn’t decided to sulk and stop readers commenting.

We’ve had a response from the Travel Editor which concentrated on the hiring and class struggle. We’ve had a story detailing the ‘hate mail hell‘ Max has gone through. And throughout it all, there seems to be a lot of surprise about the responses to the blog, both on The Guardian, and throughout the internet.

Thailand pic by Flydime on Flickr.

It went viral because someone decided to close comments. For the same reason that someone banned from their local pub will probably go straight to their next nearest drinking hole, and sit their complaining about the ban. If you want to discuss something strongly, and a website won’t let you, you go elsewhere.

It got complaints because it wasn’t honest and open. Disclosure isn’t an unfamiliar concept to journalists or bloggers, so I’m still amazed it proves so difficult for corporate or company-approved bloggers to understand that hiding things are pointless. You should be honest,
to the point of stating why you can’t discuss certain topics on here. I wouldn’t blog about someone I didn’t like at work, for example, or a top secret project, because they’d be biased, or damaging to that project.

It got complaints because the only response was to close the comments. In later stories, you saw responses from someone claiming to be Max’s dad, Paul Gogarty, and also Emily Bell. And even though there was still blame on the ‘nasty bullies’, and a time limit on comments, you can already see that the nature of the comments changes slightly when there is actually someone listening and responding.

But, it seems like there is some valuable learning. Emily Bell, The Guardian’s Director of Digital Content, wrote a piece on the value of discourse yesterday, which did acknowledge the value of participation.

There is one line that worries me when she writes about ‘representative insitutions’ and mass participation : “we can shepherd refinement into this new partnership”.

Why would we want or need refinement? Do we want shepherds herding us around like sheep? Or do we just want to feel like our comments matter?

Can large companies do Web 2.0?

By

Usually in the newspaper business, The Guardian is heralded as the most Web 2.0, new media savvy example.

And usually, they exhibit fairly good awareness, such as quoting me on a recent widget ‘scam’ which I fell for.

And yet, within the space of a few days, they’ve gone and made a has of something as simple as publishing a blog about a 19-year-old going travelling. You can see the offending blog and uproar, here. (I picked up on it thanks to the nice people at NixonMcInnes)

For those who don’t want to jump, here’s the summary.

All of this could have been avoided by Max admitting who his dad was from the start and putting up with some ribbing. It could also have been mitigated by Max responding to comments and admitting his background. And it could still have been rescued if comments hadn’t been closed.

All of this seems blindingly obvious, but I’m guessing that there are plenty of people at The Guardian who would also think the same, and have probably read The Cluetrain Manifesto, and believe in honesty and openness.

The issue it raises for me is whether it’s possible to scale the understanding that an individual blogger, or a small team can have about social media and how it works, and expand that out to an entire brand, business or company? And can it happen to the level that events like this would not just be avoided, but wouldn’t even occur to people? Is there a large scale firm who achieves it? I’m going to avoid putting my own personal opinion on this, as I want to hear other opinions, but my job title probably gives a big clue as to what I think…

The myth of journalism…

By

There’s a common romantic myth about journalism, which seems to be particularly relevant when discussing how it will evolve in the face of that ‘internet’ thing which seems to be catching on.
It’s understandable that the popular image of a journalist would be someone hunched over a typewriter or laptop, frantically typing in copy for a deadline just seconds away. It could be in a packed newsroom, or in the middle of a warzone, and there may or may not be a bottle of whiskey beside them. They finish their copy, and it goes straight into a famous publication.

That myth paints the journalist as a writer – which just isn’t true for most journalists.

The process most often seen is:

  • Journalist gets a tip or story from contact.
  • Submits story idea to Section Editor
  • Investigates story
  • Finished copy goes to Section Editor
  • Section Editor makes changes as necessary
  • Copy goes to Sub Editor
  • Sub Editor makes changes in conjunction with design
  • Approval from Editor/Deputy Editor
  • Gets published.

As you can see, writing skills are useful, but not essential. It’s the managing of contacts and finding the story which is the most important skill for any journalist. And I’ve known quite a few great journalists who still struggle to master the full stop, let alone an apostrophe!

And that’s also why I think there will always be a career for full-time, professional journalists (and sub-editors). It takes a huge amount of time and effort to maintain an effective contacts list, and maintain a decent flow of stories. And that’s as true for bloggers as anyone else. The most popular blogs are all able to access information from sources or contacts which aren’t as available to the general population.

And that’s always where the line will blur. The top journalists/bloggers will be working across print/digital, will be able to work across titles/companies, and will be able to command the same pay and respect as at any time before them.

The only reasons to fear the change if you’re a journalist is if you only copy publicly available press releases, or if you really fear the digital world.

(Incidentally, if you fancy reading more about the changing role of journalists, I’d recommend taking a look at HowardOwens and The Journalism Iconoclast – and despite sharing a surname, the Iconoclast isn’t a distant relative, as far as I’m aware!)

A step towards furthering The Long Tail

By

As I said previously, the excellent Long Tail theory implies how major media companies will continue to co-exist with the long tail of prosumers, but doesn’t justify their continued existence.

That posed me with enough of a problem to email the author (and Wired Editor-in-Chief) Chris Anderson, who inspired me to continue with a thoughtful response. And to discuss the concept further with fellow blogger Dave Cushman from Faster Future.

Although I see major media companies forced to adapt to become agents for content creators, rather than creators themselves, there are some good reasons why we need these big players to continue, rather than fading away, or choosing to plug-in unpaid user generated content rather than backing artists with significant funding.

One major reason is Context. As much as we want increasingly more personal relevance from our niche entertainment, we still want to be indentifiable to larger groups. Tagging yourself with your favourite films on a site like Facebook is an art in itself, as you move between common signposts (Star Wars, Titanic, etc), and more obscure arthouse or indie movies. As much as the watercooler discussions about the latest hits have diminished, they’ve migrated to online debates on forums and message boards, and the cult of celebrity is as strong as ever.

Much of the current crop of user generated content is also based upon these reference points, whether it’s a mash-up of famous films (my favourite, here), a parody, or fan fiction based upon these titles. It can be much easier to gain popularity for an unknown prosumer by referencing these common cultural signposts than to begin with totally original material. How many film fans wouldn’t recognise the sound of a lightsaber being drawn in Star Wars?

Another main reason is Inspiration. Whilst the likes of Speilberg, Lucas, Cameron or Kubrick made interesting student films and could doubtless do wonders with the technology available to home users at the moment, there are still differences in what becomes available when you have several million or more to spend. And while OK Go can inspire a certain time of fan film for Youtube, there are doubtless many amateur filmmakers who aspire to making Schindlers List, or 2001.

The final of the trio of reasons in Financial Aspiration, often sidestepped in studies which proclaim prosumers just do it for the love of it and the recognition.
Many people do co-create and share to exchange knowledge and ideas, and to simply get their voice out there. Any audience they receive is valued and appreciated, and they fit their creative sides around their day jobs.

But that isn’t the total picture. Many amateur musicians, film makers and writers would give various body parts to ‘make it’ in ever bigger arenas. Partly for financial reward, and partly because, if you strive to do something better, it takes more time and effort. And the demands of a 9-5 job might not stop you from achieving your dream, but they complicate it immensely. Lauded indie directors such as Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater made their names with tiny budgets but certainly didn’t hide from major studios when they got the chance. Partly the old methods of film distribution made it a neccessity, but partly it meant they could get paid, use studio lots, and get access to a whole world of professional film casts and employees.

Writing, making music, or making movies isn’t easy. There are those who are naturally talented, and there are more resources than ever online to help guide aspiring talent. But in order to reach a reasonable level of quality takes time and practice, especially to hit that level consistently. If hopeful artists can’t aspire to paid employment then there is no opportunity for university, for example, which gives many people the time and space to find their voice, or for any further training, without indulgent and wealthy parents.

Artistic endeavour has always been interlinked with financial reward, since the first wandering minstrel received a meal and a pint of ale for producing entertainment.

I’d be very interested to hear how these ideas stand up, especially as I fully intend to use them the next time I hear the cry that big companies are now dead, or that we can cull all our paid staff because users will just churn out endless reams of content without any input. So as ever I welcome all comments and feedback, good or bad. Whatever happens, it’s an interesting time, especially for someone who works for a major media company 9-5.30pm at www.motorcyclenews.com, runs a publication which aspires to make money at www.disposablemedia.co.uk, and blogs purely to have a voice. Three sides of the same coin…

Start growing your business today Contact Us