Category Archives: Internet

Blogs, social media and digital ethics

Ben Eason encourages not-so-creative loafing

Earlier this week, Creative Loafing, the parent company of alt-weeklies like Washington D.C.’s City Paper and the Chicago Reader, filed for bankruptcy. The go-to source for the background on this is this story in Atlanta magazine.

How this will affect the Reader remains to be seen, but this excerpt doesn’t bode well:

In fact, in his memo to employees, Eason said he wants to “get us quickly to a daily publishing web company that happens to have a weekly print publication that is a reference point for the web.” To staffers, Eason has been holding up the Huffington Post’s Chicago website as a model. It has one employee, who essentially sifts through every media outlet in Chicago for the best stories and then links to them. He’s a filter of content, but not a creator of one. Eason is in awe of the model.

Eason sees his papers doing something similar, but it “doesn’t mean we give up on original content.”

I know as well as anyone how difficult it is to make a site feel vibrant on a daily basis, when it’s largely dependent on weekly content. And I’m glad that linking to external sites is no longer seen (by most, anyway) as the great traffic-killer it once was. But remaking your site into a blog of blogs in order to do it, isn’t the answer.

First, that kind of curation takes time. When you link to a site, you’re essentially telling your readers “This is worth your time” unless context says otherwise. It requires reading, reporting and analysis, not just random posting alongside a pretty picture. You can say it won’t take away from writing and producing original content, but unless you expand your staff – and most newspapers and magazines aren’t in a position to do that – it’s a zero-sum game. If I had the kind of talented staff that Eason has at his disposal (and at TOC, we do), I’d rather have my writers working on providing more analysis and reporting.

Which brings me back again to Chuffpo.

When you do what ChuffPo does, you need to link to the heater stories, the ones that get people clicking. But when you do that, you end up repeating much of what people find elsewhere, which robs your site of distinction. So you need to provide your readers with something they can’t get elsewhere. Again, I’m not saying that being an aggregator of content is a bad idea. Some of the sites I read on a daily basis do just that. But my appetite for sites like that is limited. At this point, I don’t find myself needing another one, particularly one that doesn’t seem to have its own voice. (Despite my clear obsession with it, ChuffPo still hasn’t made it into my RSS feed.)

To be fair, ChuffPo does publish original content – of questionable veracity and quality – but it’s largely dependent on writers from other publications, who can depend on their full-time gigs for income. The only reason this model works is because the Huffington name can lure those folks to post for free and the Huffington money can bankroll it through any rough ad waters. It’s not a model that one should adopt in favor of something that already works. I can’t speak to the other Creative Loafing properties, but the Reader already has several blogs I consider daily destinations that are more akin to the spirit of blogging than anything I see on ChuffPo. (Their attribution tactics alone confuse even the sharpest readers, Roger Ebert, for example.)

Eason does have a point though: Readers ARE interested in what their favorite writers read. But the reason that interest is stoked in the first place is because their writers ARE writing. They get a sense of what these people are like through their analysis and the topics they cover. It makes them want to know more.

Plus, the tools to do these sort of things – direct your readers to what your writers are reading – already exist with sites like Delicious and GoodReads (in fact, the TOC blog contains links to both for our Eat Out and Books editors, respectively).

When ChuffPo launched, I said that Chicago didn’t need more sites that do the same old thing. It needed sites that cover topics that aren’t covered elsewhere, backed up by pick-up-the-phone reporting and good writing. (We’ll be getting more of that when Eater and Curbed finally launch next week.) At some point, if everyone’s linking, but no one’s producing original content…well, there won’t be much worth linking to anymore.

How do you watch live events?

With the debates and the Playoffs on this week, I was wondering about the level of personal engagement people have with others during major live events.

For instance, I purposely stayed home during the Sox final clincher game against the Twins because I wanted to be able to swear at the TV and act up without the judgment of those around me. I was at work during the game yesterday, but am considering leaving early to hole up in a bar to watch the 2nd playoff game against the Tampa Bay Rays. If Sunday’s game is another do-or-die, I’ll probably stay home again, but the farther along we get in the Playoffs, the more I’ll want to be around other people.

But…I did use Twitter during those games to enhance the shared misery and joy.

For the debates, I almost never want to be out. It’s fine for me to make sardonic comments, but hey you, buddy? I’m watching the future of our country over here, keep it down, uh?

But again…Twitter has actually enhanced my enjoyment of the debates. Some of my friends are their own mini-Truth Squad, others drop Dorothy Parker-level bon mots at every opportunity, and still others just offer a sense of the communal. (Though I know at least one casual Twitter-using friend of mine has reported being overwhelmed by the level of Tweets coming into his phone.)

There are definitely some times when I want to be “alone” and able to control my immediate environment, but lately I’m more and more drawn to using Twitter to still get analysis, camaraderie and information about a live event.

How about you, avid/casual Twitter users? Who else is using Twitter during live events? And are there ever events when you wouldn’t want to use it?

Just because it's online, doesn't make it journalism

There’s a lot more going on with Alana Taylor’s post at MediaShift than I have time to get into here, but this post by the PBS ombudsman deals with some of it (even as it utilizes possibly the least essential subheds ever). There’s still a lot of bias against reporting news online in academia, mostly due to ignorance. So I admire Taylor for the futurist that she is.

But in pointing out the speck of wood in NYU’s eye, she fails to notice the plank in her own. In this post, she says: “These days anyone who has access to the internet is, in fact, a journalist because they are inputting information that — for someone, somewhere — is newsworthy.”

What she should have said was this:

“These days anyone who has access to the internet has the potential to be a journalist because they are inputting information that — for someone, somewhere — could be newsworthy, provided it’s reported in a way that has journalistic context.”

Re-reading Taylor’s original post about her class and using Pew Research Center’s guidelines for journalism, it’s pretty clear her post fails on points 3 and 4, even as it succeeds on others.

I’m not one of those people who thinks blogs or online reviews are damaging journalism – the two can co-exist peacefully – but journalism isn’t just publishing information that may be of interest to other people. It’s also about doing right by the subjects of your reportage. Had Taylor published her story on her own blog, she’d have been free to exercise her opinion however she likes. But in the same way that putting on a cape doesn’t make me a superhero, publishing something online (or even on MediaShift) doesn’t make it journalism.

FOLIO Presentation: Training Non-Digital Staff

Here’s the presentation I gave at FOLIO.

A couple notes/warnings:

Due to A) Only having a week’s notice and B) being insanely busy with Time Out Chicago‘s cultural heroes package, the PowerPoint presentation below is…unfinished, let’s say. It’s stuck somewhere between “complimentary to the live presentation” and “a substitute for the live presentation,” which is no way to be. I also need to add notes so that the slides that are mainly amusing pictures to hammer home whatever verbal point I’m making have some context.

Plus, I’m not a fan of PowerPoint or slide presentations in general. I would have rather gotten up there and just given my presentation without it and spent more time on Q&A, especially since I ended up flubbing the pace.

But in the interest of all the openness I talked about this afternoon, here it is. I’m also publishing it here publicly – under a Creative Commons nd-sa license – so it’ll force me to go back and make edits in the near future.

* Addendum: Upon further reflection, let me give myself a little credit: I had a good handful of people come up to me afterwards to chat and say how they’d be taking what I said back with them to put into practice. And I noticed smiles and scribbling pens during my time so it must have gone pretty well. But I generally look at things I need to improve, rather than what I did well, so that accounts for the Debbie Downerisms above.

Odds and ends

A few bits of news and views:

* Yesterday I was invited to speak at next week’s Folio conference to fill-in for a speaker who – I’m assuming – had to drop out. It’s not an exaggeration to say I feel honored to be a part of this event, especially considering the caliber of the speakers. I will be giving a talk called “Training Non-Digital Staff” as part of the Folio: Digital track. Every day seems to provide a new lesson for me in how to do this, so I think I’ll have plenty to say.

* The promoter’s ordinance is hitting the news again. See my post on the TOC blog for details. There are also some great posts there about David Foster Wallace, SNL’s Sarah Palin/Hillary Clinton sketch, the Bears and other city goings-on.

* What the hell is Facebook thinking? It makes sense to not allow users to create accounts solely for applications. Their service – and user base – obviously thrives because it is a reflection of the real-world relationships that people have. But guess what? People in the real world have solid relationships with people they’ve never met. Up until last month, I’d never met the people I work with day-in and day-out in New York. Those relationships were forged thanks to the Internet. I have many other relationships in my work and personal life that are largely maintained via the Internet. This customer service response makes Facebook sound like people who talk about online dating sites as if they are nothing more than a haven for crazies and freaks. It’s not reflective of…well, the real world.

* Last night I went to the social gathering for the Chicago New Media Summit. As I wrote last week, I think the way they went about organizing and creating this event was flawed, but I still wanted to support what they were doing. So I payed my $20 at the door – I never did feel right about handing over my credit card info to Google Checkout’s terms of service – and went on it.

For me, the gathering was both fun and rewarding. First: Open bar and several good noshes (I’ve never had jumbo soft pretzels at at an event like this and hope to again one day). Second: I had at least three conversations that will turn into working relationships that will either further the goals I have for myself or TOC‘s site. And I met a bunch of other really solid people. You can’t ask for more from a networking event than that.

But I talked to several people there who were disappointed with the CNMS for varied reasons. Some felt the talks during the day were too basic. I think this is because the CNMS is trying to speak to many different segments of the local tech and media communities, from biz types who have a solid business model but need some education about social media to social media gurus who want to find out about new technologies or learn best practices from the people at the top of the field. There’s still a need for an event like this to bring varied people together, but the education portion of the day needs to be tracked. Perhaps as the event grows – and they impose fewer restrictions on their speakers – they’ll be able to get more presenters to make this possible.

Others also expressed dissatisfaction with the top-down nature of the organization, and the difficulty in acquiring information about the event (this last point was expressed by one of the smartest “new media” guys I know, so if he’s having trouble, what hope is there for the rest of us?). I touched on these points in my previous post, so I won’t enumerate them again, but I’m clearly not a lone dissenting voice in the wilderness. Nor are any of us against the idea of the CNMS, we just take issue with the execution. (No posts on your blog since August 2nd?)

Today is the 2nd day of the event. If the CNMS wants to continue as a going concern, it’s going to have to be a lot more grass roots-focused. They’ve showed they have the connections to get the money and sponsors, which is admirable and shouldn’t be discounted. But they need more butts in the seats (last night’s 1000 capacity social event topped out at about 200 by my count) and the best way to do that is to reach out to the folks that run blogs here in the city (I’d be happy to give them the list). Chicago supports its own, as long as you treat them as contributors and not revenue streams.

The other 10 percent of search?

Earlier this week, Google’s Marissa Mayer said that search was “90% solved.” Later in the week, she clarified that the remaining 10 percent was going to require 80% of the work.*

After sifting through the rubble of the Google vs. TribCo fight this week (that resulted in United stock tumbling from $12 to $3 in a scant fifteen minutes) it’s obvious that part of that 10% is going to be figuring out how to prevent problems like this from recurring.

In a perfect world, search engines and aggregators are amoral. They only re-broadcast the information that is out on the Web. If the information is tagged or dated incorrectly, the fault lies with the source, not the aggregator. But if the aggregator decides to make an assumption and modify the data, the fault indeed lies with the aggregator.

“Best practices” is one of those biz phrases that gets abused, but it’s not yet to the point where it’s useless. News sites ought to make sure they put a date on every story, and aggregators and bots ought to skip those stories that don’t. Agreed? I’m sure there’s an argument against this solution, but it’s not coming to me right now. Then again, I’ve had a couple glasses of wine so…

By the way, TribCo: You guys didn’t really “warn” Google to stop trolling your sites, did you? I can’t imagine that’s something The Colonel would countenance.

* If search is 90% solved then how come 80% of sites do such a lousy job with it?** Raise your hand if you ever spent 15 minutes searching a site for an article you knew was there only to go to Google, pound out a few keywords, and find the article within seconds? Yeah, me too.
** Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. Shut up.

Chicago New Media Summit stuck in an old way of thinking

I’ve been of two minds on this month’s Chicago New Media Summit.

Chicago could really use a place for all of its media folks – be they in content, editorial, marketing, sales or development – to come together and chat about the biz. Like most larger industry groups, we tend to congregate only with like-minded (or like-titled) people for cocktail hours or other networking events. Having everyone together in one place would be a boon, especially if there’s a way to learn from each other. The Chicago New Media Summit seems to want to lead the charge here.

But there are goals, and there is the execution of those goals. And on the latter point, CNMS leaves a lot to be desired. I realize this is the CNMS’s first year, but it seems like they’re missing some of the basics, even as they’re working to remedy their larger problems.

First – an error they realized early on – was the price. Originally $425 for a two-day summit, the CNMS quickly got re-priced to the much more reasonable $250.

Second was the plan for most of the registration spots to be “invite-only.” A cached registration page from its site shows that the original plan was for a 300-seat event.

“We are awarding some seats to the general public (60) and will have (10) scholarships. The remaining 230 seats will be invitation only to insure that the audience includes members from a large variety of industries and backgrounds represented by the Summit.”

On the first point, I don’t think even the full speaker list justified the original price, and clearly I wasn’t the only one who thought so. While there are some local luminaries involved, the omission of others is obvious. And honestly, a few of the planned speakers are people from whom the CNMS’s target audience have heard plenty from already. Finally, others on the bill have no place at a “new media” conference. I won’t name too many names here, but the email I got from them today touting “Matthew Lillard – Hollywood Celebrity” is a case in point, and if someone can tell me what a representative from the 2016 Olympic Committee can possibly teach a group of new media professionals about its industry, I will gladly pay the cost of your conference registration. (I know the 2016 group has co-opted more than a few local bloggers for its 2016 Channel, but that’s no reason or excuse.)

On the second point, it seems as if the “invite-only” plan has been abandoned, either out of necessity (not enough people were signing up/could be convinced to be “invited”) or due to some epiphany on the part of the organizers. Then again, who knows? A later version of the early registration page dropped the mention of the “invite-only” aspect, but there’s nothing on the CNMS blog that says why or whether it’s still in effect (the main page of the site doesn’t mention it at all either). Like most things with the CNMS, the true answers are shrouded in mystery, in a misguided attempt to manufacture buzz. In all fairness, a June launch event had good intentions of openness but as the Chicago Tech Report and the CNMS’s own blog points out, most people were in the dark at the time. (Note that the speaker list in the post I link to in that sentence is no longer current.)

I’m not sure how an event in its first year can justify so many invite-only spots or obscurantism, particularly since it goes against the very nature of the open Web. I’ve heard, anecdotally, that the people running the event have asked for the moon from its speakers, even those with a proven track record in new media (from permission to re-broadcast their speakers’ presentations as they see fit on down to asking them to have others provide testimonials that vouch for their bona fides, even after the CNMS invited them to speak in the first place). It’s as if they’ve assumed their event has a cachet that it doesn’t yet have.

Moreover, where’s the About Us page on the CNMS site or something similar that tells us more about who’s behind the CNMS? Why do I need to play boy detective by going to the CNMS Facebook page then seeking out the Facebook pages of the event’s officers and looking into their backgrounds to get a sense of the people running it? It should be front and center. Again: openness.

Finally, why – aside from the obvious convenience to those who are running the event – is Google Checkout the only obvious way one can pay for one’s registration for the event? I know we’re all supposed to be tech-friendly, but I deliberately chose not to store my credit card information with anyone online, particularly with Google, since the length and breadth of its data trail is long and vast. And since most of this data is used by Google to make money, I’m not interested in contributing to its bottom line at the expense of my privacy.

While Google Checkout is an attempt to safeguard its users from potentially suspicious sellers, I think the jury’s still out on whether Google can be trusted with its users’ financial data or not. While I don’t know how most of the CNMS audience feels about Google Checkout, most tech-friendly people are far more circumspect than the average person when it comes to sharing personal data. So I can’t imagine I’m the only person who has this feeling. This might be a minor point, but it’s another brick in the wall that the CNMS seems be building between itself and its potential audience.

All this having been said, I still plan on going to the networking/social event during the conference (even if it means paying the $20 door price instead of $10 in advance). As I said at the top, I support the idea of what they’re doing, even if I think the way they’re going about it is pretty misguided. Here’s hoping they spend that socializing time listening to their audience, rather than dictating to them.

Edited to add: Just found this post with a quote from CNMS organizer John Patterson.

“‘There will be movie stars,’ Chicago New Media Summit organizer John Patterson told me this afternoon.”

Sigh. Granted, their epiphany happened after this, but I’m starting to think Patterson doesn’t really know his market, much less his audience.

Update 9/9/08: And the hits just keep on coming. I just got an e-mail this morning announcing Chicago New Media Summit’s mission. It’s the same boilerplate on their main page (with the same “member’s” typo) and includes this gem:

Q: What might happen if we took CNMS08, poured it over a Tech Cocktail, added some MGFest, a twist of HDExpo, glammed it up with the Mid West Independent Film Festival, powered it by Microsoft and promoted it through the Chicago Tribune?

What if this was just the beginning of some new and powerful alliances?
What if you were part of it?

A:The Midwest just became little more SXSW

Sigh again. Aside from the typo that confuses the issue, I don’t think the CNMS benefits from the SXSW comparisons at this point.

Update 9/16/08: I attended the CNMS social event. More on that here.

Nice work if you can get it

I just posted two current projects in the “Recent Work” column to the right. The first is a new video series we’re running on the TOC blog called “Ask Andy,” wherein our illustrious HR manager Andy Katzman answers HR-related questions from our readers via video blogs. The answers are Andy’s, the rest of the silliness is my doing. I’m still amazed at what a good sport Andy is about the whole thing, especially since the update I’m posting this Tuesday involves a pony.

The second is another video I shot and edited with the guys from Impress These Apes. ITA is a talent show, of sorts, judged by three hyper-intelligent apes from the future. You can find out more by reading the article that accompanies the video(bottom of the page), which features the apes and their host giving their opinions on what to watch for in the fall. If you’ve never seen ITA, find your way to the Lakeshore Theater in September/October; it’s easily one of the funniest shows in Chicago.

Nick Clooney: The unfrozen caveman lawyer of journalism professors

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
Nick Clooney is as restless as a college freshman leaving home for the first time. “I’m nervous about this. I’m very nervous,” says Clooney, 74, about starting a new career, teaching journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.
[snip]
…Becoming a college professor has finally forced him to buy a personal computer. Until a few weeks ago, he had never sent an e-mail, watched YouTube or looked up something on Wikipedia.

You know, I’d probably be nervous too if I was teaching a subject and wasn’t up-to-date with advancements in the field.

This isn’t to say that Cloooney doesn’t have any journalistic bona fides – he’s been a television anchor and newspaper columnist, after all. Since the tenets of journalism haven’t changed much since Clooney’s heyday, he might have plenty to teach the young turks about responsibility, conscience, and ethics. And since, according to the above article, Clooney’s only teaching opinion writing and a course based on his 2002 book, Movies That Changed Us, he probably won’t do too much damage.

But the way we report and deliver the news has radically changed, even in just the last ten years. So having a journo professor who doesn’t regularly use a computer is like hiring an economics professor whose never studied the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Recently, a group of journalism professors came to Time Out Chicago‘s offices and spoke with our publisher, editor-in-chief, managing editor and myself about the business of putting out a magazine. Everyone had recommendations, and we told them what we look for in prospective writers. One of the things I told them was to make sure that they make the use of the Internet and its tools a component of the curriculum. While the jury’s still out on a complete set of best practices when it comes to how newspapers’ and magazines’ Web sites can benefit from the use of blogs, Twitter, online video, and social networking tools, it’s obvious that they’re already a part of the reporting process, and anyone who comes out of academia with a working knowledge of them will be a better candidate for any journalism job than someone who doesn’t.

Think about it: Clooney is teaching a class on opinion writing, and, based on the above, it’s safe to assume he probably doesn’t read blogs. Not that blogs should be the model for journalistic opinion – in most cases, they shouldn’t be. But that’s all the more reason for Clooney to be familiar with them, so he can compare and contrast the form with journalism and – imagine! – instruct his students on how blogs can be used to further journalistic pursuits.

But hey, take heart Washington University journalism students: You’re being taught by George Clooney’s dad! And he was the Old Spice man! That has to count for something.

ChuffPo, comments and interns

When I started at TOC, one of the first things I did was allow the blog to accept comments. They hadn’t yet done this because it was a can of worms no one wanted to open, I suppose.

In an ideal world, we’d have a system that requires someone to create a profile before they comment on our site. The reasons why we don’t do this involve a lot of issues that aren’t germane to this post, but suffice it to say, this is how I’d do it if we had unlimited resources.

In fact, I think most sites should operate this way. If you want to comment, you create a profile. Even people with assumed names tend to take responsibility for the persona they’re creating. It doesn’t mean you won’t have any assholes, just fewer. It’s not just personal opinion either, as other sites find this helps make their content better, and foster community.

But since we don’t have profiles, I moderate every comment that gets posted on the site. I’m pretty lenient with what gets posted, but anything that comes across as a personal attack on the writer or another commenter won’t go up. And anything that I deem to be (as our comment policy states) “just plain nasty” doesn’t go up. Is it subjective? Yes. But I’m generally pro-comments and wouldn’t ever think of not posting something just because it was critical of the content of a post, even if it was my own. (For proof, check out the comments on this Liz Phair review I wrote back in June.)

In a side note on yesterday’s post, I mentioned how Marilyn Ferdinand of Ferdy on Films said some of her less-than-positive-but-still-constructive comments weren’t posted. The Beachwood Reporter also printed letters from those who dared to fact-check the mighty John Cusack (ahem) and found their comments similarly blocked. Now, granted, these are all comments from the readers of one site, so there may be a bit of an echo chamber at work here. (That’s no slam on the usually-fine work of the Beachwood or its readers – of which I am one – just an acknowledgment of a small sample size). Even so, Kevin Allman looked at ChuffPo’s commenting policy and found that – to put it mildly – it seems to be rather broadly enforced. Especially since an off-topic comment on HuffPo is as easy to find as a drunk at quarter draft night.

Now, the funny thing is, ChuffPo has a profile system. So you’d think it would let those who are big on the pointless negativity bury themselves. But it seems the site is more interested in keeping it positive, to the detriment of an interesting dialogue. I know from experience that moderating comments is an inexact art (there’s nothing scientific about it). But it should be done in a way that errs on the side of openness. If you’re wrong, take your lumps. Even if you’re John Cusack.

As for the rest of ChuffPo, another day hasn’t found me more impressed. I know Rachel Maddow replacing Dan Abrams on MSNBC is a big deal to a small group of people – most of whom probably include HuffPo on their list of daily reads – but I’d hardly call it a lead national news story. And while I was born a south suburban kid who had a huge crush on Jami Gertz, even I can’t see the reason for publishing her mash note to…Glenview. (Seriously, Glenview?)

Part of me thinks I’m being too critical. Then again, if Lee Abrams likes what they’re doing maybe I’m right on this after all.

“I think they do a great job for day one. Personally, the story selection, the categories, the scannability [sic] are all great. Check their Crime page.”

Incidentally, the “Crime page” that Abrams refers to is nothing more than a link and pretty picture to SpotCrime.com, which has nothing on the ease of use of EveryBlock, which gives you the same information, and much more. (Don’t let SpotCrime fool you: It doesn’t have much data for the current day, unless you believe that no crimes occurred in the city…)

Finally, I’m still wondering about this whole “HuffPo not paying bloggers is wrong” meme. The only argument seems to be “Arianna Huffington has a lot of money and ought to spread it around.” In that case, shouldn’t the same people who are taking HuffPo to task for its use of free labor also direct their ire at other well-heeled members of the publishing and media industries who use free labor (a.k.a. interns) all the time? Seriously, convince me. Or do you not think doing your interview transcriptions and running across town to pick up product from a vendor is also something of value? Even though the only reason you have time to write is because your interns are doing all the shit jobs you don’t want to do?