Krista's onMason site
Steve Myers writes about a new social media tool called “Seriously Rapid Source Review” (SRSR) which tries to filter out important, legitimate tweets.
The software creators came up with 741 words that could likely be used in a newsworthy tweet and made it easy to search with those words.
There is a formula in place that makes SRSR a great tool for reporters and researchers will continue working on it until it proves useful for journalists.
John Paton worked in the “Golden Era of journalism” and explains how newspapers and their executives have changed.
He goes on to say that he has to learn so many new things this day in age with new technologies, social media and new people in the business.
The article describes how the Internet is taking over print journalism and how advertisements are fewer and fewer for print, since they are so expensive and don’t bring as much of an audience as some online sites might.
“As career journalists we have entered a new era where what we know and what we traditionally do has finally found its value in the marketplace and that value is about zero.”
Since times are changing and everything is moving away from print, Paton and other journalists must adjust to the new times and learn everything they can about marketing themselves online.
Paton ends by giving the newspaper executives a piece of advice.
“Finally, I would say to newspaper execs learn to let go and love the ‘Net.
I am here to tell you, you can teach an old dog new tricks.”
This is a video I made for my Broadcast Journalism class for the Occupy event in Washington D.C.
This is a practice exercise for recording with an iPhone.
Let’s hope we don’t see any more of this!
Mark Brigg’s Journalism Next talks about how less is more in the blogging world. It is better to have a shorter post that gets straight to the point than a long post that
In blogging, be concise.
This is so true.
Jim Romenesko posted a list of frequently asked questions for Gannett about what journalists can do with their iPhones to further their careers.
This is a very interesting topic because of the dynamic, ever-changing technologies of distributing news. Journalists must keep up with the most current and upcoming trends so that they do not get behind in the game.
iPhones are preferred devices for journalists, as they typically have the most up-to-date technologies and the most apps. The iPhone 4S also has a great quality camera for photographers to use in news events, which is a very important aspect of reporting.
“The iPhone 4S is meant to enable you to do better, more timely journalism.”
By being able to take pictures with a portable phone, a journalist can easily keep their readers updated on current events as they are happening.
“And the phones can run specialized apps that do nearly anything – help you capture and annotate public records, transcribe interviews, map your way to a scene, listen into a police scanner, find nearby sources who are broadcasting their locations, tap into social media channels, do reverse lookups on phone numbers, perform background checks, etc… You’ll find all sorts of ways to power your journalism using this device, and we encourage you to boldly experiment.”
Overall, it seems the iPhone does it all. Having the iPhone 4S is like having a personal assistant, and serious journalists really need to invest in this smartphone to help enhance their social media, networking and ability to gather news.
Jim Romenesko recently compiled two essays reviewing Richard Tofel’s e-essay, “Why American Newspapers Gave Away the Future”.
The first review, by Jeff Jarvis, complains that Tofel is wrong for wanting journalism to stay the same. Jarvis thinks that journalism is forever changing and needs to be able to grow. He is upset that Tofel wrote:
“it must follow that the decision to give away newspaper content was a mistake, that an alternative future in which nearly all newspapers sought to charge for content on the web, just as they had charged for it in print and on the online proprietary services, would quite likely have produced a happier outcome.”
Jarvis thinks that the online newspapers should continue to be free and the public should continue to have easy access to them.
He then writes that
“he [Tofel] gives much blame to the institutions’ proprietors, especially for killing their own efforts at innovation and collaboration.”
Jarvis does not like that Tofel seems to want the journalism companies to stifle progress and go back to focusing on money. He thinks that journalism is a very important tool of everyday life and that everyone should have equal access to it.
Jarvis ends by saying:
“I do recommend reading Tofel’s essay (it’s only $1.99) as, again, it is well-written and researched and smart and reasonable. But then I also urge you to take the assumptions made by the industry and reflected in it and question them.”
The next article critiquing Tofel’s essay is by Kirk Caraway, who begins his rationale by saying:
“While he does a good job of laying out these possible rationales, what he fails to do is offer any concrete evidence showing these actually led to the decisions by newspapers to publish their content free online.”
Caraway seems to believe there is not enough proof to say that the decline of newspapers is because of online journalism. He would have liked to have seen more proof in Tofel’s essay and concrete examples.
Caraway says that online newspapers cut the costs of making and distributing papers, which only increased profit margins. He believes the newspapers that give away their articles for free are smart and the ones that charge for information will not have much room for growth.
He ends his essay saying:
“After a lifetime in the business, it makes me sad to see newspapers going downhill. But I’m not going to let their troubles get in the way of my mission. We never know what the future will bring, but in a few years one of side in this debate will be telling the other, “I told you so.”
So far, I like my side’s chances.”
Caraway has faith that the online newspaper industry will only improve and become more used. He thinks Tofel needs to accept this so that he can progress with his peers.
The Washington Post newspaper is turning more and more into an online paper.
News is released much faster and is instantaneous when released online. People no longer have to wait for the paper to be delivered to their doorstep or go to the store to find out about the news, rather they are able to look at their computer right away.
Although there are some people who believe newspapers should remain printed, the way the industry is headed makes it impossible to only print papers. The Washington Post is beginning to embrace its new future with online journalism and accept its fate.
Although The Washington Post has usually been ahead of the competition, its reluctance to move toward online journalism set it behind. Jeremy W. Peters wrote an article for The New York Times about this dilemma. The article focuses on how The Washington Post fell behind and what it may need to do to catch up again.
As long as The Washington Post can start to bring up its webtraffic and gain a larger audience, they will be able to be one of the top competitors in the industry once again, but until they choose to start conforming to what people want, they will continue to lose viewers.
Mashable