Do-it-Yourself Election Coverage

The man-on-the-street (MOS) reporting method is being taken to a whole new level with the 2008 presidential election. No longer do we need reporters to bring us a "random" sampling of comments from people who have just voted.

Now, you can quickly get a glimpse of people who have just voted throughout the country.

Those people are reporting directly to the Internet audience through live tweets on Twitter's Vote Report and YouTube's Video Your Vote. The Tweets, which are geographically positioned on a map and constantly updated, show where the longest wait times are in the country. The Tweeters also report problems they've spotted at the polls.

YouTube has teamed up with PBS to provide polling video and reaction from voters, who can upload their own comments. Many other media outlets are doing the same online.

I know this sampling isn't very scientific, but the number of participants far outweighs the number of people we used to snag for the old MOS. This is a much more diverse and representative bunch.

And you can bet if there are any chads hanging this year, a Tweeter or YouTuber will be there to catch them.

Monitoring the Monitor

"The method of delivery and format are secondary."

Mary Trammel, Editor in chief 

Christian Science Publishing Society. 

Citing the "rapidly changing media landscape," the Christian Science Monitor will become the first major newspaper to give up the daily printing press in favor of the Web. 

In an announcement October 28, Monitor executive editors announced the paper will shift to a "Web-based strategy" in 2009 and will offer weekly print and daily email subscriptions.They unveiled their new look in a multimedia slideshow.

This news makes sense since the Monitor has a national audience, which might be more interested in getting its news online than in paper. Unlike USA Today, the Monitor isn't available on every corner and for many people, by the time the paper arrives in the mail, it's old news. 

Because the Monitor is a cornerstone of the Christian Science religion, it also has a loyal niche of followers. Their bottom line isn't just about making money, either, unlike most mainstream newspapers. 

Still, their success (or lack therof) will be watched by most dailies.

Does Video Matter?

I am not sure when it happened, but at some point during their climb to the deck of the Titanic, newspaper editors decided that video would be their great big life preserver online.

So, newspapers have been buying multimedia equipment and handing it off to print reporters who have little aptitude for and even less interest in using it. The video gets displayed either alongside a print story or on its own. Sometimes the results are powerful - you can link to examples of those here.

Other times, when a print reporter does a broadcast story, it sounds like - well, a print reporter doing a broadcast story. But who really cares? Is video THAT necessary that people will want to go to a newspaper's Web site just to watch the news, not read it? Why not go to the TV station's site instead?

No legitimate research has been done on what impact video is having on newspaper Web sites, if at all. This issue is being debated and discussed by some of the most forward looking thinkers in online journalism. University of Florida professor Mindy McAdams asks whether newspaper video is really serving Web users that well.  Multimedia guru Rob Curley, now at the Las Vegas Sun, outlines his video strategy for newspapers. And Nebraska Web editor Stephanie Romanski shares her concerns/frustrations with the medium.

Journalism schools are now teaching both print and broadcast students how to shoot and edit video because we are fairly certain they will need those skills no matter what type of media job they land (if they land one at all). I am reluctantly requiring my seniors and grad students (some of whom are print reporters) to do the standard "package."  

That's the typical TV formula - nat sound, reporter audio, soundbite, audio, soundbite, audio, standup. It's a he-said-she-said recipe and it's old. I'm not sure that it even works.  The beauty of the Web is the unexpected (see my earlier post on creativity). 

Newspaper reporters CAN beat TV reporters on the digital playground - if they break that hackneyed old package formula, not by duplicating it. Former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie thinks newspapers are starting to win the video contest -by offering more of it, in more ways and on more platforms. He might be right. But is anyone watching?

Oprah Goes Paperless

So the woman who got America reading again wants us to stop. At least on paper anyway. Oprah's latest favorite thing is the Amazon Kindle - sort of an iPhone for book reading.

I've seen the Kindle and the screen is remarkably easy to read, unlike most computer monitors. You can also easily highlight text (that's what I don't like about reading on a computer) and if you find a word you don't know, just click on it and up pops a dictionary definition.

The Kindle can handle 2,000 books at a time but a memory card adds thousands more to that capacity. The cost, $359. INCLUDES the wireless service for instant downloading books, newspapers and magazines. So you're not paying a monthly fee - although you do have to buy the books (but they are a lot less expensive than the paper version).

Will people read the New York Times on a Kindle? Will they pay to do that? Is this the future of reading and information delivery? Oprah says it's true. But how will it look on the coffee table?

The Clout of Google

At first, I resisted the temptation of Google. Sure, I use the search engine (who doesn't?) And then there were Google maps, which quite naturally led to flying all over Earth. And of course my pictures conveniently uploaded to Picassa - the photo sharing site. No harm there.

Then along came Gmail and that fine print - the privacy policy that basically says NOTHING is private:

Google maintains and processes your Gmail account and its contents to provide the Gmail service to you and to improve our services. 

So I decided my relationship with Google would have to stop. Not that there was anything in my emails all that exciting (most, in fact, would put any algorithm into hibernation). But I wasn't sure I was happy with Google's real gig - targeted advertising based on your email content and habits.

Then I fell for Notes - the handy little Web clipping service. Next came Docs - great tool for collaborating, editing and sharing documents. Then Blogger (here now),  Chrome (quick, sleek browser for PCs) and Sites (free wikis with privacy settings - to all but Google of course). So

I'm giving up and selling out to Google. Call me fickle.

It's all about cloud computing, you see. Google is taking on Microsoft by reaching into the atmosphere. The idea is that all our info will be posted to the great Google Web cloud in the sky - which means we can access it from anywhere. No more leaving an email behind in Outlook Express. With Google, you can access all your information from any computer that's online. Of course, so can Google (there's the rub).

Check out Planet Google, a newly released book that shows how Google is taking over virtually all our computer habits. The back cover (not shown on Amazon) says that Google's information about a user will eventually become so specific that the search engine will be able to answer questions like..."What should I do today?"..."What job shall I take?"

Hal? ... Eliza? Are you listening?

Four Days for an Arizona Paper

The East Valley Tribune, which covers part of the Phoenix Metro region (the East Valley part, obviously) has announced it will publish for only four-days, instead of seven, and reduce its staff by 40 percent. And - in an even more prescient sign of things to come - the paper is GIVING away its printed version. The reason: "a steep drop in revenue."

The paper is owned by Freedom Communications, the same company that has the Orange County Register.

But not every company wants to leave their newspaper company off at someone else's doorstep. Editor and Publisher reports nine media companies are interested in the San Diego Union Tribune, which was put up for sale by the Copley family in the summer and is facing some major economic hurdles.

Why your brain likes news of the weird

Blame it on your cortex. That's what tech guru Jeff Hawkins might say about our obsession with what we not-so-fondly refer to as "news of the weird" - those so called human interest stories that don't really affect anyone but take up a huge amount of space in print and broadcast news.

In his book On Intelligence (2004), Hawkins explains how the thin sheet of cells that make up our cortex determines what we know and what we perceive. It's all based on patterns, he writes, and if something doesn't match that pattern - we notice.

"Several times a second ... your brain makes a prediction about what it will see next. When that prediction is wrong, your attention is immediately aroused." - Jeff Hawkins, On Intelligence

So that's why stories about bizarre crimes, traffic accidents and human oddities sell. We're noticing things that are unpredicted or out of place.

Creativity results from unpredictability as well but in a different sense. Hawkins explains that creativity happens when artists mix the expected with a hint of the unexpected:

"There is a contradictory tension in what makes a work of art great. We want art to be familiar yet at the same time to be unique and unexpected."

Creative writers (think Shakespeare) will use metaphors or analogies to what's familiar to get our attention.

Should journalists go for the easy sell or the more nuanced approach? Both will get noticed but one takes a lot more work.

For more on Jeff Hawkins' brain theory - check out this video on TED on how brain science could change computing. It's interesting - and creative!