At the suggestion of my professor, I recently checked out 10,000 Words: Where Journalism and Technology Meet. I am a little embarrassed to admit that I have never heard of this site before. Can you really blame me though? The internet is pilled high with crap and I stick to what I know. However, after browsing the site I am into Luckie.
Luckie put a list together of the “10 Journalists you should follow on Twitter” so I took his advice and starting following all of them. I am going to post their most recent tweets…ready?
Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu): As of 52 minutes ago posted, “Revised opinion. http://bit.ly/am4hgf Normal Buzz. Enjoy it, if it entertains you. Ignore, if it doesn't. I will stick with: don't emulate.”
Chrys Wu (@MacDivaONA): As of 13 hours ago posted, “@seanjtaylor But then do you have those "Doh! I should have done that ... Doh! I should have done that ..." moments immediately after? I do.”
Suzanne Yada (@suzanneyada): As of 15 hours ago posted, “Use this Facebook widget to search what @jerrybrown2010 & @whitman2010 have said by topic, location, attacks & more: http://ow.ly/2ZWWF”
Robert Hernandez (@webjournalist): As of one hour ago posted, “Ha! RT @marksluckie: Hilarious Washington City Paper Staff Memo on Stewart/Colbert Rallies: http://tinyurl.com/2f7hox4 (via @NABJDigital)”
Lauren M. Rabaino (@laurenmichell): As of 11 hours ago posted, “WTF? Ignore my last tweet. I wrote that like 9 hours ago and have no idea why it barely tweeted now.”
Amy Webb (@webbmedia): As of one hour ago posted, “StumbleUpon Video Gets More Personalized - http://on.mash.to/bwTl8o”
McKenna Ewen (@McKennaEwen): As of 11 hours ago posted, “RT @drewvigal: Now that's pretty sweet | The ABC’S of Sport Logos - http://j.mp/dovUJ1”
Vadim Lavrusik (@lavrusik): As of 30 minutes ago posted, “Newspapers now provide only 20 percent of Associated Press revenue: http://bit.ly/ckoblA Revenues from papers have fallen by 1/3 since 2008.”
Ben LaMothe (@BenLaMothe): As of one hour ago posted, “Some interesting data: Nielsen estimates 362,000 Britons behind the Times paywall http://bit.ly/8ZHwyP”
10,000 Words (@10000Words): As of 26 minutes ago posted, “Common copyright mistakes that can still get you sued: http://mbist.ro/awHJJW”
Out of these ten journalists, I was hoping to find a story that I could write a blog post on. But only a few links were relevant. The search continues!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Vegetarian Paradise: Get Your Eat On!
I am a vegetarian and I love food. Here is a map of some of the best spots around! Don’t see your favorite restaurant? Send me an email or leave me a comment.
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Photographs Everywhere!
It seems as though the internet is a breeding ground for stealing. Whether its music, movies, books, videos, or photographs we are all guilty in someway or another. On a number of occasions, I have turned to Google for images. It’s simple: search for an image, find exactly what you’re looking for, right click and save to your desktop, and add it to a blog post. Well, apparently this is a no-no.
Here is a list for legal sources of photography.
Flickr: The Commons or Flickr: Creative Commons.
PhotoXpress
deviantART.
stock.xchng
Or just buy a camera and start shooting.
Here is a list for legal sources of photography.
Flickr: The Commons or Flickr: Creative Commons.
PhotoXpress
deviantART.
stock.xchng
Or just buy a camera and start shooting.
Jay Rosen, I Love You.
In the ever-changing world of journalism Jay Rosen gives me hope. I stumbled upon a lecture he gave to the incoming class at Sciences Po école du journalisme in Paris, September 2, 2010. It is my belief that Rosen is not disenchanted with the current climate of the journalism world but rather, eager to grab a hold of it and prepare future journalists for the road ahead. Here a few highlights from the lecture.
“Seeing people as masses is the art in which the mass media, and professional media people, specialized during their profitable 150-year run (1850 to 2000). But now we can see that this was actually an interval, a phase, during which the tools for reaching the public were placed in increasingly concentrated hands. Professional journalism, which dates from the 1920s, has lived its entire life during this phase, but let me say it again: this is what your generation has a chance to break free from. The journalists formerly known as the media can make the break by learning to specialize in a different art: seeing people as a public, empowered to make media themselves.”
“Seeing people as a public, empowered to make media themselves.” The public can make media themselves? I can guarantee this statement would give a few of my journalism professors a heart attack. I’ve been taught that the media is only reserved for journalists; those who endured classes like Media Ethics, Journalism 101, Media Law, Magazine Writing, and who have eventually graduated with a degree in Journalism. What’s the big deal? Bloggers (a portion of the public who has evoked their right to make media themselves) are seen as uniformed, untrained, and not really journalists because???… Nevertheless, they are capable of creating news, drawing an audience, and swaying opinions. It cannot be us versus them anymore. If you have done the research, interviews, experienced something firsthand…you own that piece of media regardless if you work for The New York Times or run a blog.
“Students of social media and behavior on the Net are highly aware of the one percent rule, which has been observed in a wide variety of online settings:
It's an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will 'interact' with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it... So what's the conclusion? Only that you shouldn't expect too much online. Certainly, to echo Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come. The trouble, as in real life, is finding the builders.”
Last week I was in New Jersey and had the chance to speak with Helen Benedict, author of The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq and professor of journalism at Columbia University. I asked her about the state of journalism, death of the newspaper, and about jobs. Benedict stated that 22 recent graduates obtained jobs at a newspaper and 23 obtained jobs in the social media field. We were both surprised. She also reassured me that the “newspaper is not dead yet.” The one percent rule seems to be echoing her opinion.
“In your bid to be trusted, don’t take the View From Nowhere; instead, tell people where you’re coming from. Treating people as a public means refusing to float "above" them. Instead of claiming that you have no view, no stake, no perspective, no (sorry for the academic term) situated self, try to level with the users and let them know where you are coming from. As David Weinberger puts it. "transparency is the new objectivity." You may find that trust is easier to negotiate if you don't claim the View from Nowhere, but instead tell them where you're coming from…”
We can have an opinion?! Thank you, Jay! Now I’m going to show several of my previous journalism professors this statement and watch them cry. In the spirit of Jay Rosen and as an aspiring journalist, here goes nothing…
The Rent is Too Damn High! I'm with Jimmy McMillan.
“Seeing people as masses is the art in which the mass media, and professional media people, specialized during their profitable 150-year run (1850 to 2000). But now we can see that this was actually an interval, a phase, during which the tools for reaching the public were placed in increasingly concentrated hands. Professional journalism, which dates from the 1920s, has lived its entire life during this phase, but let me say it again: this is what your generation has a chance to break free from. The journalists formerly known as the media can make the break by learning to specialize in a different art: seeing people as a public, empowered to make media themselves.”
“Seeing people as a public, empowered to make media themselves.” The public can make media themselves? I can guarantee this statement would give a few of my journalism professors a heart attack. I’ve been taught that the media is only reserved for journalists; those who endured classes like Media Ethics, Journalism 101, Media Law, Magazine Writing, and who have eventually graduated with a degree in Journalism. What’s the big deal? Bloggers (a portion of the public who has evoked their right to make media themselves) are seen as uniformed, untrained, and not really journalists because???… Nevertheless, they are capable of creating news, drawing an audience, and swaying opinions. It cannot be us versus them anymore. If you have done the research, interviews, experienced something firsthand…you own that piece of media regardless if you work for The New York Times or run a blog.
“Students of social media and behavior on the Net are highly aware of the one percent rule, which has been observed in a wide variety of online settings:
It's an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will 'interact' with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it... So what's the conclusion? Only that you shouldn't expect too much online. Certainly, to echo Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come. The trouble, as in real life, is finding the builders.”
Last week I was in New Jersey and had the chance to speak with Helen Benedict, author of The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq and professor of journalism at Columbia University. I asked her about the state of journalism, death of the newspaper, and about jobs. Benedict stated that 22 recent graduates obtained jobs at a newspaper and 23 obtained jobs in the social media field. We were both surprised. She also reassured me that the “newspaper is not dead yet.” The one percent rule seems to be echoing her opinion.
“In your bid to be trusted, don’t take the View From Nowhere; instead, tell people where you’re coming from. Treating people as a public means refusing to float "above" them. Instead of claiming that you have no view, no stake, no perspective, no (sorry for the academic term) situated self, try to level with the users and let them know where you are coming from. As David Weinberger puts it. "transparency is the new objectivity." You may find that trust is easier to negotiate if you don't claim the View from Nowhere, but instead tell them where you're coming from…”
We can have an opinion?! Thank you, Jay! Now I’m going to show several of my previous journalism professors this statement and watch them cry. In the spirit of Jay Rosen and as an aspiring journalist, here goes nothing…
The Rent is Too Damn High! I'm with Jimmy McMillan.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Five Followers?
This is so exciting! What should we talk about?
I ran into Don Forst, former editor-in-chief of The Village Voice, and asked him what I should do after I graduate...
"Find a rich husband." No thank you.
"Buy a bus ticket and go across the country. Get off at every major city and walk into a newsroom. Tell them they need to hire you because you’re good.”
I ran into Don Forst, former editor-in-chief of The Village Voice, and asked him what I should do after I graduate...
"Find a rich husband." No thank you.
"Buy a bus ticket and go across the country. Get off at every major city and walk into a newsroom. Tell them they need to hire you because you’re good.”
If you go to UAlbany, take a class with Forst.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Love The New York Times? Pay Up!
On Wednesday, The New York Times announced it would charge some frequent readers for access to its Web site beginning January 2011. While it sounds horrible at first, it’s actually not so bad.
According to a piece by Richard Perez-Pena, “…a visitor will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.”
I don’t see what the problem is. Those who have a subscription to the newspaper have nothing to worry about. Those who get to an individual New York Times article via Google, Yahoo, or another server will be allowed to read that piece. And the home page will be accessible to all visitors.
During a months time, the NYTimes.com attracts over 17 million readers in the United States alone. It is sited as the countries most popular newspaper site. Imagine if one million of those online readers decided to subscribe to the Sunday paper. Not only would that mean full access to the site for the reader but it would help the struggling newspaper industry. Why is it acceptable to subscribe and pay for a newspaper to be delivered to your house but subscribing to the same material online is considered outrageous? Is it because now you'll be paying for blog content?
Kachingle offers an alternative, “…support the New York Times blogs you love directly, with a voluntary contribution of just $5/month.” The service “is about new thinking for online content, a new business model where users like you voluntarily support the online content you love.” Here is how it works: You install a Firefox or Chrome browser (cannot be used with other browsers) extension, and this puts a small Kachingle bar medallion at the top of each NYT blog. Then you click on “Join Kachingle to support this blog” from the Leaderboard, and now you are instantly providing financial support to your favorite blog.
I think it’s easier to just pay a few dollars a month for online content or subscribe to the newspaper.
According to a piece by Richard Perez-Pena, “…a visitor will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.”
I don’t see what the problem is. Those who have a subscription to the newspaper have nothing to worry about. Those who get to an individual New York Times article via Google, Yahoo, or another server will be allowed to read that piece. And the home page will be accessible to all visitors.
During a months time, the NYTimes.com attracts over 17 million readers in the United States alone. It is sited as the countries most popular newspaper site. Imagine if one million of those online readers decided to subscribe to the Sunday paper. Not only would that mean full access to the site for the reader but it would help the struggling newspaper industry. Why is it acceptable to subscribe and pay for a newspaper to be delivered to your house but subscribing to the same material online is considered outrageous? Is it because now you'll be paying for blog content?
Kachingle offers an alternative, “…support the New York Times blogs you love directly, with a voluntary contribution of just $5/month.” The service “is about new thinking for online content, a new business model where users like you voluntarily support the online content you love.” Here is how it works: You install a Firefox or Chrome browser (cannot be used with other browsers) extension, and this puts a small Kachingle bar medallion at the top of each NYT blog. Then you click on “Join Kachingle to support this blog” from the Leaderboard, and now you are instantly providing financial support to your favorite blog.
I think it’s easier to just pay a few dollars a month for online content or subscribe to the newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)