Tag Archives: journalism

What’s wrong with being sexy?

Media, , , , , ,

As a media critic, I respect Robert Feder about as much as I respect anyone in the field; he and Phil Rosenthal are the best examples in Chicago of how it should be done. But this week, I think Feder’s trying to have it both ways in criticizing some local news personalities who appeared in an upcoming photo exhibition at a local art gallery.

Last week, in a post on his Vocalo blog, Robert Feder criticized a photo shoot that appeared in in Michigan Avenue magazine that featured local television anchors and reporters – Mark Suppelsa, Anne State and Anna Davlantes, among others – in “sexy photos.” The personalities in the pictures aren’t nude or even scantily clad. But they are sexy, in a well-scrubbed, preppy kind of way. Feder reported the photos are part of “they’re among 30 photos of local broadcasters…in “On TV/Off TV,” an exhibit opening Nov. 20 at Packer Schopf Gallery.”

Here’s the crux of Feder’s point in a post titled “Sexy photos expose TV news as a glamor game“:

“[The photos underscore] the willingness of these media people (and their approving bosses) to risk whatever journalistic credibility they have in order to ratchet up their Q scores and Nielsen ratings.”

But let’s be clear about what these pictures are: they’re part of a gallery’s photo exhibit, and were also printed in an upscale, local magazine that chronicles the social scene of Chicago. They weren’t created by the news organizations these people work for, nor were they primarily intended to be used by their PR flacks for publicity purposes.

I disagree with Feder’s take here, but I respect his opinion and the point he’s making: If you’re too sexy, you won’t be taken seriously in your chosen occupation. It’s a legitimate point of debate and Feder’s right to discuss it in a journalistic context, like his blog. But again, I disagree. And, not for nothing, but as editor of Playboy.com, I know a little about outward displays of sexuality.

From my point of view, a person’s sexuality is as much a part of who they are as their job. And expressing a confident, healthy, honest sexuality should be admired in the same way as one’s skill in the boardroom or the newsroom. This isn’t about forcing your sexuality on someone else or using it to make up for a lack of talent, this is about letting someone express their whole self in an appropriate context. (If you saw any of these folks in public dressed in the same outfits from their photo shoot, would you think it was inappropriate?)

Arguably, all the people in this photo shoot are talented, in-demand professionals. As if to underscore that point, one of the women in that shoot, Anna Devlantes was just signed to a new contract at Fox Chicago.

Feder broke the news of Davlantes’ move on his blog. But instead of using her standard head shot (something that, as a longtime media critic, Feder would have easy access to either from his files or after a quick phone call to her publicist), he went with…one of the “sexy” photos.

What gives? How can Feder criticize the sexing up of these news professionals while using use the same photos to sex up the visuals of his blog? Plus, Feder’s blog is a journalistic endeavor. If these photos do not add to the journalistic conext of these men and women, then why use them again here?

I tweeted about this, and Feder’s response (via Twitter) was: “From the editor of Playboy.com?” His point, I assume, was that I have no standing in this debate as Playboy engages in the sexing up of a person’s image on a daily basis. But as I said above, I think that’s exactly what makes me have some skin in this game, pun intended.

I sent a couple responses to him, essentially the same points I made above. Feder’s response was “Just because I question their judgment in shooting them doesn’t mean the sexy anchor photos shouldn’t be seen.”

Fair point. Again, Feder’s a journalist. He has a responsibility to discuss the images of news personalities in town and how it affects their jobs. But his initial post on the existence of the photos was last week, effectively putting the photos into the public eye. There was plenty of conversation about it, so it’s not like his post disappeared into the ether.

So I don’t understand his reuse of the photos in a different context. Either he’s trying to contribute to their supposed erosion of journalistic credibility through their continued use (which I doubt, the man’s a professional) or he’s just trying to sex up the visuals his blog about journalism. Nothing wrong with that, but if it’s not OK for local journalists to crank up the hotness, why is it OK for one of their chief critics’ blogs?

To reiterate: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being sexy, and I don’t think sexuality prevents a person from doing their job effectively. While there are perfectly valid counterarguments here, you can’t say sexuality has no place in journalism, while trying to…find a place for it in journalism.

UPDATE: Michigan Avenue has additional photos online (h/t Gapers Block).

Playing catch-up on Chicago media

Internet, Media, , , , , , , , ,

Disclosure: I’ve had past business or personal interactions with most of the people or entities named above and plan to have them in the future. To the best of my ability, I try not to let the above color my opinions. Where such interactions might cloud my judgment on an issue, I tend to avoid writing about the topic altogether or confess to a specific bias or association so the reader can judge for him or herself.

Between work-related matters and our impending move to the South Side, I haven’t had much brainpower or free time to spare here. But there have been some significant events in Chicago’s media landscape recently so I figured it made sense to do a quick roundup. Here’s a month’s worth of posts:

Chi-Town Daily News folds and becomes Chicago Current: The first issue hit the streets this week. Creating a niche publication is smart (are you listening….um, everybody?), and an integrated web-print model is too. The full-page Mercedes-Benz ad that ran on the back page suggests support from the ad market. But here’s what I don’t get about CC’s plans: From a Crain’s story about the new publication:

“Chicago Current will be distributed to about 2,000 aldermen, City Hall department heads, judges and other public officials; it will also be available free at downtown Chicago Transit Authority train stations. The targeted readership of elected officials and bureaucrats will give advertisers — including contractors and advocacy groups — reason to pay for ads, he says.”

[Emphasis mine]

From the Chicago Current‘s “About Us” page:

From incisive coverage of City Hall, the CTA and other agencies, to the nitty gritty on topics like lobbying and campaign finance, the Current brings you vitally important information you won’t find anywhere else.

[Emphasis mine]

Based on the new website and the first edition of the paper, Chicago Current is trodding much the same ground as the Chi-Town Daily News did. Nothing wrong with that, but add it to the above text about “the nitty gritty” of dealings that most pols would rather see hidden from view and it looks like the Current wants to reveal the insider deals of politicians – the same people it wants as its audience. To quote Chasing Amy: “Can I explain the audience principle to you? If you insult and accost them, then we have no audience!” Those same pols would probably take a dim view of any advertisers – who depend on those same folks for their business – supporting such a publication.

Maybe I’m off-base about Chicago Current‘s plans but there’s not a lot of evidence to the contrary. While Geoff Dougherty deserves a lot of credit for quickly launching another new business venture, my friend and Chicago Media Future Conference co-organizer Mike Fourcher rightly points out that new media ventures need to work harder on their brands than anything else and perhaps more time spent defining audience and content would have worked to the Current‘s advantage. Still, the marketplace is getting crowded, which leads to…

Chicago News Co-operative launches, Chicago Community Trust puts its money where the names are: If I’m fuzzy on the plans for Chicago Current, I’m even more vague on the Chicago News Co-operative. And I’m not alone. As the former Mayor Daley used to say “Where’s their program?”

What I do know is they’ve got a lot of big names, many of whom used to work at the Chicago Tribune. But if we’re all agreed that the Web will play a vital role in the future of news, then this isn’t the team you want leading that charge. The Tribune‘s leadership in the online space came after those folks left. Plus, the media spaces the CNC said they’ll work in are organizations like WTTW and WBEZ. I’m a frequent viewer/listener or both, but where’s the innovation there? (The CNC says it will launch a site called Chicago Scoop in January.)

On a side note, the CNC was the recipient of $50,000 in grant money from the Chicago Community Trust. Later, Chicago Tonight contributor Rich Samuels tweeted that the Community Trust would no longer fund the Chicago Matters series, a joint venture between WTTW and WBEZ. As the CNC is currently using office space at WTTW, I bet there were a few awkward moments around the coffee maker that morning.

As for the Chicago Community Trust’s other funding decisions, I question why the CNC, so flush with connections and resources, had a greater need for cash than smaller, more innovative shops like Gapers Block, Windy Citizen and Beachwood Reporter, which only received $35,000. Perhaps it’s because the CNC’s plans are more ambitious. But according to the Community Trust’s press release, the money will be used “to support development of a new L3C cooperative business model providing enterprising journalistic coverage of the Chicago area using various Web, print and broadcast platforms, including a new Web site called “The Chicago Scoop.” From that description, the ambition is hard to intuit.

The takeaway for the Current and CNC is this: In the absence of actual evidence, people tend to fill in the blanks – or create your brand’s identity – themselves. Why would you want to give away control of such a valuable resource?

James Warren becomes publisher of the Chicago Reader: I don’t have much to say here, but from where I sit it would seem to be good news that the Chicago Reader‘s survived the questionable direction of Tampa’s Ben Eason and that a person steeped in Chicago journalism is at the helm. But to hear Reader editor Alison True tell it, this could be a potential minefield:

“It’s good to hear the board and Warren acknowledging how important journalism is to the success of the company,” says Reader editor Alison True. “Because we’re looking forward to getting the resources to support it. But if that wall disappears, so does our credibility.”

In the past year, the Reader‘s done some vital work, in spite of the perceived threat from Team Eason. Perhaps True knows her team does its best work when it’s got something to fight against, whether that enemy is real or imagined.

The rise of Chicago Now: It’s been interesting to watch the direction of Chicago Now. They’ve adopted a startup mentality, despite the appearance of the full force of TribCo resources behind them. (I cracked up at this tweet from RedEye’s web editor, which suggested there was something serendipitous, not synergistic, about a Tribune marketing project getting prominent placement on a Tribune blogging platform.) As Marcus Gilmer points out on Chicagoist:

There’s no denying there are quality reads on the site: the Parking Ticket Geek has become particularly notable in the wake of the parking meter privatization, the CTA Tattler is still a go-to for us, our pals at Gapers Block have a page, and there’s some good sports coverage. But at 126 blogs and counting, the site still feels unwieldy, making it more difficult to find other potential quality reads.”

I’ve joked that by 2010, one out of three people you meet in Chicago will have a blog at Chicago Now. The site wants to be all things to all people, to provide blogs that run the gamut of Chicagoans’ interests. It’s a clear goal, designed to take advantage of local advertising dollars. It’s important to note they’re not trying to be a publication, just an agnostic platform (like HuffPo), so this broad effort may pay off, especially with other TribCo entities like WGN Radio offering them broadcast space on its airwaves. To truly succeed, they’ll need to embrace these opportunities, not pretend like they lucked into them and ensure that audiences can easily find what they have to offer.

Robert Feder joins Vocalo, Vocalo comes in from the cold: Before the launch of Vocalo, a joint radio-and-web venture from Chicago Public Radio, some of WBEZ’s best talent worked behind-the-scenes to help make the project a reality. They brought the same passion to this project that they brought to WBEZ. Then Chicago Public Radio decided it wanted to divorce itself from Vocalo, making it completely user-generated, except when it came to funding. CPR quietly funded the program, hiding its true intention from its subscribers and siphoning off resources to keep it afloat. The product didn’t improve – the passion just wasn’t there – and WBEZ subscribers were upset. Finally realizing that a little professionalism wouldn’t hurt the product, Chicago Public Radio brought WBEZ and Vocalo together online. (Clicking the Blog button on ‘BEZ’s website takes you to Vocalo.org.)

In a further indictment of the anything-goes style of the early days of the site, CPR also brought in former Sun-Times media columnist Robert Feder as a blogger for Vocalo (or is it WBEZ? It’s hard to tell…). Feder’s work at the Sun-Times was indispensible, but his recent comments about Chicago Now – despite having a ring of truth – suggest he’s blinding himself to the reality of the problems in his new neighborhood. It would also help his cause if the material of his columns (Sneed, Bill Kurtis’s wacky commercials, retreads of his previous work) wasn’t so weak. Vocalo’s become more transparent lately, but whether more professionalism is the key to its success remains to be seen.

Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson return to CBS2: On Friday night, Kurtis and Jacobson anchored the CBS2 10 p.m. newscast together for the first time in the last 20 years. It’s clear CBS2 wants viewers to associate its current newscast with the groundbreaking reporting efforts of its heyday. The first half of the broadcast delivered on that score, offering up stories like a Pam Zekman investigation of the inability of Chicago police offers to properly meet the demand of 911 calls. But the constant references to days gone by, not to mention a Friday night appearance, made the whole affair feel like Old Timers’ Day at the ballpark. Moreover, the news of this supposedly monumental event didn’t break until the day before, robbing CBS2 of a potential ratings boost.

If CBS2 wants to convince people that they’re still doing hard-hitting news at 10 p.m., it could dump the lame “Cold Case” moments it’s been doing with Kurtis, sign him and Jacobson to short-term contracts, pair them with up-and-coming reporters and build on the future promise of their past gravitas.

Moreover, CBS2 ought to pick a neighborhood in Chicago, open up a local bureau there, and do some Web-only reporting. This venture could be accomplished with a skeleton crew investment, but the returns would be significant. They’d be the only local television station doing this, and it would show they were committed to not being pretty, but being realinnovators.

Twitter doesn't leak off the record comments, people do

Internet, Media, ,

“There’s no such thing as ‘off the record’ with Twitter.”
– Lost Remote*

I don’t know if Cory Bergman is serious about that statement or using it for a clever headline, but he’s wrong. That’s like saying “There’s no such thing as ‘off the record’ with notebooks.” Or typewriters. Or computers. Or vocal chords.

Twitter is a tool for journalism. When you’re a journalist acting in said capacity, you’re operating under the same set of ethics as when you’re in the newsroom, on the phone with a source or in any of other traditional setting.

NBCChicago.com even sadder now

Internet, Media, , ,

Michael Miner of the Chicago Reader discusses NBCChicago.com’s new redesign in a larger story about what happens when errors are introduced as you “collate and synthesize the news.”** (Those are the words of NBCChicago.com’s managing editor, not Miner.)

On the redesign, which incorporates a poll on each story that asks users how they feel, Miner says:

“Stunts like this pander to the public in order to attract the elusive online advertiser…That’s the voice of a utility, not a news medium. When every news medium sounds like this, who will we count on for serious journalism?”

I don’t know if Miner realizes it, but every one of NBC’s local news sites “sounds” like this thanks to rolling out this redesign across all their local sites. The better question is, “When every online news medium looks like this, how does your local news coverage differentiate itself?” Certainly not by treating them like network affiliates. (The “Rock Stars on the Rampage” photo gallery is a “lead story” on three of NBC Chicago’s sites right now and don’t get me started on its “Local Beat” section.)

More on the NBCChicago.com redesign from me last month.

** I don’t mean to say this happens every time someone blogs about a story. There are plenty of talented people who do this and manage to get the details right.

Why are so many journo/media panels full of white guys

Media, , ,

The Windy Citizen is hosting an interesting discussion about the diversity – or lack thereof – in “future of media” panels. To some it’s simply a case of organizers only seeking out white men. To others – myself included – it’s more complicated than that. Even those who seek to put women and persons of color on their panels – again, myself included – find themselves challenged.

Read more here (my expanded thoughts on this topic specifically as it relates to the CMFC here and here).

NBC Chicago is making me sad

Internet, Media,

NBCChicago.com – along with several other local NBC affiliates – rolled out a re-design at the end of July, less than a year after a previous re-design, which emphasized its local news coverage. Though the new site is more attractive than the old, and provides more ways for people to interact with the site’s content, it now seems less interested in delivering news than delivering the moods of its readers.

I wasn’t blown away by the design of the old site, but I admired how they seemed to be paying attention to what other sites were reporting. Many of the local news stories had outbound links, and even mentioned other sites by name. Like all good blogs, they combined original reporting with some analysis and related information. The tagline on the old site was “Locals Only” and while sometimes that meant silly contests like “Which is better: Lollapalooza or Pitchfork?” it also meant they snagged good local writers, like Steve Rhodes of the Beachwood Reporter, to cover politics.

The new site, however, seems to be more interested in proving it knows what Facebook is.

I don’t see the value or newsworthiness in asking people which of six feelings/actions they have/take after reading a story. Sure, it makes for an eye-catching interactive element on the homepage…


…but the forest is lost in the trees. The idea here (I assume) is that “NBC Chicago” (or “Peacock-Logo 70s-Font” as the case may be) is not some unseen group of editors and reporters. “NBC Chicago” is the readers of the site. And those readers are “furious about shady Olympics real estate deals” and you can read more about it by clicking that tagline. In a way, it’s an expression of what Brad Flora said in a post on the Chicago Media Future Conference site.

But it took me about 10-15 minutes of poking around the site to figure all this out. For those of you who spend time looking at metrics like “time spent on site” you know most of your readers don’t spend that kind of time on your site. Nor are they huge geeks like me who will take the time to figure out what’s behind all this. Instead, they’ll just see taglines like this…


…and – in an incredibly unfortunate juxtaposition – this…


Now, the first tagline suggests an ideological bent to NBC that I doubt is intended. But the second…well, if you were a professional news organization, would you want something on the main page of your site that essentially said “We think it’s funny that a hockey player beat the hell out of a cab driver over a matter of 20 cents?”

This erosion of NBC Chicago’s identity in favor of lulz wouldn’t be as much of a problem if the site could settle on a voice. Some stories are written as straight-ahead reportage, like this coverage of a death at Lollapalooza (although some copy editing on that dek would clear up what the story makes clear: This was the fire department’s only call to Grant Park, not its only call all day). But others, like this story on the Mayor denying that a developer will profit from the Olympics, play it cheeky with the Mayor identified on first reference as “Big Swinging D.” There’s nothing wrong with that per se – there’s plenty to be said for a tongue-in-cheek take on the news – but the context of both stories is identical, which is confusing.

Moreover, it wouldn’t matter that NBC Chicago offers cutesy features like voting on how a story makes you feel or contains comparisons of Mayor Daley to a large schwanz, if the site also made it easy to find breaking news quickly and easily. Yet I didn’t realize the new site offers up-to-the-minute traffic info in the right hand corner of the site until a few minutes ago. And this is after I spent a good half hour poking around.

To be fair to my local NBC affiliate, most of the above isn’t its fault. This new design is now in use by all NBC Local sites so it’s obvious this was a corporate dictum made from on high, whether NBC Chicago liked it or not. And there are some aspects of the new design that I like, like this “So Chicago” section. But with news execs constantly fretting about people “stealing” their content, it seems like the solution NBC decided on is one that makes it harder to find that content the first place.

Chicago Media Future Conference non-wrap-up

Internet, Media,

I don’t really want to make any proclamations about the Chicago Media Future Conference yesterday. That isn’t because I don’t have an idea about how it was received by the attendees and those who followed the conversation in our live-blog and on Twitter; I spent most of the event walking around the room to get a true feel of the mood and talked to many people afterward who thankfully offered their honest assessments. My co-organizer, Mike Fourcher, and I ran through a shortlist of things we could have done better, and what we thought worked, on the El ride home.

But I’m more interested in hearing what everyone else has to say first. So if you were there, please comment in our open thread on the chicagomediafuture.org site or blog about it; we’re linking to the responses we see.

And thank you to everyone who gave us the gifts of their minds and time on a Saturday afternoon.

Secret is as secret does

Internet, Media,

Last Thursday, there was a meeting of news publishers and editors. According the James Warren, who broke the story on the Atlantic Web site:

There’s no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, “will facilitate the meeting.

The subject of the meeting? “Models to Monetize Content.” (Let’s leave aside for now the notion of how much sense it makes for the same people who broke the system to be the only ones involved in fixing the system.)

Warren reported it as a “secret” meeting, and from the reaction of the people and sites that follow these “future of journalism” discussions, it would seem he’s correct.

But on Friday, Editor and Publisher published this story:

Michael Golden, vice chairman of The New York Times Co. and chief operating officer of The New York Times Regional Media Group, defended the controversial Newspaper Association of America meeting Thursday in Chicago, saying there was nothing secretive about it.

“The characterization in The Atlantic that this was a ‘secret meeting’ was inaccurate,” Golden, who attended the event, told E&P Friday. “If it were secret, there wouldn’t have been a sign on the door saying ‘NAA meeting.’ This was a meeting that had been planned for weeks — you can’t get these people together without planning it over a period of time.”

The question now is how much bullshit to call on Golden.

There’s no mention of the event in the Events section of the NAA‘s website and no press release in its Press section. I’ve run half a dozen Web searches for anything remotely resembling an event like this and come up with nothing. And again, the reactions of the people who make it their business to know this sort of thing has been akin to “Wha wha whaaa?” so…

Let me help Golden with an operational definition here: A meeting is secret if no interested parties – other than the participants – know it’s happening.

And you know what? This meeting had to be secret, in order to do what Golden and the rest of the cabal wanted to do, which was to create ways to make people directly pay for content they’ve been getting without direction compensation up to now. (Notice I don’t say “for free” as that’s a misnomer but another subject for another time.) If it wasn’t kept secret, the NAA would risk attention from the feds for anti-trust actions.

According to Zachary M. Seward:

Why so cautious? Well, surely the executives discussed ways to charge for content online, but they can’t appear to be coordinating a move to erect pay walls around their sites. That’s illegal. The industry would like an antitrust exemption, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports the idea, but the Obama administration is opposed.

Seward also posted a statement from NAA President John F. Strum that read, in part:

With antitrust counsel present, the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online. The participants also shared success stories in driving new revenue to their newspapers products.

Emphasis mine.

So how does that work exactly? Does the antitrust lawyer sit there and interrupt someone whom he or she thinks is about to say something that could be construed as collusion? ‘Cause then I imagine the meeting sounded a little something like this:

By the way, if you’re interested in a not-at-all secret meeting of people interested in coming up with innovative solutions to news publishing, might I suggest the Chicago Media Future Conference on June 13? Don’t forget to register!

Huffington Post needs an intern; copy-and-paste experts need no longer apply

Internet, Media, , ,

I regret that too often this blog is replete* with bomb-throwing posts directed at just a few targets. Even I think “Move your needle to a different groove, son.” But sometimes it’s just too easy:

AdAge: Someone Bids $13,000 for Huffington Post Internship

I don’t know what the job description is, but it most certainly does not include re-publishing reviews from local publications…anymore.

Hey, do I at least get points for doing something constructive? Truth be told, The Chicago Media Future Conference is why this blog has languished as of late. But on the plus side, we’re close to announcing our full slate of panelists, and we already have some interesting posts up about SEO, unbundling content and the Trib’s new Chicago Now project. Head on over there and check it out, and sign-up for the conference if you’re so inclined. It’s free!

* Confidential to Chris Jones: This is the proper use of this word.

The Chicago Media Future Conference's rallying cry?

Internet, Media,

Normally, I’d just toss this on my Tumblr blog as a quick quote, but since I’ve been using this space to promote the Chicago Media Future Conference, I thought it best to note this passage from a NY Times story last week:

“‘New media’ doesn’t mean transplanting old media to a new medium; it requires a new vocabulary, a new relationship with the audience — a massive social network that now talks back — and, sometimes, a new set of expectations about objectivity and timeliness.”

If there’s a better outline of what we ought to be talking about at the CMFC, I haven’t read it yet.

Thanks to the Trib’s Rob Elder for the tip.

The Lackner Andrews blog also had some thoughts on our project:

Understanding how media habits are changing – and how news operations can adapt – should be a top priority for all media managers. Before you can talk about how to make money, you have to know how people are consuming your product.

[Snip]

Google isn’t killing journalism, but Google has changed the way people find, consume, and share the news – and do so in ways that circumvent the old revenue models.

[Snip]

Professional journalism is still wanted and needed – but we have to start saying out loud that news organizations are not providing their work in ways that meet the needs and habits of their audience. And by not adapting to this reality, the news industry is losing credibility, relevance, and revenue. News orgs need to figure out the nature of their product and its value to the consumer before setting their sites on making money. Business models are not solutions for what ails journalism right now.

I’m not sure I agree that “business models aren’t solutions for what ails journalism.” They’re not the ONLY solution, but I think they’re part of it. Then again, I could be wrong. It’s a point for debate, and that’s why we’re doing this.

More on The Chicago Media Future Conference.

Note: The Chicago Media Future Conference website launches May 1.