Author Archive for Steve Outing

I love it. HugeURL.com takes a short URL and turns it into a long, complex one. Here’s the “better” URL for this blog.

http://www.hugeurl.com/?MmNmZWVlOGE0NGI1MzQ1YzIxY2RhNDk2Nzhj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I’ve been away for a few days, but when I got back I caught up on some episodes I’d missed of the Daily Show and Colbert Report during the Republican convention. Jon Stewart hit it particularly well by comparing past and recent statements by folks like Karl Rove and Fox News TV pundit Bill O’Reilly.

Rove praising Palin’s credentials in being mayor of a town of 9,000, then earlier trashing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who had been mentioned as a possible VP pick for Barack Obama, as being too inexperienced because he was mayor of the “small” town of Richmond, Virginia (population 200,000), were priceless! Ditto for the side-by-side video clips of O’Reilly trashing the mother of Jamie Lynn Spears for bad parenting when the teen TV star got pregnant and then praising the parenting of GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin when her teen daughter got pregnant

Politicians like Rove and Fox pundits like O’Reilly seem to think that voters are stupid and will buy this bullshit, so bravo to Stewart for pointing this out. But how about mainstream news organizations going after this kind of political chicanery? Isn’t that the job of the news media?

Newspapers, especially, are in a fight for their lives. Since it’s time to shake things up in that industry, how about if more papers start to be bolder about pointing out politicians’ lies and mistruths? Pointing out blatant hypocrisy with documentation — though without the hardcore opinion that Stewart presents — is within the realm of what newspapers could be doing. It might just go a long way in making newspaper brands relevant again.

As Jon Stewart no doubt would put it, it’s time for mainstream media to get some balls. The public shouldn’t need to rely on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, or be savvy enough to frequent FactCheck.org, to learn when politicians are lying. That’s the job of the news media, which too often shirks it now (or so underplays it that it’s ineffectual) for fear of being branded “the liberal press” by the likes of Rove and O’Reilly.

No wonder Jon Stewart is sometimes referred to as the most trusted newsman in America. At least he gets the job done.

(This item was edited from its original form to fix a factual error.)

So there’s this rumor starting to spread around the net: That GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin is not the mother of the infant Trig Palin as she claims; rather, the mother is actually her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. It surfaced with this report on Daily Kos. (And there’s a follow-up with more “evidence.”)

Andrew Sullivan has blogged about it, and rightly, to my mind, suggests:

“There must be plenty of medical records and obstetricians and medical eye-witnesses prepared to testify to Sarah Palin’s giving birth to Trig. There must be a record of Bristol’s high school attendance for the past year. And surely, surely, the McCain camp did due diligence on this. But the noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions. So please give us these answers — and provide medical records for Sarah Palin’s pregnancy — and put this to rest.”

As I write this, the mainstream media is staying away from this one (according to a quick Google News search). It is, after all, an outrageous charge. And it maligns a 17-year-old girl who deserves to be treated fairly and not dragged through the mud.

What should mainstream news organizations do with this? I think they have a responsibility to investigate it and discover the truth, and report it, whichever way this turns out. (If Palin were lying about this, it should disqualify her from holding the VP’s office, at least to my mind.)

This is seeming like it could turn out to be similar to the John Edwards affair case, where the National Enquirer was the media outlet correctly reporting that the presidential candidate indeed was having an affair. Some traditional news organizations chased the story, but couldn’t confirm it. It’s probably fair to say that most “real journalists” believed that the Enquirer was making it up. They ended up getting beat by a cheesy supermarket tabloid.

Now we have a left-leaning blog publishing an explosive story that most people probably don’t believe, because it sounds so absurd (and the author is hiding his name, which is an enormous red flag). But the mainstream press needs to make sure it doesn’t get caught again as with the Edwards affair.

Dan Kennedy, a journalism professor who writes a blog called Media Nation, thinks that while it may be worthwhile for the mainstream press to investigate and (most likely) debunk the rumor, if it indeed turns out to be false, it shouldn’t be published. He writes:

“The job of the press is to ask questions and then to present its findings to the public — or, in this case, if it found nothing, to do its best to make sure the story never saw the light of day. … This is the definition of a story that shouldn’t be hashed out publicly.”

Sorry, Dan, I totally disagree. Long gone are the days when “the press” had the power to keep stuff like this under wraps, taking a Father Knows Best approach and not sharing the “sordid” details with the public. This thing is already spreading like wildfire, without being mentioned by mainstream news organizations. It’s going to play out with or without the mainstream press taking part.

This is a strong rumor that’s already got legs. News organizations need to investigate, and if they can confirm that it’s false, they should report it. It doesn’t have to be a big deal or take up a 24-hour news cycle. A simple short story — Palin baby rumor has been debunked — would suffice.

It’s archaic media thinking that says the media needs to stifle this thing because it’s too unseemly for us to touch. We no longer live in the age when rumors were heard only by journalists, and those journalists decided whether to pass them along to the public. The public is in on this rumor, and they deserve to be served by professional journalists who are capable of debunking or confirming it.

One last point: I’ve seen arguments that the media must sit on this because it would hurt Bristol, who’s still a kid. The problem is, she’s already been tossed in the mud, and millions of people are finding out about this rumor this weekend. That cat’s out of the bag. Mainstream media would serve her interests best by turning up evidence that the DailyKos charges are false. And if the rumor is true, the American public certainly needs to know about Sarah Palin’s character.

This morning, on NPR’s Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep interviewed former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani, who has been in Denver to offer an anti-Democratic presence to media gathered there for the Democratic convention. Guiliani made the suggestion that Hillary Clinton is helping Republican candidate John McCain, since in the primary campaign she pointed out how inexperienced Barack Obama is — which of course he agreed with.

Inskeep did the “objective journalist” thing and politely pointed out to Guiliani that he had some strong criticisms of McCain during the Republican primary campaign. Ergo, why should we take Clinton’s (recanted) statements seriously now when Guiliani doesn’t want us to take his previous criticisms of McCain seriously? Guiliani gave the typical slippery-politician response to brush off that past criticism, and Inskeep let it drop.

The interview annoyed me, because Inskeep basically let Guiliani get away with being hypocritical. Inskeep was too polite and deferential, and Guiliani got away with something unfair and unseemly.

Now imagine how Jon Stewart would handle that interview. Guiliani would have come across looking like the hypocrite he is in this instance.

Ah, but in the “real” journalism world, we have to be “fair and balanced” (unless we work for Fox News). Things like this make me sad for my profession. (But I still love you, NPR!)

Steve Yelvington blog-mused: “Are obituaries obsolete?” He argues that newspapers should have “living documents” cataloging and documenting people’s lives on an ongoing basis, rather than an obituary published just at the person’s death.

I want to take a slightly different angle. Many newspapers pre-write obituaries of notable people in their communities. Some staff journalist or perhaps a librarian is charged with writing or updating a canned obituary when a local big-wig goes into the hospital, for instance, so it can be pulled out when the time comes.

But why bother with that task at all? An argument can be made that when Mr/Ms Whomever checks out of the planet, the information about his/her life is but a Google- or Wikipedia-search away. Instead of writing an original obit, a link obit just may be a better way to present a notable life.

The modern obit writer may serve the subject better by amassing a collection of suitable links: to a biography, video interviews, best writings, most famous quotes, etc. Yelvington may be right: The traditional obituary is already in the grave.

I’m going to partake of a little nostalgia here. Stop reading if you don’t care about the early days of interactive news. …

Back in 1994, I started an e-mail discussion list called Online-News. It turned out to be the primary hangout for lots of the pioneers in the field of online news, and continued to be a thriving industry discussion venue for many years.

It was so long ago that in those days we were talking about the merits of dial-up bulletin board services; which proprietary online service (AOL, Prodigy, Delphi, Interchange, and some I’ve forgotten) news organizations should hook up with; and this fledgling thing called the World Wide Web, and whether or not we should take it seriously.

I served as list “owner” for quite a while, and when I went to work for the Poynter Institute in 2001, the lists went with me to be hosted there. I left my Poynter job in 2006, but Online-News continued on, residing on Poynter’s servers.

Alas, Online-News is no more. When Poynter Online introduced its new design in the last week, the old Online-News mailing list went away, replaced by a web discussion area: Journalism Conversations: Online & Multimedia.

I’m hoping that the new “Groups” functionality of Poynter Online will support a continuation of the great conversation that we Online-News members have had over these many years.

I am a bit worried that the rebranding and the ridding of the name Online-News will confuse people about what happened to it. So this is my attempt at leaving a record of the transition, and hoping that old Online-News members will make the transition. There’s still plenty to talk about!

The concept of “citizen journalism” has been around for a while now, and early applications of the concept typically have involved creating a platform for people to share what they know. A classic example of this is CNN’s iReport website, where all of us are encouraged to put on our amateur reporter caps and share news that we encounter. There are plenty of similar initiatives at local media websites, such as YourHub.com.

What if this is the wrong approach? I’m beginning to think it is.

Now, I do not argue that many people — empowered by the web, e-mail, digital cameras, social networks, blogs, micro-blogging services, smartphones, etc. — want to share their experiences. The popularity of social networks and services like Twitter offers plenty of evidence that people like to talk about what is important to them: themselves, their friends, and their experiences.

What we’re seeing is people spontaneously sharing their lives, and sometimes their personal experiences overlap with “news.” So if someone, like the guy above, happens to witness something extraordinary these days — say, a tornado that came close to his house — he might snap a photo or video with his cell phone. Then maybe he’ll post it to Youtube, or Flickr. He may post 140 characters about it on Twitter.

Those sort of reactions are, for the modern and digital-savvy person, becoming natural. Certainly not everyone reacts this way, but a growing number do.

What’s not as natural is posting to a news organization’s “citJ” website. It’s much more natural to share your experience with your social network, as opposed to sharing it with some company (news organization).

Ergo, I’ve started to realize that news organizations would be wise to focus less on creating their own citJ platforms and hoping someone will post something, and more on leveraging the social networks where people already are posting news. My previous post about Twitter touches on this; that micro-blogging service contains (amid all the personal fluff) real news that people are witnessing.

News organizations need to think outside themselves, which of course is something they’re generally not very good at. Perhaps instead of sinking a pile of money into their own citJ platform, they should instead be developing means to tap into the external venues where people already are sharing their news, filtering and aggregating that on a local level as a service to their own audience.

What do you think?

There are a few things that local newspapers and other news outlets (TV, radio) don’t do well, and I’m always on the lookout for solutions. Here’s one that’s come up for me many times over the years:

Something happens locally, like, say, a fire; there’s a lot of smoke in the distance, and I want to know what’s going on. But I visit my local newspaper’s website, and there’s nothing. Ditto for other local news outlets’ websites. Eventually (but not always), a reporter will get around to writing up something and it’ll be posted online.

It’s especially vexing when there’s never any report. Maybe the fire is not big enough to warrant coverage by the newspaper. But I’m still curious what happened. Where do I turn?

Now we have the solution: Twitter.

This has been staring me in the face for a while now, but it just hit me. Twitter solves this problem, because often when something happens the local “Twittersphere” will be abuzz about it, before a reporter has had a chance to write it up and publish something (or even knows about it).

To monitor this, lately I’ve been using Twinkle on the iPhone, an application that works with Twitter. A Twinkle feature is to identify where I am using the iPhone location (GPS) feature, and show me Twitter posts (tweets) from within a specified radius.

So, next time I see a big smoke cloud in the distance, I’ll launch Twinkle and check out tweets from Twitter users in Boulder. Odds are that folks will be talking about it, and someone near the blaze will have posted something more than conjecture.

Applications like Twinkle are also great journalistic tools, of course. In the old days, newspaper reporters had the TV on in the background, in case TV news had something that they should know about. Today, someone in the newsroom should be monitoring local tweets; it’s the new early warning system for news, with an army of witnesses feeding you information.

On BusinessWeek.com, Ben Kunz writes about the trouble Twitter is having coming up with a business model. He suggests a bunch of possibilities, but finds problems with all of them.

I don’t get it. It strikes me that the best model is incredibly simple, and powerful: Insert a “TwitterAd” entry every 50 entries or so. Kunz thinks “users would rebel.” I doubt it. That’s a minor price to pay for a free service, and most folks will understand that it’s a necessity for the service to continue to serve them.

And if you don’t like the ads, then pay an annual fee (say, $20) for the ad-free version.

There’s been concern that advertising in social networks doesn’t work that well, but that’s not a concern here. I’m reminded of something I learned in doing some Eyetrack research a few years ago for the Poynter Institute. When ads were put directly in the editorial flow of content, they were seen and acknowledged much more than when off to the side.

And when an ad is designed in the same way as surrounding editorial content (color, font, etc.), it’s noticed even more. “TwitterAd” tweets would fit those criteria and my educated guess is that the ads would be incredibly effective, especially if Twitter adds contextualization to the mix (or select-the-type-of-ads-you-want schemes a la WeatherBug).

I finally succumbed to iPhone fever and got an iPhone 3G the other day. While I’ve been thinking about the expanded mobile footprint in our lives for a while, having this thing in my hands really brings the future into focus.

One big thing that the iPhone represents is the lessening of gadgets that we carry, since the phone now does so much. I used to carry my phone and an iPod when I went out for a run; now I just need the iPhone since it doubles as an iPod. I don’t need to pack a small camera if I go on a mountain bike ride; the iPhone will suffice to take snapshots. (Actually, the iPhone is better than a camera in some ways. While the resolution isn’t as good as a stand-alone camera, with the iPhone I can take a photo, have it mark my position using the built-in GPS, and send the photo to my Flickr account and/or to Twitter.)

Another gadget I sometimes carry is a Garmin handheld GPS unit, for when I want to have a map and statistical record of a trail I’m riding. But it’s kind of big and I don’t use it all the time. (And I broke it once on a mountain bike ride when it was mounted on the handlebars and I crashed.) But now I’m using a new iPhone application called RunKeeper ($9.99), which for some exercise uses replaces the Garmin. RunKeeper tracks my runs or bike rides, telling me how far I’ve traveled, what speed I’m going, average speed, and it produces a map of the route when I’m finished.

What’s very cool is that RunKeeper automatically sends my data off to its website, so when I get home and sit at my computer, I see my stats and a Google map of my route. The site stores all my runs and rides.

RunKeeper is new, and it’s not perfect. The iPhone GPS sometimes drops the signal; the software doesn’t track elevation gain/loss, which is a critical data element to any runner or cyclist. It doesn’t have the bells and whistles that a Polar heartrate monitor (yet another exercise gadget I own) has. Worst of all, it can only record about 3 hours of trail activity, because the iPhone’s battery can’t handle more; so it’s only useful for short trail adventures, not epic all-day ones.

But RunKeeper (1.0) is a good start, and I’m eager to see how it improves with future releases. The software does get us closer to the day that a phone can be a decent GPS unit. The iPhone isn’t there yet, but I’m confident it will get there soon enough.