No big surprises in this report from Pew. I found slide #8 interesting. Shows % of Americans who “regularly” go to news by source:
And one slide tells us 29% of mobile phone owners have gotten some kind of news on their phone.
Markus Mindaugas’ blog is called “living on impulse.” I’ve only been following for a couple of weeks but his posts are consistently positive and upbeat. Yesterday he invited readers to “steal this blog.” I hope he doesn’t mind if I share most of that post here:
Feel free to take, steal, re-purpose, or do anything you want with anything you find here (including my best photos). A link or reference would be be much appreciated, but is not required. I’m not worried about ownership. I’m not worried about losing anything. There’s nothing I can possibly lose by someone taking something I created and using it in any way they want to use it.
The only reason for me to copyright something would be for me to control it, a need to derive income from it, or a fear of misuse. I have no such fears. Besides, even “altruistic-licensing” can get really hairy and become a mess.
I am supremely confident in my own ability to create new stuff as needed. As soon as I write, photograph, or otherwise create something it’s already in the past. If anyone finds a use for it, fantastic. If it helps them out in ANY way, fantastic.
If someone wants to use something I created and finds it helpful and wants to share it – that’s awesome. It’s a compliment to me. I am in no way diminished by it, only enhanced. Besides, anything I create I will never “always have”. I will have to relinquish it, at the latest, when I die. So why obsess or hang on to it? It’s gone the minute I am done creating it. So I’ll let it fly.
While I have no illusions about the value of the ideas or images I post here at smays.com, I’d like to make the same offer. Take anything you want, use it anyway you like. I’ll make some more.
From an op-ed piece on NYTimes.com, by Sheelah Kolhatkar:
“You can tell when a print journalist has lost his full-time job because of the digital markings that suddenly appear, like the tail of a fading comet. First, he joins Facebook. A Gmail address is promptly obtained. The Twitter account comes next, followed by the inevitable blog. Throw in a LinkedIn profile for good measure. This online coming-out is the first step in a daunting, and economically discouraging, transformation: from a member of a large institution to a would-be Internet “brand.”
“While most people are worried about getting paid for their work, I’m more concerned that journalists might be the digital-age equivalent of monks illuminating manuscripts, a group whose skills will soon disappear.”
I feel bad for anyone that has lost a job, but can’t help wondering why the reporter in this piece didn’t already have the online presence. It’s like going camping without a flashlight.
Several Learfield (the company I work for) employee are members of the Radio and Television News Directors Association, so I was pleased to come across their recently published guidelines for social meida and blogging. A few snippits:
“Social media and blogs are important elements of journalism. They narrow the distance between journalists and the public. They encourage lively, immediate and spirited discussion. They can be vital news-gathering and news-delivery tools. As a journalist you should uphold the same professional and ethical standards of fairness, accuracy, truthfulness, transparency and independence when using social media as you do on air and on all digital news platforms. “
Ahem. This is where it would be tempting to remind some of my colleagues how ferociously they fought the very concept of blogging.
On Accountability and Transparency:
“You should not write anonymously or use an avatar or username that cloaks your real identity on newsroom or personal websites. You are responsible for everything you say. Commenting or blogging anonymously compromises this core principle.” [Emphasis mine]
“Be especially careful when you are writing, Tweeting or blogging about a topic that you or your newsroom covers. Editorializing about a topic or person can reveal your personal feelings. Biased comments could be used in a court of law to demonstrate a predisposition, or even malicious intent, in a libel action against the news organization, even for an unrelated story.” [Emphasis mine]
Reporters who forget that second point could face dire consequences.
Image and Reputation
“Remember that what’s posted online is open to the public (even if you consider it to be private). Personal and professional lives merge online. Newsroom employees should recognize that even though their comments may seem to be in their “private space,” their words become direct extensions of their news organizations. Search engines and social mapping sites can locate their posts and link the writers’ names to their employers.”
“Avoid posting photos or any other content on any website, blog, social network or video/photo sharing website that might embarrass you or undermine your journalistic credibility. Keep this in mind, even if you are posting on what you believe to be a “private” or password-protected site. Consider this when allowing others to take pictures of you at social gatherings. When you work for a journalism organization, you represent that organization on and off the clock. The same standards apply for journalists who work on air or off air.”
I don’t belong to RTNDA (or any association, if you don’t count the Order of the Fez) but I like these guidelines. Sort of, “Everything You Need to Know About Social Media You Learned in Kindergarten.”
From a thoughtful –and useful– post by Tammy Erickson (@tammyerickson) on how to make Twitter fun for your followers:
Her conclusion:
“Slow down, enjoy. Listen to the world’s music. Share the best of your experiences, but remember, 140 characters is a unique format — more like poetry or Haiku than news reporting.”
One of the reasons that most folks don’t blog from their iPhone or mobile device, has to be the difficulty of typing a paragraph or two. With Dragon dictation, it would seem that I could simply dictate a post and paste that into the rather handy WordPress iPhone app.
How many US radio industry executives (from the 50 largest companiues) are on Facebook or Linkedin? Here’s what the folks at McVay New Media discovered:
“Out of 116 radio executives, running the fifty largest USA radio companies, 14 of them had Facebook accounts and 19 of them had LinkedIn accounts. The most common member of the executive team to have a presence on either website was the Chief Operating Officer.”
While less than scientific –some executives are online under different names– the results raise the question:
“How can we embrace the digital direction of the industry if our leaders are not even participants themselves? Think of it this way. If it were exposed that less than one in five of radio’s C-level executives owned radios, we would significantly doubt their confidence and personal investment in the radio industry.”
“If today’s radio companies are to evolve into the digital media world, wouldn’t it first make sense for radio’s leaders to evolve into the digital media world? Clearly, many leaders in the media industry are still learning the language of digital. Yet, the fastest way to learn a new language is immersion.”
“Tools like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter can offer any C-level executive a simple and efficient direct forum with employees, shareholders, and customers. In fact, a strong executive could use social networking to improve their company’s image, foster positive communication, and directly confront market feedback.”
Is our (Learfield) industry “headed in a digital direction?” I believe it is. Are our leaders participating themselves? Only a few and in very limited ways. I might rephrase the question:
If only 1-in-5 of our senior managers regularly attended college sporting events, would we “doubt their confidence and personal investment” in collegiate sports marketing?
I should just point www.smays.com to Seth Godin’s blog. Maybe change to WhatHeSaid.com. Mr. G picks two important trends for the coming decade. I’m opting for “change” over “frustration,” but you should read the full post.
Change: The infrastructure of massive connection is now real. People around the world have cell phones. The first internet generation is old enough to spend money, go to work and build companies. Industries are being built every day (and old ones are fading). The revolution is in full swing, and an entire generation is eager to change everything because of it. Hint: it won’t look like the last one with a few bells and whistles added.
In my experience, the people who poo-poo the idea of radical change usually have the most invested in keeping things the same. Good luck.
In his final Stop the Presses column (for Editor & Publisher), Steve Outing revises history with a look at how things might have gone for the newspaper industry. And –since they didn’t– what to expect next. From the HTMHG list:
1. In 1994-95, newspaper executives recognize that the Web is something with the potential to rock their world, and increase R&D budgets significantly in order to plan for and begin building new businesses based on fast-developing new technology.
2. Learning from media history (e.g., TV started out as radio with a video image of the announcer speaking into a microphone), newspaper leaders decide not to repeat it this time around. They direct new-media R&D staff to design new online services that create original content and new utilities — things that are not possible in print but are online.
3. Fat and happy with enviable profit margins, newspaper companies’ leaders take note of the wave of Internet start-up companies in the late 1990s. Business development executives with technology experience are brought in from outside the newspaper industry to identify the most promising trends and start-up companies, and begin making acquisitions and/or significant investments, in a big way.
You get the idea. I do dread the day I read a similar “what might have been” about the broadcasting industry.
I’ve been thinking about the disruptive power of the Internet. How it can undermine institutions. The record industry, publishing, and media come to mind. I’m sure I could come up with others if pressed.
I’m hoping for even more chaos. Clearly, our two party system of government is broken and I’d really like to see some chaos there. Why not three or four or more political parties? Hard to make a case that our government could be less effective than it is.
The Obama campaign really showed the power of the Internet to raise money and coordinate millions of supporters. I hope we see more of that but with the power on our end of the pipes. I have no idea how this can or might come about but the first step has to be sand in the greased gears of our two party system.