The ‘new media’ evolution according to a millennial photographer.

Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of the Press’

Dear Bill Keller

Dear Bill Keller,

You’ve got to be kidding me.

I had hope. I’ve been to the new Times newsroom, I’ve seen your awesome web infographics, I’ve talked with your developers, I’ve watched videos of your futurism department. There are many, many, smart people working for you.

When I asked one of your employees, why he had given up a well-paying job to come work for you he told me “…when the Times calls, you answer.”

I was emboldened when I read your byline from Iran. You, a manager, reported from the heart of what continues to be the world’s biggest story.

You sir, are in control of one of the finest journalism producing institutions in the world. Yet, people like you are pissing it away.

I was heart broken when I heard that the New York Times, which I have a deep respect and love for signed it’s intent-to-file-chapter-11 forms.

Nonetheless, I have a deep appreciation for experimentation, and I hope that your endeavors will teach the rest of us a thing or two about how to make money on the web.

Then, I read a Q&A that you did in TIME magazine. Even though the copy had to fit on one page, and your answers are brief, I’ve never seen a journalist sound as much like a politician as you did in that article. (And I use the word 'politician' that in the out-of-touch, slimy, refusing-to-be-held-accountable sort of way.)

Apologize for your mistakes. Transparency is all it’s cracked up to be.

You admitted that journalists in this country had failed as the Fourth Estate. The flat-out bad reporting when ex-President Bush took this country to war against Iraq was in-excusable. The argument for war was based on lies. To this day, the media hasn’t made a resounding statement saying as much.

You didn’t apologize.

You blamed us, the people, for creating “conventional wisdom” for you to ‘float along’ with.

If you want us to trust you, we’ve got to have an honest relationship! Tell us when you get something wrong. We’ll be mad, but we’ll trust you more because you came clean.

The smell of ink doesn’t justify its cost.

You said that print still has “a lot of life left in it.” I’m not sure if that was the diplomatic answer but I think most of us would have been more impressed to hear that you were actively looking for ways to move your operation digital; that print was on its way out as the foundation of your business.

Make a commitment to doing journalism online because the myth that, “the best of online journalism is rooted in mainstream media,”

won’t last long. I’m not sure what you define as “mainstream,” but you ought to consider re-evaluating your premise. The MSM isn’t the only group of people capable of doing journalism. Read the rest of this post →

Jul 11, 2009 | Battle, Journalism, Media Industry | View Comments

LINKS | Micropayments Don’t Work, but Everyone Has a Better Idea

Somehow, I missed the links from the latter part of last week, and have been bookmarking like crazy this last week. So, ya'll get a ton of links. Apologies for the long, long list, but I've broken it up with some good videos — and I've edited down! These are the cream of the crop from February 10th through February 20th:

Journalism Business Models

Web Journalism

Feb 21, 2009 | tumblr post | View Comments

Micropayments Lead to Piracy

Since the TIME cover story that re-rose the micropayment debate last week the topic has been beaten to death across the web, but I want to raise just a few more points that I haven't seen elsewhere.

Information wants to be free. No matter what, people will find a way to get it online. We’ve proven this time and time again with music, movies, software, and video games. No, don’t laugh – video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, that represent some of the greatest achievements in technology in the past decade.

These three heavy-weight entertainment industries have proven that charging for content online leads to … quasi success. Yes, iTunes, Netflix, and Steam have been able to deliver paid content to a mass audience, and they do if far easier than if you try to pirate download the same, but piracy is still rampant.

Make it free, or the pirates will. The TIME article, and others like it, refer to the 'iTunes model' when the talk about micropayments for news. Yet, this analogy is flawed:

  • Music, movies, software, and video games are content that has ‘repeat use’ value. News is read once, then mentally file away.
  • Music, movies, and video games are entertainment, a luxury good that carries a far different intrinsic value than an essential good like news. Software isn’t a luxury good, but it is a productivity tool that also doesn’t have the intrinsic value that news/information has. Besides, software doesn’t really have the micropayment model either.
  • It’s easy to preview content on iTunes, it’s near impossible to provide an accurate preview of information without providing the … information.

I’d be willing to bet that if a news service tries the paid content model people will find someway to get around the pay wall. If they’ve found a way to steal entertainment goods, trust me, they’ll find a way to steal the news.

And that sure doesn’t sound like a Fourth Estate to me: a system where the people have to steal their information!?

Better to let the traditional newsroom die, or run a smaller operation. You can’t tell me that every reporter in a current newsroom actually earns their keep.

If micropayment schemes ever actually gain traction, people will opensource the news. We can mashup twitter, youtube, blogs, and aggregators to get a reasonable approximation of the information that we get now. Granted, it would be much shorter form content. But since we mostly skim the news right now anyway, the user wouldn’t see much lost.

Read the rest of this post →

Feb 15, 2009 | Journalism, Media Industry | View Comments

No Wonder They Don’t Trust Us

Warning: the following is a rant. I'll keep it short.

It drives me crazy to see journalist putting the nail in their own coffin. E&P just republished an AP story that politely complains that Israel still isn't letting journalists into the Gaza war zone.

No wonder 54% of the public doesn't trust the media anymore. Instead of playing Fourth Estate watchdogs, these journalists have been nicely asking the courts of Israel for permission to do their jobs. Nevermind the fact the Israeli government and Hamas are controlling the story and spewing propaganda. It's still a good idea to wait on one of these governments to allow you into a region when they can control what you see.

Grow some balls.

Do your jobs. Please. You're only hurting yourselves through your laziness and ignorance. Don't moan about how hard it is. If were easy, we wouldn't need professional journalists in the first place!

Journalists are expected to add value to what people on the ground tell us in order to curate and inform the mass-public about the actions of governments, industry, and events of the day. How can we do any of that if we're not able to report!?

Journalists. Step up. Now.

Jan 02, 2009 | Journalism | View Comments

Censorship ➔ Ambivalence

Photo: Stefan Zaklin/European Pressphoto Agency

Something has been bothering me for a long time about my generation (1980-1999~ish): we're ambivalent.

Let me take a moment to explain: I'm not talking about coffee vs. tea, or McDonald's vs. Burger King. It's not even an issue of Obama vs. McCain – we're just as clueless as the rest of the country when it comes to politics.

- - - - -

Our parents we're one of the greatest generation(pun intended) of upstarts the US ever saw – they were responsible for protesting the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and Watergate. The Baby Boomers, they knew how to protest. We, just don't seem to care.

There are tons of issues that the youth of this country could get riled up about. My top three: We've got a president that's blatantly broken the law with a do-nothing congress to boot. We're involved in not one, but two, failing wars that kill more of our generation every week. We've broken the prison system with more inmates than it can handle – largely due to the failed War on Drugs.

And what do we do? Do we write petitions? Vote out our congress? March on the Capitol? Riot? Demand that the troops come home? Do we do anything even remotely radical?

Bring back the 70s.

At least the hippies, blacks, and press knew when they were getting screwed. They stood up and did something about it. They marched, protested, investigated, demanded, pursued, and were otherwise activists!

- - - - -

So, all that's been on my mind for about a year. Obviously, I'm perturbed by what I see to be a failing of my peers. Which is why when I read an article about the lack of true war photography in the New York Times, I felt both more perturbed and a little relieved.

Obviously, preventing pictures of dead soldiers from appearing in the press is yet another example of the Bush Administration's efforts at censorship.

…military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.

-4,000 U.S. Deaths, and a Handful of Images - NYTimes.com

Yet, as the article points out, during the Vietnam War, the press published photos of dead soldiers, civilians, and whatever else they please. This, in part, got the folks back home disgusted with the war. It got them out in the streets protesting the war. Perhaps this dumbing down of our media coverage has caused the American people to forget these wars. To forget their responsibility to tell the government when it has strayed down the wrong path.

I'm satisfied that I've found part of the explanation, but I'm more troubled by what the slow decay of the media is causing.

Aug 16, 2008 | Journalism | View Comments

NBC Olympics: Annoying, Incompetent, Liars?

NBC is doing a heckuva as the US's only provider of the Olympics this year. They've got tons of coverage on TV, and an extensive online coverage system too. Naturally, with such a huge operation there are … difficulties.

Annoyances

Watching the coverage online requires Microsoft Silverlight, which (now) supports Macs, but it means installing some Microsoft bloatware onto your system (yuk).

Silverlight is competitor to the ubiquitous Adobe Flash. In this blogger's humble opinion, MS has no chance to take the market. It's annoying to have to install the software just to watch the Olympics. Of course, kudos to MS for getting their software in such a preimo spot (we'll ignore the MSNBC connection). I sure do wish NBC had provided a Flash alternative though.

Incompetencies

On Technically Incorrect | CNet, Chris Matyszczyk blogged about his experience watching the Olympics online. Let's just say that NBC was less than professional:

Wait, wait.

The scrolling commentary has political news: "Iran, USA detente at the head of the main peloton as Iran's climber Hussein Askari takes a flyer and is joined by (we think) USA's Jason McCartney."

We think? We think? This might be a U.S. assault on Iran. And all they can say is "We think"?

-Censors not able to keep up with NBC's online Olympics coverage | CNet

And, it seems that NBC has concluded that if their talking heads are writing, and not talking, they can spew even more BS than they typically do:

This is how he has just spoken to me in writing: "The first time up the major climb of the finish circuit has substantially damaged the peloton, but we are still waiting on names and time gaps."

So this commentator is telling me he has no idea who is winning, no idea who is second, no idea who is third, and no idea of the time differences between the riders.

Lies

Slashdot is a news aggregation site for nerds. If someone on that site notices something fishy going on with the news media, you can be pretty sure that a) What they say happened, happened. b) It's pretty out of the box because, this is not a site that usually notes this kind of thing. Below is the full text of the blurb on Slashdot.

"Viewing the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony online at NBC's Olympics website, you can see that the order in which the countries were presented was very different from the actual order of the countries in the ceremony, as listed at Wikipedia. NBC skipped roughly 100 countries ahead, then jumped back and forth, apparently delaying the appearance of the United States in its home market until later in the broadcast. (In fact, the US team was shown on the infield before they were shown marching!) NBC did not acknowledge this in its broadcast. Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings? Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?"

-Slashdot | Did NBC Alter the Olympics' Opening Ceremony?

Bear in mind, that if you live on the West Coast of the US you got to watch these opening ceremonies a full half day after they happened – just so that NBC could show it to you in primetime.

I'm going to enjoy the Olympics throughly, I'm also going to take everything that NBC shows with a grain(s) of salt.

Update

Technically Incorrect has posted another article about digital fakery in the opening ceremonies and the continued use of the word 'live.' Read it here.

In case there was any doubt – NBC is raking in the dough from this Olympics. According to Sean McManus, Olympic commercials cost $1 million a piece.

Aug 10, 2008 | Media Industry | View Comments

Disembedded: Marines Send a War Photographer Packing

PDN audio slideshow: interview with Zoriah.

The audio slideshow is fantastic. The story is good. And it's another example of the Fourth Estate getting screwed. Keep shooting Zoriah (and by the way - I love your quote).

"They embedded a war photographer, and when I took a photo of war, they disembedded me," Zoriah says. "It's as if it's okay to take pictures of them handing lollipops to kids on the street and providing medical care, but photographing the actual war is unacceptable."

-Disembedded: Marines Send a War Photographer Packing

Jul 21, 2008 | Photography | View Comments

Apparently Reports, Editors and JUDGES Decide Newsworthiness

The judge wrote that he expects Gertz "will be prepared to testify regarding the newsworthiness of this case and, more particularly, the reasons why maintaining the confidentiality of his sources is critical to his ability to engage in investigative reporting."

-Judge Tells Reporter To Explain Spy Story - washingtonpost.com

The US is not a particularly great place to be if you're a reporter trying to protect sources. This latest ruling is just another example.

It seems as though the national security is more important than a free press for the public good in nearly every case. At what point does national security gain more by the advancement and continuation of the free press than the suppression of information and the increased secrecy of the government for and by the people?

Update:

Greenslade writes that Judge Cormac Carney has protected Bill Gertz from identifying his sources. At least the ruling was favorable.

Jul 21, 2008 | Journalism | View Comments

Tough One: The Government’s Right to Notes

The New York Times has a good summary of the military's case against CBS News. Essentially, the military wants access to the unaired portions of a video interview with one of the soldiers involved in the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha during November of 2005.

CBS is claiming its first amendments rights to keep the footage unseen. The military is arguing that there may be footage that helps to incriminate the soldier and it should be seen by the court.

Obviously, the military is looking for a confession that the soldier may have given on tape. CBS is stuck in an awkward position. The soldier is clearly guilty, the only questions are how much guilt does he bear and how much can be proven. It's quite possible that CBS obtained an interview with the soldier only on the basis that it not air certain parts, and/or promises were made after-the-fact.

Regardless, CBS has claimed that isn't required to turn over it's excess footage because of its constitutionally guaranteed free press rights.

This footage is the equivalent of a print journalist's notes. In that it is information that was obtained from a source but not published.

Unfortunately, the US does not have a good history of protecting journalists, especially when the government is the opponent in a court of law. Yet, it is important for the government to recognize the necessity of the fourth estate (this administration does not, one example).

As much as the soldiers involved in the Haditha Massacre need to be punished, it is not okay for the military to subvert journalist's rights to get the evidence that they need.

Jun 26, 2008 | Journalism | View Comments

The Middle East Gets Press Freedom?

“We aim to produce an excellent newspaper out of the region” that will set a new standard for other publications to aspire to, said Hassan M. Fattah, the deputy editor, who was a correspondent for The New York Times in the Middle East before joining The National. “Being government-owned does not equal being government-run,” he said. “There are no ministers sitting in my office” telling the paper what to write.

-A New Mideast Paper Vows to Be Different - New York Times

Abu Dhabi has a new, free newspaper – despite being owned by the crown prince (and therefore the government) So far so good, today's front page of their website had a story about rock quarries producing too much dust for government standards. The story not quite an exposè – it's actually not even new news, and the story doesn't specify the government's role in the matter beyond saying that the judiciary has already ruled on the matter. However, it is a good issue to call attention to, and good to see on a front page of a newspaper that's trying to separate itself from the government.

Already, the paper has attracted some serious competition: on Monday, The Financial Times of London said that it was introducing a new edition for the Middle East, with editorial offices based in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi is one of the more westernized countries in the Middle East, and things look good so far, but it's definitely a 'wait and see' case.

Apr 29, 2008 | General News, Journalism | View Comments

Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million – New York Times

Rupert Murdoch is moving to tighten his already-imposing grip on American news media, striking a tentative deal to buy his third New York-based paper, Newsday, and getting his first chance to appoint the top editor of The Wall Street Journal, after the resignation of the editor on Tuesday.

-Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million - New York Times

Woah. This deal is surprising to say the least, but I rather like the way the NYT covered this. It's biased, no doubt about it, but I think this is a rare case where being biased is a good thing.

News Corp. buying Newsday puts it in control of another of the nation's top 10 newspapers (the other being The New York Post), both in the New York area. The article does state that "a takeover of Newsday by News Corporation, which also owns two New York City television stations, could face trouble with regulators."

The article fails to mention that the NYT is also in New York City and will have to deal with the fallout from the takeover as well.

That said, I'm a big fan of Outfoxed, a big critic of the Murdoch Effect (though I actually like some of the 'infotainment' principal), and against media conglomerations. Though this article was a bit more news analysis than it should have been, I'm pleased that the tilt was so anti-News Corp.

Apr 23, 2008 | Journalism | View Comments

Chinese ‘Free Press’

AFE816C8-B7F6-4371-B0E2-052553D63C2D.jpg

That's the image that has served as the banner on top of China's largest internet portal Sina.com. C|Net notes the violent imagery against CNN is disturbing, to say the least.

All of this in protest to CNN's 'media bias' against the Chinese.

Apr 22, 2008 | General News, Journalism | View Comments

EU States Agree That Inciting Terrorism on the Internet Is a Crime

Representatives of the EU's 27 member states formally agreed today to harmonize their respective countries' definitions of criminally prosecutable acts of terrorism by expanding them to include three new types of crimes: "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, [terrorist] recruitment, and training for terrorism." The definition of "public provocation" was especially controversial, and it encompasses content posted on the Internet, including not only direct incitements to violence but also terrorist propaganda and bomb-making expertise.

EU states agree that inciting terrorism on the Internet is a crime

As a timely follow-up to the recent news that the UK has jailed 6 men for publicly supporting terrorism through speech, the EU has legally declared that internet support of terrorism is also a crime. This is a severe blow to freedom of speech advocates everywhere.

Terrorists are using the internet to spread their message. I don't deny this at all. The problem with making that act illegal is the definition of who a 'terrorist' is. I heartily submit that this definition is by no means concrete enough to make their support illegal.

Al-Queda is a terrorist organization. Banning their internet activities probably enhances our security. Is Hamas a terrorist organization? They are also a political group. Should be ban them? What about PETA? Should their website be taken off-line?

Fortunately, there is still good news. Although the EU has passed this law, they have not really provided a means of enforcing it. Though the paper precedent is on the books, it does not look like it can be acted on … yet.

Apr 20, 2008 | General News, Journalism | View Comments

China Spurns Apology, Keeps Pressure on CNN – washingtonpost.com

China's fight with CNN is part of a broader effort to challenge those who question its response to last month's protests in Tibet or criticize the Olympic torch relay, which traveled Thursday through New Delhi under heavy guard on its way ultimately to Beijing.

China Spurns Apology, Keeps Pressure on CNN - washingtonpost.com

There's a great example of how free the Chinese media is – no word of protest against the regime is to be tolerated. Granted, CNN certainly editorialized in their coverage – cropping a photo to eliminate protestors.

Nonetheless, this latest 'offense' took place on the show The Situation Room which is a FOX inspired show on CNN. That is to say, it's full of opinions and not facts.

The Chinese media seems to make a habit of taking a bit of truth (usually a rightful complaint) and spinning to the point where it's unrecognizable.

Apr 19, 2008 | Journalism, Photography | View Comments