Category: audience

Just gimme the facts, ma’am

Alison Gow2 Comments
The last post I wrote about open lines of communication prompted a few comments (thanks all) including a well-reasoned argument from James Goffin that, sometimes, people just wanted the facts. Not interaction, not contribution, just… to know clearly and concisely what was going on. You can find more at his newspaper blog.

And I started to post a reply, James, but it got so long I’ve ended up lifting it out as a standalone post; I hope you don’t mind.
See, I am convinced to the point of being mildly obsessive that open journalism is a vital part of our future.
And I know, when I suggest we should operate wiki principles in our newsgathering and story-presenting, that not everyone out there will want to get involved. Some will indeed just want the facts.
However, the opportunities we can now offer those who do want to interact are now so great that surely we have to take every advantage of them? Even if it occasionally blows up in our faces like this.

I’d be willing to bet a large proportion of people (our potential if not existing audience) do want to be more involved with news-making – it’s just that they have little opportunity other than through online commenting, or by ringing the newsdesk to get barked at by someone who equates rudeness with importance.
For many, a newspaper must be a completely unfamiliar and impenetrable institution, possibly to be contacted in extremis, when other avenues have been exhausted. If they’re really unlucky they might even have blundered into a newspaper’s online forums and been put off for life.

Newspaper journalists who blog about their subjects have a great platform for interaction but not everyone uses it as a way of conversation yet, although I think that will change pretty quickly.
We don’t dispute that crowdsourcing is journalism, involving multiple contributors. It means that instead of a reporter setting out with a fixed idea of where the story will go, contributors take control. It can also mean a story becomes something very different to what the newsdesk originally thought it would be – and that’s a good thing, I think.

I understand the point James makes when he says “I just want someone I trust to tell me what is going on” – many people who ring a newsdesk phone are essentially saying that. But the whole issue of trust is a tricky one.
How do we trust someone? I’d guess it’s by establishing a relationship with them.
Do journalists on your average regional daily have that kind of relationship now?
I’d say not.

We need to be more open, invite collaboration, and earn trust. Existing readers probably do have a fair degree of trust and faith in their local paper but the competition is now so great, and the options for audience to go elsewhere so varied, that we need to be making far greater efforts to connect and set out our stall.
And why should someone trust us? Because we’re journalists? Nope, not going to happen. But if what we do is open, visible and open to comment and questioning, and if they are involved, then the dynamic starts to change. It’s hard to argue with the success of Spot.us, and I’m excited to see where Help Me Investigate goes.

Anyway, enough. Melanie Sill, of the Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, says it better than me:

Good journalism should speak for itself, but that only works if people are reading or listening.


We have to have an audience for what we do; the best way to build that audience is to offer people the chance to get involved, and produce great journalism they want to read. Otherwise, we’re writing for our newsdesks…

Why are users leaving Plurk?

Alison Gow4 Comments
I signed up to Plurk, the quirky microblog that allows threaded conversations, shared photos, links and videos, more or less at its launch and I’ve been a staunch supporter ever since, despite the fact that it’s a rather odd looking beast.

But lately Plurk has gone into a decline, and now it seems as though it’s really starting to fail in earnest. Last week a Plurk friend, Rob, became the latest user I’ve seen to question its problems.
On his blog he asked the question Plurk No Growing. Why? on his blog and polled whether it was Plurk’s ‘karma’ gimmick that was holding it back (66% said it was a turn-off).
Others complain “Plurk is too time consuming w/ the web interface”, “Lack of promotion”, and “as nice as threaded conversations are in theory, in practice, they don’t really work in a Plurk/Twitter-like service”.

I know some people get seriously annoyed when their kama falls(and consequently their emoticons are reduced) when they fail to use Plurk for a day or so but I’m not sure it should shoulder the full blame for what seems to be this site’s slow death.

I think the reason more and more people are posting messages like this…

… is the very thing that everyone got excited about in the first place… the ability to hold threaded conversations.

I have a small core of Plurk mates and a wider circle of friends whose conversations I dip in and out of.
I steer clear of threads that I know are just going to get nasty (anything regarding Israel at the moment) as what starts out as a reasoned debate always – and I mean always – descends into open hostility. Likewise, people who once got perhaps 135 responses for saying ‘morning Plurk’ and now get perhaps 10 (probably because there are so many users saying ‘morning’ it’s frankly boring to respond to everyone) and then post disgrunted messages about how the service has deteriorated.

Finally, Plurk has been incredibly buggy lately; messages post twice or not at all, the timeline works sporadically and is still not searchable, and it all feels a bit clunky.
I’m still using it right now but it feels like it’s withering on the vine. For an online social network that had such promise, it now feels like it’s in a terminal decline.

Reader, I banned him…

Alison Gow2 Comments
Sam Shepherd recently wrote a thought-provoking blog post on how the issue of readers’ robust (but accurate and valid) views on online article.
After all, the age of engagement and interactivity means a reporter can get fairly instant feedback, good and bad, on an article once it appears online, either via comments or forums.

But sometimes the feedback is neither constructive, useful or even fair, and we don’t necessarily like to acknowledge the fact that an invitation to interact can – for some people – be interpreted as giving them carte blanche to have a go.
Interaction is not invitation to post trollish, petty or vindictive behaviour and allowing it to go unchallenged means we are not considering the impact it might have on other members of our online community.

Sometimes forum members are rude or offensive, and then get offended when this is pointed out to them. I don’t think there’s much hope when you’re dealing with someone like that; when a forumite starts calling you a Nazi for editing swearing out of their comment, you’re probably beyond the realms of a rational argument.

I recently sent a message to a forum member whose post was basically constructed around the argument: “I’m not racist but…” (and I’m sure you can fill in the rest of the sentence). I sent him a private message saying it was racist, it was not acceptable on our forum and if he persisted an interim ban would be winging its way to him. I never heard back and he hasn’t posted since. You know what? That suits me just fine.

At one point during the Sean Mercer trial, the Coveritlive software had a bit of a hiccup and the liveblog couldn’t be updated for a couple of hours – and as a result we also couldn’t post a message to say we were having problems. We had a couple of followers posting comments asking what was happening, and then one that said: “This is useless; if you can’t do it properly, don’t bother doing it at all”.

Now, I tried to put myself in that poster’s position: s/he was engrossed in the real-time reporting of an important trial when, suddenly and without explanation, the river of content dried up.
So I suppose I can see why their comment was full of annoyance, frustration and disappointment but I still think they were rude and thoughtless.
We were three weeks into a trial that had been constantly and consistently liveblogged; it must have been patently obvious that there was a technical problem. After that problem was fixed we posted an explanation and apology on the blog. Did we hear back from the poster? Did we hell.

There’s a balance to be struck between interaction – robust conversation, lively debate, responsibility and ownership – and allowing mischief-makers to dominate a conversation. Newspapers want people to engage and interact with us but shouldn’t become so wrapped up in it that insults, hostility or rudeness go unchallenged – whether it’s directed at a staff member, the newspaper or another forum user.

Links and the marketing of Darren Farley

Alison Gow1 Comment
This video of Scouser Darren Farley running through his LFC impressions, filmed by a mate on a mobile phone, went up on YouTube on 10 October 2008…

And within just 10 days this has happened…

Today, searching Google, the man is all over the web; from fan sites and bloggers, to the Post & Echo websites, Sky Sports and Radio 5 (where an upcoming interview with him is one of the homepage promos)… Frankly, Darren Farley is inescapable.

The interesting thing is, his star was rising to ascendancy before the media really picked up on him. The Post & Echo sites posted a video interview with him last Friday but it had taken all week to track him down and then find an opportunity where he was free. It shows just how much our online users can influence the content newspapers serve up for their readers.
Thousands of people have already watched him on YouTube, commented on his performance and even sent VT responses to him; they didn’t need the media to point them at it.

I guess the Football Factor shouldn’t be ignored in the rise and rise of Darren Farley – LFC is, after all, one of the biggest clubs in the world with an international army of fans – but the Magic of Linking would seem to be the real key to his success.
His YouTube video has been linked to from fan blogs, fan forums, fan websites, by YouTubers who favourited it, sent it on via Facebook et al…
The majority of those linking to it credit where they found the clip too.

How often do you hear the phrase ‘the media built X up just to knock them down’? Now people can build their own icons (or individuals can build their own brands) without going near a corporate news outlet, whether newspaper, TV, radio or online. It’s free and it’s extremely easy.

People marketed the Darren Farley brand without him even having to ask them. He’s clear that he wants his impressions to become a career, and by posting his video he got the greatest recruitment agency in the world acting on his behalf; the Web 2.0 collective.
It would have cost a fortune to market himself; if he’d rang Radio 5 and offered his services I’m betting the phone would have gone down within 30 seconds, now he’s one of their ‘must listen’ interviews – thanks to the Internet community using links.

So, what does it mean for newspapers? For me, it underlines how imperative it is for journalists to use social media sites to spot trends and stories. Dipping into forums, using Twitter as a matter of course (not just when you’re covering an event) and following blogs should be viewed as essential. I think reporters need to view it in the same light as they do the on-the-hour phone calls to the emergency services.
There are a wealth of stories on the web, we just need to know how to find them. And how to let other people find them for us.

Why the deadline isn’t ‘Now’

Alison Gow3 Comments
I suspect most of us find it comforting to work to a deadline; it’s satisfying to cross a mental finishing line and feel a job is completed. But a deadline is a also a mindset… and that’s not the most useful thing for a journalist to possess right now.

Dictionary.net has this to say about the word Deadline:

Now, I wasn’t aware about the shooting issue (although I know some subs who would be happy to see the reintroduction of this) but I think “1. the latest time for finishing something” is part of the problem.
It says that, effectively, a deadline is a limit – a point beyond which the work cannot and must not continue; something that marks ceasation of a thought process, an action, an inspiration, a possibility. It is a restriction.

There are two phrases relating to internet journalism that seriously drive me mad – “The deadline is now” and “First, second or nowhere”.
I hate these soundbites (that’s all they are – no one really talks like this when they are being earnest) and I want everyone else to as well. This is why:

The Deadline Is Now
This is the phrase most likely to be uttered by the person who believes it least. It the last resort of an online humbug; someone who doesn’t understand a fundamental truth about the internet – the deadline isn’t now because there is no deadline.
A story should be growing all the time, changing all the time, and if the newspaper is working with the online world well enough the story has, in some shape or form, been out there since the first seed of an idea was planted. The internet community has been a part of the article in some way (a poll vote, a web forum, a Twitter stream, whatever) and plays as important a role as the reporter writing it.
Deadlines hold us back; they make us think we’re first with the story when really we’re just the the first we know about with the story. Whether it’s someone from the public gallery in that big court trial broadcasting the outcome afterwards on the bus, or a local blogger with the right connection to the right person at the right time, someone else always knows. And they always, always share that knowledge. It’s just newspapers that hang onto knowledge until we judge the time is right to share; we are Knowledge Misers and the public will no longer accept us doling out snippets when it suits us.

First, Second, or Nowhere
The phrase ‘First, Second or Nowhere’ is often linked to ‘The Deadline Is Now’ and, chillingly, may even be used in the same sentence.
Yes SEO is important but so is being honest and providing exactly the information your readers are looking for, not luring them in like some kind of online Anglerfish, only to disappoint them with some spurious link or half-baked optimisation phrases. I think SEO is what the great Dilbert would describe as a ‘weasel‘ word; it sounds good while not really meaning much at all.
From my point of view, I’d rather talk about online clarity, as in: Is it clear to visitors what this story is about? Search Engine Optimisation sounds good but what it means is that you’re playing to the bot’s rules – you are colluding with Google or your audience’s browser of choice to entice readers.
The shortest route to the top of the Google search ranking is to publish what you know as soon as you know it and to label what the story is about with as much clarity as possible. Then link to whichever external sources are relevant, create a Google map or embed a YouTube video if it helps tell the story (Google likes helping friends of Google), and encourage as much interactivity around the story as you can, so more members of the online community are linking back to you.
Thinking about attracting people rather web crawlers when we plan our articles and upload them should improve the quality of hits to the site, as well as the quantity. After all, I get at least 10 hits a day from people looking for cartoon avatars to use on Twitter, but it doesn’t mean my blog post is of the slightest use to them.

Those are the two phrases that I’d like to ban from a newsroom (hmm – maybe I should think about calling this blog something else?) but it would be good to know what other weasel words are out there…

Fair comment

Alison Gow1 Comment
Finding intelligent, reasoned reader comments on newspapers’ online sites can sometimes feel like a Snark hunt.
I’ve noted my thoughts on why newspapers can fail to encourage a flourishing online forum community before, and had some interesting feedback both here and via Twitter and Plurk.
Personally I don’t believe newspapers forums will ever succeed unless time and real effort is set aside for looking after them; too often they degenerate into name-calling, adverts or conversations between two posters that would make more sense conducted via instant messenger.
But I also don’t believe it is beyond the wit of newspaperkind to host intelligent, interesting and relevant forums for debate and comment – we just have to care enough that they succeed, rather than chalking them down as a ‘must-have’ on our online checklist.
So, having followed a Twitter link from Paul Bradshaw to Derek Powazek’s blog post on 10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments I have some new thoughts to mull over.
Some of what he says chimes with what Mark Commerford suggested to me (regarding forums and the ability for users to flag comments which they perceive to be good or bad) and I’m also intrigued by his suggestion to scrap anonymity. All in all, lots to consider…

Networks and Journalism

Alison Gow1 Comment
It’s six months this week since I started spreading myself over the internet’s social sites in an attempt to shift my analogue brain up a gear.
I came home from a TM Leaders course last January shocked by my ignorance of Web 2.0 opportunities, and determined to do something about it. It started as a mild Twitter habit and has become an all pervading part of my life; one that has had an incredibly positive effect on my ability to do my job.

Contacts on my networks point me – either intentionally or as part of wider community sharing – at blog posts, sites, information streams and applications I would never have found out about on my own. I made a powerpoint recently and e-Grommet suggested I try it out on Slideshare, which I’d heard of but never used. As a result of joining that, and sharing information about myself and my interests, I found a real wealth of knowledge, including this great presentation about how how to understand the post Web 2.0 world which states, very neatly, the importance of networks.

Online networks, for me, offer a glimmer of hope for the survival of mainstream journalists – if we are just prepared to get out, get involved and share. These sites are the best way of reaching a worldwide network of experts and commentators (blogs, vlogs, podcasts, homepages), disgrunted whistle-blowers (forums, blogs) and potential readers. They let us market ourselves, our surveys and our stories, crowdsource, make eye-contact with people and ask them a question (I love Seesmic for this).

I was reading Adam Tinsworth’s One Man and His Blog this week for his take on how the media gets the whole ‘community’ thing wrong. It’s a great post and I’ve bookmarked it because I know I’ll want to re-read it – and share it.

I find our little locked-off world deeply frustrating. Mainstream journalism is like a hunter-gatherer hugging all the food to itself and dispensing it grudgingly, then expecting everyone else to share during the lean times.
And the sad thing is, it’s not deliberate. There aren’t many journalists who make a concientous decision to closet themselves away and be spoon-fed stories; they just wind up in this situation because there is no time. There’s no time to experiment, learn or even explore things online.

I’m always checking my networks at work; it isn’t a question of not having that enough to do – I’m always juggling myriad deadline-orientated tasks. What I do is snatch moments to visit networks and see what experts are discussing, what links they have found that might help me, and what is going on in the world beyond the enclosing walls of my office – and my own head.

So, six months in and I’m still learning, still getting things wrong, still loving this whole social media thing. I’ve made good friends, new contacts, had amazing, interesting conversations with people on the other side of the world whom I will never meet face-to-face, and whose support and feedback I value.

Journalism is a huge part of my life and it pains me to fall out with it but right now so many people in journalism are nodding at the right places while secretly wishing the interet would just go away. I don’t know where our industry is heading but I know that ultimately it will have to be a vastly different beast – leaner, wiser and (whisper it) a bit more respectful to social networks.

Forums v Comment

Alison Gow2 Comments
I’m starting to think the Daily Post should reinstate the old ‘have your say’ option under our web articles.
We used to have them but they were scrapped because posts had to be moderated before they could be uploaded manually.
This meant sometimes comments posted on Saturday evening wouldn’t appear online until Monday morning.
So now we have the forums – which are moderated after the post has been uploaded. So you get the odd spam advert on them, and the occasional idiot indulging in name-calling, but otherwise it runs smoothly.
All well and good.
But I suspect some people prefer to just comment-and-go, rather than go through the hassle of signing in to a forum and, potentially, having to create a new thread.
The Lancashire Evening Telegraph offers this this.
Maybe forums are areas were people have conversations with each other, and comment boxes are where they have conversations with the newspaper?