For about the past year or so, this blog has been in "sunsetting" mode--but I haven't quite wanted to shut it down. Part of my reason for shutting it down has been my increasing dis-interest in hyperlocal journalism and the newspaper industry; a growing lack of interest in many aspects of technology. Not to mention growing dis-illusion with the overall media landscape--which Jon Stewart parodies so well....
I'm also not all that thrilled with social media these days either. It used to take quite awhile for marketers and advertisers to get with the program when it came to new, fun social platform on the Internet. Now, it's a matter of a few short weeks before someone's slapped a new chicklet together and another someone's figured out a rudimentary way to bust up the fun. Then, there comes a book. The latest platform to get "socialized" is Pinterest--where every few days some social media genius-guru-ninja has come up with a new way to put out a marketing message on it. I'm inundated daily with infographics that are long on message, short on significance.
I took a look at what I did all these years among these various media to see if there was anything that I truly loved about it. First, I love the fact that this is real populist media--that one doesn't need to go through editors and such to publish. Second, I needed to bridge the time I spent in this world, innovating and working with innovators, with tactile world work. With spending copious amounts of time with innovators and technologists, I developed a distinct in-ability to express concepts in terms that non-techies could understand. That was a total revelation to me. Third, I needed a challenge, but one that would not feel like the labor of Sisyphus.
So, I decided to go into fashion blogging. Fashion has always been significant to me--our choices in clothing, in fashion and style are ways in which women express themselves. Sure, some might think it's "superficial" but I really don't care about them. In the world of Fashion Blogging, though, there's a dearth of older women--a lot of young women--and I believe that my age and experience, both in life and in everyday fashion decisions, gives me a unique blogging perspective.
There's more to it than just the superficial. Ever since my friend Tom Guarriello suggested I get a subscription to Women's Wear Daily, I have learned a whole lot about the fashion and beauty industries. These multi-billion dollar industries make their money primarily from women, yet women know very little about the business decisions of the various companies and brands we engage with daily. This is information, I believe, we *should* know. So, in time, my plan is to begin to weave fashion and beauty business journalism in with talk about firming body lotions and to wear a latest trend like a woman (not a girl.)
If you are at all interested in where I am going with the blog, you can check it out at High Fashion Average Woman.com. I've started a new twitter feed to go with the new blog: @HiFashionAvgWmn.
So far, this new blog is doing fairly well. I've used my rudimentary knowledge of SEO with the right subjects and have cornered some pretty good traffic because of it. I understand that to build a popular following with take quite a bit of time, but, once again, I'm more interested in having this blog be a vehicle for bigger projects, and future employment--thus making it have a larger purpose than making friends with fashion conscious peers.
Which, I must say, it's doing pretty well there, too...
I have also picked up blogging on social media and related issues at TishGrier.com, the site I use for my social media consultancy. My @tishgrier Twitter account is still active, and is now associated with the TishGrier.com site.
So, the time really has come to put The Constant Observer to bed. It has served me well over the 6 years of my professional blogging and social media career. It's been the vehicle for many great opportunities, and I have met many fantastic, forward-thinking people through it. I hope to continue to meet great people through both High Fashion Average Woman and TishGrier.com, and hope you will consider following me on either one or both of those blogs.
Fondly....
Onward and Upward.....
Tish
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
David Brooks' plea to save the Great White Male
Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but yesterday while I was reading David Brooks' editorial titled "The Talent Society," I thought he might have something to say that wasn't reactionary. oh, who was I kidding?? But he did bring up some interesting statistics regarding single people, then kinds of lives we have, and how our lives could be short-changing both poor children and middle-class (white) men.
In the editorial's early paragraphs, Brooks quotes some sobering stats from as Eric Klinenberg's book, “Going Solo”:
Hmmmm...interesting! According to these stats, single people are taking over the U.S. at an alarming rate. Oh, really? According to author Maria Bailey, moms make up a trillion-dollar a year market, are leveraging all sorts of online media like crazy, and are amazingly influential in spreading the word about products and services.
So, then, does that mean that the marketing world is pandering to a tiny, yet vocal minority? I'd venture to say that the family is still pretty much alive and well in modern America, despite the paragraphs of protestation (or is it bemoaning?)that follow the stats from Klienberg.
Yes, Brooks goes on to bemoan everything from teen-age hookup culture to people's inability to claim Democrat or Republican on our horrible single-focused culture. And not just our single-focused culture, but rather our horrific talent-focused world:
As someone who's benefited from the Talent Society and being single, I'd say that
it's more that we are unwilling to put up with another person's b.s., insensitivity, and controlling cruelty than we are to just be impatient. Maybe we're just impatient with the things that hurt us and are unwilling to stay in bad situations that could lead to post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.
But wait! According to Brooks, it's the lack of supportive, enmeshed relationships (families) that are the cause of so much depression, disorganization, and disadvantage in people's lives.
Really? I'd like to introduce Mr. Brooks to my family, and several others, just so he can see how the enmeshed family isn't supportive but is more of a jail, where one makes a bargain with a certain kind of devil just to keep a roof over one's head and the depression medication coming in a steady stream.
Yet it seems to be the plight of solitary, middle-aged men, who seem to be lacking in social capital, that Brooks sees as suffering the most from the Talent Society. According to Books, this group, that is poor in social capital, apparently lacks the drive and the "social facilities to go out and make their own friendship circles."
Really? REALLY? Gee, I seem to know a number of single middle-aged men who are involved in local politics, go golfing with their younger married professional counterparts, play in bands, make videos for local artists and non-profits, hang out at art openings, participate in online forums, join runners and bikers groups etc., etc....
Shall I go on??? Or maybe I should introduce Mr. Brooks to some of my local middle-aged guy friends....
I think the guys Brooks seems so concerned about are those that may be suffering from depression for other reasons than what he is unwilling to acknowledge. They may also be men that are introverted by nature--which does not mean that, if they were enmeshed in a lousy marriage that they would be better off.
The zinger though occurs at the end of the editorial when Brooks whips out the "poorer child" to conclude that, after all, these horrid single people with massive social capital, who are perhaps enjoying their lives, are somehow the cause of undue suffering of poor children.
And maybe it's these same single people that take in unwanted nieces and nephews, that volunteer with organizations that work with disadvantaged, "poorer children," or perform other civic-minded duties that actually help others.
And why might they do that? Because they have the time and they are not obligated. What they do comes from their hearts and their genuine desire to want to help others--which may be a trait that some single and talented people have in excess.
So, no Mr.Brooks, you will not make me, a single middle-aged, childless female, feel guilty for pursuing my talents (meager as they may be) and not marrying some poor man who needs me. We live in a society that is abundant in tools and technologies, and if single women can use them to create social capital, then I'm sure the Great White Male can learn to use them as well.
In the editorial's early paragraphs, Brooks quotes some sobering stats from as Eric Klinenberg's book, “Going Solo”:
more than 50 percent of adults are single. Twenty-eight percent of households nationwide consist of just one person. There are more single-person households than there are married-with-children households. In cities like Denver, Washington and Atlanta, more than 40 percent of the households are one-person dwellings. In Manhattan, roughly half the households are solos.
Hmmmm...interesting! According to these stats, single people are taking over the U.S. at an alarming rate. Oh, really? According to author Maria Bailey, moms make up a trillion-dollar a year market, are leveraging all sorts of online media like crazy, and are amazingly influential in spreading the word about products and services.
So, then, does that mean that the marketing world is pandering to a tiny, yet vocal minority? I'd venture to say that the family is still pretty much alive and well in modern America, despite the paragraphs of protestation (or is it bemoaning?)that follow the stats from Klienberg.
Yes, Brooks goes on to bemoan everything from teen-age hookup culture to people's inability to claim Democrat or Republican on our horrible single-focused culture. And not just our single-focused culture, but rather our horrific talent-focused world:
People want more space to develop their own individual talents. They want more flexibility to explore their own interests and develop their own identities, lifestyles and capacities. They are more impatient with situations that they find stifling.
As someone who's benefited from the Talent Society and being single, I'd say that
it's more that we are unwilling to put up with another person's b.s., insensitivity, and controlling cruelty than we are to just be impatient. Maybe we're just impatient with the things that hurt us and are unwilling to stay in bad situations that could lead to post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression.
But wait! According to Brooks, it's the lack of supportive, enmeshed relationships (families) that are the cause of so much depression, disorganization, and disadvantage in people's lives.
Really? I'd like to introduce Mr. Brooks to my family, and several others, just so he can see how the enmeshed family isn't supportive but is more of a jail, where one makes a bargain with a certain kind of devil just to keep a roof over one's head and the depression medication coming in a steady stream.
Yet it seems to be the plight of solitary, middle-aged men, who seem to be lacking in social capital, that Brooks sees as suffering the most from the Talent Society. According to Books, this group, that is poor in social capital, apparently lacks the drive and the "social facilities to go out and make their own friendship circles."
Really? REALLY? Gee, I seem to know a number of single middle-aged men who are involved in local politics, go golfing with their younger married professional counterparts, play in bands, make videos for local artists and non-profits, hang out at art openings, participate in online forums, join runners and bikers groups etc., etc....
Shall I go on??? Or maybe I should introduce Mr. Brooks to some of my local middle-aged guy friends....
I think the guys Brooks seems so concerned about are those that may be suffering from depression for other reasons than what he is unwilling to acknowledge. They may also be men that are introverted by nature--which does not mean that, if they were enmeshed in a lousy marriage that they would be better off.
The zinger though occurs at the end of the editorial when Brooks whips out the "poorer child" to conclude that, after all, these horrid single people with massive social capital, who are perhaps enjoying their lives, are somehow the cause of undue suffering of poor children.
And maybe it's these same single people that take in unwanted nieces and nephews, that volunteer with organizations that work with disadvantaged, "poorer children," or perform other civic-minded duties that actually help others.
And why might they do that? Because they have the time and they are not obligated. What they do comes from their hearts and their genuine desire to want to help others--which may be a trait that some single and talented people have in excess.
So, no Mr.Brooks, you will not make me, a single middle-aged, childless female, feel guilty for pursuing my talents (meager as they may be) and not marrying some poor man who needs me. We live in a society that is abundant in tools and technologies, and if single women can use them to create social capital, then I'm sure the Great White Male can learn to use them as well.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
White Boy Media Critics, Haute Mainstream Media, and Why We Won't Get Diverse Viewpoints Any TIme Soon
Last evening, Jay Rosen asked his friends on Facebook (of which I'm one) if he should comment on Shani Hilton's Where Are The Women And Non-White Media Critics? essay, where Jay's name and blog link (along with David Carr, Howard Kurtz, and a few others)appears. The first responses, from males, told Jay that the story was "link bait" and he shouldn't respond. I ventured in to say that Ms. Hilton made some very good points about the white male hegemony in "haute mainstream" media criticism, and that he might use any response as a way to open up a bit of dialogue on the subject...
That Jay hasn't left a comment yet doesn't really bother me--that's up to him to decide. What bothers me in the extreme is the outright dismissal by other white males that the essay was just link bait. Really? Would they have thought the same if it came from, say, David Carr, or perhaps Mathew Ingram over at GigaOm?
I doubt it. Because to most white males within the media industry, there is hardly any acknowledgement that there even needs to be any kind of different viewpoints other than those of the white males she mentions. After all, they are published in and appear on the haute mainstream media--those "newspapers of record" and high level television networks that everyone watches--because they are extremely accomplished.
As if there are women and minorities who aren't? As if someone like Elvis Mitchell or Xeni Jardin, the only two that come to mind, are the only two that on occasion make it into the haute mainstream (and then usually on PBS's News Hour or CBS's Sunday Morning.)
Many of the rebuttals of Ms. Hilton's column go on to mention women who are published at Poynter.or (I've been published at Poynter--google me to find my articles), or Columbia Journalism Review, or other academic journals. We might indeed receive *some* recognition for our criticism or analysis, but rarely do any of us go on to the haute mainstream.
And not for lack of trying or lack of intelligence either. Certainly not for lack of ambition either.
Why does the haute mainstream keep ignoring women and minorities? Well, let's take a peek at this interesting little roundtable discussion where Charlize Theron (condescendingly) tells Viola Davis that there's nothing wrong with her looks--when the point Viola Davis (and later George Clooney) is trying to make is that minorities are not adequately represented by Product Hollywood:
Theron's moronic comment is part of the problem: women oftentimes, with idiotic remarks that completely miss the point, end up working to bolster the white boy status quo. Theron certainly did not hear the exact point Davis made, and zoomed in on something that perhaps is her own issue--not feeling pretty enough at her age.
I applaud Davis's composure....
Clooney,goes further to point out the problems with Product Hollywood, which, IMO, are also part of the problems with Haute Mainstream Media: they are looking grab the eyeballs of the perceived Least Common Denominator, and for some reason feel that audiences simply won't be interested in viewpoints expressed by others who aren't White Boys.
When your purpose is to generate as much income (and let's face it, that's an issue for Haute Mainstream Media, too) from an attention-fractured audience, everything is going to be boiled down to the least offensive and the biggest demographic dollar. Which still seems to lie with males, 13 to 30 (or 18 to 34, depending on where one takes one's demographic info.)
Can anything be done to change this mess? Maybe. If some of the men featured in Haute Mainstream Media occasionally bring a woman or two forward at least for the occasional "guest appearance." Or perhaps some women should be a bit more crass and demanding of those in editorial positions in the Haute Mainstream....
I don't know. There is still much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the hallowed halls of Journalism Proper over loss of revenue and the decline of democracy that is occurring in Haute Mainstream Media for perhaps any significant changes to be made at this time. Maybe what we need is more dialogue to bring the fractured pieces together--but that sounds like a reactionary remedy and one not likely to make significant changes.
Perhaps at the moment there is no complete answer--just the incomplete one that comes when people like Shani Hilton notice that all's not well. When writers stop ringing those bells, we're definitely in big, big trouble.
That Jay hasn't left a comment yet doesn't really bother me--that's up to him to decide. What bothers me in the extreme is the outright dismissal by other white males that the essay was just link bait. Really? Would they have thought the same if it came from, say, David Carr, or perhaps Mathew Ingram over at GigaOm?
I doubt it. Because to most white males within the media industry, there is hardly any acknowledgement that there even needs to be any kind of different viewpoints other than those of the white males she mentions. After all, they are published in and appear on the haute mainstream media--those "newspapers of record" and high level television networks that everyone watches--because they are extremely accomplished.
As if there are women and minorities who aren't? As if someone like Elvis Mitchell or Xeni Jardin, the only two that come to mind, are the only two that on occasion make it into the haute mainstream (and then usually on PBS's News Hour or CBS's Sunday Morning.)
Many of the rebuttals of Ms. Hilton's column go on to mention women who are published at Poynter.or (I've been published at Poynter--google me to find my articles), or Columbia Journalism Review, or other academic journals. We might indeed receive *some* recognition for our criticism or analysis, but rarely do any of us go on to the haute mainstream.
And not for lack of trying or lack of intelligence either. Certainly not for lack of ambition either.
Why does the haute mainstream keep ignoring women and minorities? Well, let's take a peek at this interesting little roundtable discussion where Charlize Theron (condescendingly) tells Viola Davis that there's nothing wrong with her looks--when the point Viola Davis (and later George Clooney) is trying to make is that minorities are not adequately represented by Product Hollywood:
Theron's moronic comment is part of the problem: women oftentimes, with idiotic remarks that completely miss the point, end up working to bolster the white boy status quo. Theron certainly did not hear the exact point Davis made, and zoomed in on something that perhaps is her own issue--not feeling pretty enough at her age.
I applaud Davis's composure....
Clooney,goes further to point out the problems with Product Hollywood, which, IMO, are also part of the problems with Haute Mainstream Media: they are looking grab the eyeballs of the perceived Least Common Denominator, and for some reason feel that audiences simply won't be interested in viewpoints expressed by others who aren't White Boys.
When your purpose is to generate as much income (and let's face it, that's an issue for Haute Mainstream Media, too) from an attention-fractured audience, everything is going to be boiled down to the least offensive and the biggest demographic dollar. Which still seems to lie with males, 13 to 30 (or 18 to 34, depending on where one takes one's demographic info.)
Can anything be done to change this mess? Maybe. If some of the men featured in Haute Mainstream Media occasionally bring a woman or two forward at least for the occasional "guest appearance." Or perhaps some women should be a bit more crass and demanding of those in editorial positions in the Haute Mainstream....
I don't know. There is still much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the hallowed halls of Journalism Proper over loss of revenue and the decline of democracy that is occurring in Haute Mainstream Media for perhaps any significant changes to be made at this time. Maybe what we need is more dialogue to bring the fractured pieces together--but that sounds like a reactionary remedy and one not likely to make significant changes.
Perhaps at the moment there is no complete answer--just the incomplete one that comes when people like Shani Hilton notice that all's not well. When writers stop ringing those bells, we're definitely in big, big trouble.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Rick Perry Indugles in Political Asshattery--Blames Everyone But Catholics For Taking Prayer Out of Schools
As someone who still likes to wish people a Merry Christmas, and who, when asked, refers to herself as an "academic Catholic," and has lots of friends across a variety of denominations, not to mention someone who has gay family members and gay friends, I was horrifically offended by the following piece of historically incorrect asshattery trotted out by Rick Perry:
Ok, so I guess Rick Perry is saying that I'm *not* a Christian. Perhaps he's right, if we think about our "religious heritage," the Lord's Prayer used to be said every morning in schools. But the version of the Lord's Prayer, or the Bible readings that sometimes accompanied it, were from the King James version of the Bible, a translation of the the Bible that is not only wholly Anglican Protestant, but has more to do with the political situation in the future Untied Kingdom than it does with Religion (see God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson for clarification on that one.)
In fact, there were disputes about the use of the Bible in school classrooms dating back to the 1890's. For the majority of Americans who know so little about their own country's history, Roman Catholics were a religious minority which strenuously objected to the use of Protestant verses and prayers in public schools.
So, don't blame the atheists or liberals or Obama for taking prayer out of schools. Go ahead, blame the 19th Century Roman Catholics who felt it was a sin for their children to be forced to recite a Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Go ahead. It's putting the blame where it belongs, isn't it?
and for that matter, most Roman Catholics who support guys like Rick Perry because of his stand on gay rights and abortion, should be ordered to take a History of American Catholicism class and learn how the United States was never, ever, before the election of John F. Kennnedy, a welcoming haven for Roman Catholics.
In fact, I bet if you asked Mr. Perry, he might tell you that Roman Catholics aren't *real* Christians. Or that they worship the Pope. Or that they are "heathens" in some way....
Yes, we're not as outside the mainstream of American Protestant Christianity as, say the Mormons, but Roman Catholics aren't necessarily the same stripe of Christian as guys like Perry either.
If any group should be supporting liberal thinking, it's Roman Catholics, who should practice a whole lot of patience and tolerance and tend to their own gardens of faith rather than trying to insinuate themselves into that group of religious conservatives that might see eye to eye with them on abortion and gay rights, but will gladly sell out their religious freedom for the "right" to put Protestant-flavored prayers and values back into schools and homes.
I may not be much of a Catholic, but I'll be damned if anybody's going to judge me because I keep "idols" in my home and don't want to say a Protestant Lord's Prayer.
Like they used to.
Think about it.
Ok, so I guess Rick Perry is saying that I'm *not* a Christian. Perhaps he's right, if we think about our "religious heritage," the Lord's Prayer used to be said every morning in schools. But the version of the Lord's Prayer, or the Bible readings that sometimes accompanied it, were from the King James version of the Bible, a translation of the the Bible that is not only wholly Anglican Protestant, but has more to do with the political situation in the future Untied Kingdom than it does with Religion (see God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson for clarification on that one.)
In fact, there were disputes about the use of the Bible in school classrooms dating back to the 1890's. For the majority of Americans who know so little about their own country's history, Roman Catholics were a religious minority which strenuously objected to the use of Protestant verses and prayers in public schools.
So, don't blame the atheists or liberals or Obama for taking prayer out of schools. Go ahead, blame the 19th Century Roman Catholics who felt it was a sin for their children to be forced to recite a Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Go ahead. It's putting the blame where it belongs, isn't it?
and for that matter, most Roman Catholics who support guys like Rick Perry because of his stand on gay rights and abortion, should be ordered to take a History of American Catholicism class and learn how the United States was never, ever, before the election of John F. Kennnedy, a welcoming haven for Roman Catholics.
In fact, I bet if you asked Mr. Perry, he might tell you that Roman Catholics aren't *real* Christians. Or that they worship the Pope. Or that they are "heathens" in some way....
Yes, we're not as outside the mainstream of American Protestant Christianity as, say the Mormons, but Roman Catholics aren't necessarily the same stripe of Christian as guys like Perry either.
If any group should be supporting liberal thinking, it's Roman Catholics, who should practice a whole lot of patience and tolerance and tend to their own gardens of faith rather than trying to insinuate themselves into that group of religious conservatives that might see eye to eye with them on abortion and gay rights, but will gladly sell out their religious freedom for the "right" to put Protestant-flavored prayers and values back into schools and homes.
I may not be much of a Catholic, but I'll be damned if anybody's going to judge me because I keep "idols" in my home and don't want to say a Protestant Lord's Prayer.
Like they used to.
Think about it.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Debate: Women Journalists Bullied, Threatened with Violence, for Opinion Columns
Perhaps if Katie Roiphe were a journalist working online, she would have a better understanding of sexual harassment and wouldn't be asking "what on earth is that?" Because it seems that at the same time Roiphe was having a hissy over the allegations of sexual harassment against Republican candidate Herman Cain, some of here compatriots across the pond were dealing with some serious sexual harassment: bullying, and outright threats of sexual violence for blogging or writing opinions on topics considered sacrosanct by males (I won't refer to them as men because, frankly, their diatribes are very un-manly).
It started on November 3 with a column in the New Statesman by Helen Lewis Hasteley. In "You should have your tongue ripped out: the reality of sexual abuse online" Lewis Hasteley talked with nine female bloggers who detailed some of the abusive, misogynistic comments and the bloggers' reactions.
Most of what I read seemed all too familiar, and hearkened back to comments attacks on tech blogger Kathy Sierra in 2007 that lead to Sierra withdrawing from a keynote speaking engagement at a high level tech conference. I can't say, then, that I was shocked by the accounts in Lewis Hasteley's column. Rather, I was shocked by how this comment quoted by Lewis Hasteley appears to echo some of Roiphe's sentiments:
Hmmm.....one might paraphrase what Roiphe said in her column to echo the above sentiment thusly "why is it that every woman of any reasonable attractiveness buys into the vague descriptions of sexual harassment produced by liberal thinkers? are they really the most naive among us, or do they not get that the guys are just joking?"
Maybe Roiphe should spend some time with Laurie Penny, who penned this poignant column detailing harassment she has received, and stated a clear, compelling reason why it needs to be ended:
Now, I can't say that the women who claim that Cain harassed them are making valid nor false claims. Yes, there's the "how many years does it take" question, the fact that Cain is running for the Republican nomination (which seems to bring out all the crazies with any kind of complaint) and the fact that high powered celebrity attorney Gloria Allred is representing at least one of the accusers that makes me raise a hairy eyebrow at these particular allegations. People are funny, and there are some who believe that the best time to say something about someone's behavior is when that person becomes a public figure. Which seems totally odd to me, but, hey, I have scruples....
That doesn't mean that sexual harassment doesn't happen, and it certainly happens in spades on the Internet.
In The Guardian, Vanessa Thorpe and Richard Rogers added their voices to the call to halt the bullying, intimidation, violent threats and such that are all forms of sexual harassment leveled against women journalists who voice their opinions. Thorpe and Rogers talked to Lanre Bakare who monitors comments at the Guardian, and attests to how even an article on European finance, with no mention of women's opinions, will bring out the misogynist in some men. Yet it is psychotherapist, psychoanalyst and writer Susie Orbach who calls the spades of sexually bullying comments the crude shovels that they are:
And that's what it always comes down to: the guys who do this kind of thing, whether it be a comment on a woman's "tits," a grope in the back of a limo, or an horrific scenario spelled out in an online comment, it all comes from a kind of small man syndrome where a man's masculinity is somehow threatened by how a woman looks, what she says, or what she does for a living. I'm sorry for the guys who feel this way, that they are so threatened by women who think, but we shouldn't have to suck it up and shrink back to our little desks in corner cubbies. Nor should we try to beat them at their own sleazy game. The latter is a strategy that never, ever wins a woman any respect, and the former is no strategy at all.
And women need to stop being one another's worst enemies. For Roiphe, rather than berating women for who level sexual harassment complaints based on vague criteria, perhaps a better cause would be served to support women who are genuinely sexually harassed, bullied, threatened with violence or otherwise intimidated. Rather than weigh in on a cause celebre that will be well nigh meaningless by the time the next Presidential Election rolls around, perhaps do something to create a more clear and concise model of what is most certainly not appropriate and that no woman should have to tolerate. And if women like Roiphe don't care for the company or for supporting the voices of other intelligent women, then work with those small men to put their egos in check and just accept they ain't never gonna be the alpha dogs in the lot, no matter how much they intimidate women.
Think about it.
It started on November 3 with a column in the New Statesman by Helen Lewis Hasteley. In "You should have your tongue ripped out: the reality of sexual abuse online" Lewis Hasteley talked with nine female bloggers who detailed some of the abusive, misogynistic comments and the bloggers' reactions.
Most of what I read seemed all too familiar, and hearkened back to comments attacks on tech blogger Kathy Sierra in 2007 that lead to Sierra withdrawing from a keynote speaking engagement at a high level tech conference. I can't say, then, that I was shocked by the accounts in Lewis Hasteley's column. Rather, I was shocked by how this comment quoted by Lewis Hasteley appears to echo some of Roiphe's sentiments:
"Why is it that young females with three names and large hairdos are always haters of large, successful, popular producers, and always buy into every anti-capitalist myth produced by the government subsidized educational establishments? Are they (three-named females with large hair) really the most naive among us, or the most envious of success?"
Hmmm.....one might paraphrase what Roiphe said in her column to echo the above sentiment thusly "why is it that every woman of any reasonable attractiveness buys into the vague descriptions of sexual harassment produced by liberal thinkers? are they really the most naive among us, or do they not get that the guys are just joking?"
Maybe Roiphe should spend some time with Laurie Penny, who penned this poignant column detailing harassment she has received, and stated a clear, compelling reason why it needs to be ended:
"I believe the time for silence is over. If we want to build a truly fair and vibrant community of political debate and social exchange, online and offline, it's not enough to ignore harassment of women, LGBT people or people of colour who dare to have opinions. Free speech means being free to use technology and participate in public life without fear of abuse – and if the only people who can do so are white, straight men, the Internet is not as free as we'd like to believe."
Now, I can't say that the women who claim that Cain harassed them are making valid nor false claims. Yes, there's the "how many years does it take" question, the fact that Cain is running for the Republican nomination (which seems to bring out all the crazies with any kind of complaint) and the fact that high powered celebrity attorney Gloria Allred is representing at least one of the accusers that makes me raise a hairy eyebrow at these particular allegations. People are funny, and there are some who believe that the best time to say something about someone's behavior is when that person becomes a public figure. Which seems totally odd to me, but, hey, I have scruples....
That doesn't mean that sexual harassment doesn't happen, and it certainly happens in spades on the Internet.
In The Guardian, Vanessa Thorpe and Richard Rogers added their voices to the call to halt the bullying, intimidation, violent threats and such that are all forms of sexual harassment leveled against women journalists who voice their opinions. Thorpe and Rogers talked to Lanre Bakare who monitors comments at the Guardian, and attests to how even an article on European finance, with no mention of women's opinions, will bring out the misogynist in some men. Yet it is psychotherapist, psychoanalyst and writer Susie Orbach who calls the spades of sexually bullying comments the crude shovels that they are:
"The deeper question is the disenfranchisement of men who find themselves in such depraved circumstances that all they can do is expel the fury that's inside of them on to women. The reaction these men are having shows they are very, very threatened by something and that threat is to their masculinity.
"With sexual violence, what the victim is receiving is the self-hatred of the individual who is expressing that pain and upset that is inside of them in a very explosive manner."
And that's what it always comes down to: the guys who do this kind of thing, whether it be a comment on a woman's "tits," a grope in the back of a limo, or an horrific scenario spelled out in an online comment, it all comes from a kind of small man syndrome where a man's masculinity is somehow threatened by how a woman looks, what she says, or what she does for a living. I'm sorry for the guys who feel this way, that they are so threatened by women who think, but we shouldn't have to suck it up and shrink back to our little desks in corner cubbies. Nor should we try to beat them at their own sleazy game. The latter is a strategy that never, ever wins a woman any respect, and the former is no strategy at all.
And women need to stop being one another's worst enemies. For Roiphe, rather than berating women for who level sexual harassment complaints based on vague criteria, perhaps a better cause would be served to support women who are genuinely sexually harassed, bullied, threatened with violence or otherwise intimidated. Rather than weigh in on a cause celebre that will be well nigh meaningless by the time the next Presidential Election rolls around, perhaps do something to create a more clear and concise model of what is most certainly not appropriate and that no woman should have to tolerate. And if women like Roiphe don't care for the company or for supporting the voices of other intelligent women, then work with those small men to put their egos in check and just accept they ain't never gonna be the alpha dogs in the lot, no matter how much they intimidate women.
Think about it.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Mainstream Media Use Twitter as Broadcast Medium (and so do lots of others)
The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) issued an new report yesterday covering how mainstream media outlets make use of Twitter.
Not surprisingly, 93 percent of mainstream media outlets surveyed--this included print, network television, radio, and online-- use Twitter as another means of broadcasting their own information. The study surveyed 3,600 tweets from 13 major news organizations over the course of a week and found that while many news organizations offer a wide array of Twitter feeds--from one to a total of 98--most Twitter feeds were spewing links back to stories on the news outlets main sites.
Sure, we see tv stations like the Weather Channel and CNN incorporating commentary from Twitter, but news organizations overall do not appear to be making use of the conversational and information-sharing aspects of Twitter (although individual journalists make excellent use of Twitter, and have done so for some time.)
Big surprise? No. Most of us who are news consumers already know that this is how their own local tv affiliates and newspapers use their Twitter feeds. And some individuals use their Twitter accounts as ersatz RSS readers (an article on CNET discussed that as early as 2009.)
Yet do we think of turning to our Twitter newsfeeds during a time of an emergency--say like last week's Snowpocalypse in Massachusetts and Connecticut? Honestly, no. If the power's out, like it was for several days in my town, no one--not even the most tech-savvy among us--thought of checking the Twitter feeds of any of the local stations. Considering the extent of the power outage, many of us could access Twitter only from our smartphones. That being the case, most of us chose to check our Facebook feeds, where the feeds from the local TV, radio, and newspaper stations weren't saying a whole lot. Or at least a whole lot that we could see in our newsfeeds.
I can't, though, get all over the mainstream media for how it uses Twitter. The need to generate traffic to stimulate revenue is easily the main goal of a media outlet having a Twitter feed in the first place. Sure, one might say that it's all about serving a steady stream of current news and information, but really? That's an aspect, but so is driving traffic.
There's another aspect to this that also causes me to not return such a hard indictment against mainstream media for its Twitter use. Over the past 2 years, Twitter overall has been turning into little more than a broadcast medium for marketers, social media types, and others who want to aggressively promote their personal brands. Oh, some will share information, but when you see the same information, the same articles or YouTube videos, or blog posts shared by the same people, ad infinitum, it's easy to conclude that many are looking to establish themselves as in-the-know news and information sources above all others. Yes, there's much linking, and re-tweeting, and so forth, but very, very little conversation. And certainly very, very little in the way of connecting with others.
Twitter has, in many respects, turned into Ultimate Me Broadcast Media. The more followers you have, the more value one has in the Twittersphere because one's brand is more known than the brands of others. Or so it is assumed. The more round-the-clock tweeting one does, the more popular one becomes.
Well, not necessarily so. Popularity in the Twittersphere is a relative term. One may certainly have thousands of followers, but what is the overall quality of those followers? Are those followers really reading all those tweets and retweets and broadcast tweets? If the followers also have thousands of followers, one can hazard a pretty good bet that what is read is highly filtered and you, my dear status seeking twitter maven, may be the last one on the leader-board.
If you think about it, then, does Twitter really have the same relevance for making good connections and growing a productive community that it once had if so many are simply broadcasting to grow a company's brand or their personal brand? Not really.
It makes me wonder how many Twitter innovators and early adopters are now using Twitter. Have many, like me, experienced Twitter burn-out, and use it mostly to share links, thus leaving the conversations to Facebook or other forms of new media (or even old media, like email?) Has the value of Twitter for business marketing use decreased because of the changing ways in which individuals use Twitter? I'd hazard a guess that if there's little interaction, there will eventually be a change.
Then, is broadcast media doing something wrong by not interacting with its Twitter followers? No. Because mainstream media Twitter followers know what they are getting with a msm feed, and do not resent a lack of interaction. And besides, at least it's real information and not continued funhouse mirror self-promotion.
On a personal level, here's what I've seen and do with Twitter: I maintain a small following of mostly valuable individuals and business connections. Some of those individuals, though, have turned into shrill self-broadcasters, while others are still pretty good (esp. the journalists I happen to know.) Some of the businesses have abandoned their Twitter streams (perhaps the interns who started them moved on?) while others are still good to check for a sale from time to time. And do I care about the mainstream media Twitter feeds that I follow? To some degree, as they do indeed give me a heads up as to what's hot on their sites. That then spares me time from going over and having to hunt for stories. The other thing that keeps me occasionally posting are the people I know. Not the self-broadcasters, not the marketing efforts of various companies or public relations concerns, but the individuals who have things to say as much as they have information to share. Can or should mainstream media be like people? No, and we shouldn't expect it to be either.
Not surprisingly, 93 percent of mainstream media outlets surveyed--this included print, network television, radio, and online-- use Twitter as another means of broadcasting their own information. The study surveyed 3,600 tweets from 13 major news organizations over the course of a week and found that while many news organizations offer a wide array of Twitter feeds--from one to a total of 98--most Twitter feeds were spewing links back to stories on the news outlets main sites.
Sure, we see tv stations like the Weather Channel and CNN incorporating commentary from Twitter, but news organizations overall do not appear to be making use of the conversational and information-sharing aspects of Twitter (although individual journalists make excellent use of Twitter, and have done so for some time.)
Big surprise? No. Most of us who are news consumers already know that this is how their own local tv affiliates and newspapers use their Twitter feeds. And some individuals use their Twitter accounts as ersatz RSS readers (an article on CNET discussed that as early as 2009.)
Yet do we think of turning to our Twitter newsfeeds during a time of an emergency--say like last week's Snowpocalypse in Massachusetts and Connecticut? Honestly, no. If the power's out, like it was for several days in my town, no one--not even the most tech-savvy among us--thought of checking the Twitter feeds of any of the local stations. Considering the extent of the power outage, many of us could access Twitter only from our smartphones. That being the case, most of us chose to check our Facebook feeds, where the feeds from the local TV, radio, and newspaper stations weren't saying a whole lot. Or at least a whole lot that we could see in our newsfeeds.
I can't, though, get all over the mainstream media for how it uses Twitter. The need to generate traffic to stimulate revenue is easily the main goal of a media outlet having a Twitter feed in the first place. Sure, one might say that it's all about serving a steady stream of current news and information, but really? That's an aspect, but so is driving traffic.
There's another aspect to this that also causes me to not return such a hard indictment against mainstream media for its Twitter use. Over the past 2 years, Twitter overall has been turning into little more than a broadcast medium for marketers, social media types, and others who want to aggressively promote their personal brands. Oh, some will share information, but when you see the same information, the same articles or YouTube videos, or blog posts shared by the same people, ad infinitum, it's easy to conclude that many are looking to establish themselves as in-the-know news and information sources above all others. Yes, there's much linking, and re-tweeting, and so forth, but very, very little conversation. And certainly very, very little in the way of connecting with others.
Twitter has, in many respects, turned into Ultimate Me Broadcast Media. The more followers you have, the more value one has in the Twittersphere because one's brand is more known than the brands of others. Or so it is assumed. The more round-the-clock tweeting one does, the more popular one becomes.
Well, not necessarily so. Popularity in the Twittersphere is a relative term. One may certainly have thousands of followers, but what is the overall quality of those followers? Are those followers really reading all those tweets and retweets and broadcast tweets? If the followers also have thousands of followers, one can hazard a pretty good bet that what is read is highly filtered and you, my dear status seeking twitter maven, may be the last one on the leader-board.
If you think about it, then, does Twitter really have the same relevance for making good connections and growing a productive community that it once had if so many are simply broadcasting to grow a company's brand or their personal brand? Not really.
It makes me wonder how many Twitter innovators and early adopters are now using Twitter. Have many, like me, experienced Twitter burn-out, and use it mostly to share links, thus leaving the conversations to Facebook or other forms of new media (or even old media, like email?) Has the value of Twitter for business marketing use decreased because of the changing ways in which individuals use Twitter? I'd hazard a guess that if there's little interaction, there will eventually be a change.
Then, is broadcast media doing something wrong by not interacting with its Twitter followers? No. Because mainstream media Twitter followers know what they are getting with a msm feed, and do not resent a lack of interaction. And besides, at least it's real information and not continued funhouse mirror self-promotion.
On a personal level, here's what I've seen and do with Twitter: I maintain a small following of mostly valuable individuals and business connections. Some of those individuals, though, have turned into shrill self-broadcasters, while others are still pretty good (esp. the journalists I happen to know.) Some of the businesses have abandoned their Twitter streams (perhaps the interns who started them moved on?) while others are still good to check for a sale from time to time. And do I care about the mainstream media Twitter feeds that I follow? To some degree, as they do indeed give me a heads up as to what's hot on their sites. That then spares me time from going over and having to hunt for stories. The other thing that keeps me occasionally posting are the people I know. Not the self-broadcasters, not the marketing efforts of various companies or public relations concerns, but the individuals who have things to say as much as they have information to share. Can or should mainstream media be like people? No, and we shouldn't expect it to be either.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Google Buys Zagat....So what does that mean for Yelp and Foursquare??
It's a little late in the day to report this--as most of you probably know by now--but Google has purchased Zagat, known for its almost never-wrong restaurant ratings. Here's the announcement from Tim and Nina Zagat with a great nod to the consumer who has helped to make their guide great:
Much is being said all over the Internet about whether or not Google will keep Zagat's pay wall, whether the Zagat site will become a platform, etc. And that's great. But the real story is what's going to happen to Yelp, a direct competitor with Zagat. There are a couple of other things to note about the Zagat purchase (as Larry Dignan points out:
Buying Zagat also reaches into Google's mobile offerings: think of how Zagat info might be incorporated into Google Maps on the Android phone! It then becomes a big competitor to apps like Citysearch.
Because of this potential, there's been some talk about how the sale might impact Foursquare. Given the Pew Internet and American Life's latest survey on mobile and social location based services and their use, the perceived threat to Foursquare is small in comparison to the threat to Yelp. The bigger challenge to Foursquare is convincing the public that giving away location specific info is a good thing. Foursquare also might want to consider how to add some content value to its service. Not that this might greatly change people's reticence to share their locations.
Google+ might also be impacted by the purchase. Right now, scuttlebutt has it that many find the learning curve of G+ to be a hindrance to its regular use. But, if particular groups find that their user-generated content can quickly be incorporated into a service like Zagat, which has a high level of credibility with the public, then there may be an uptick in G+ use.
So, right now, watch out for what happens with Yelp now that Google has Zagat, as well as how Google perhaps re-engineers Zagat's paywall, other services, as well as how and where it accumulates new user-generated content. Oh, and then there's search: watch where Zagat info appears now in search vs. where Yelp info appears.
As for Foursquare: the Pew report says a lot more than the Google/Zagat merger.
It is a testament to the knowledgeable consumers who contribute their opinions that Zagat Survey has become an internationally respected symbol of quality. Their experiences, distilled into numerical ratings and concise, witty, quote-filled reviews, will continue to provide accurate guidance for a wide range of leisure activities.
Much is being said all over the Internet about whether or not Google will keep Zagat's pay wall, whether the Zagat site will become a platform, etc. And that's great. But the real story is what's going to happen to Yelp, a direct competitor with Zagat. There are a couple of other things to note about the Zagat purchase (as Larry Dignan points out:
- the purchase puts Google squarely in the content business (user-generated content, no less)
- Google bolsters its ability to build out its local offerings
- Will it cause more more search troubles for Yelp??
Buying Zagat also reaches into Google's mobile offerings: think of how Zagat info might be incorporated into Google Maps on the Android phone! It then becomes a big competitor to apps like Citysearch.
Because of this potential, there's been some talk about how the sale might impact Foursquare. Given the Pew Internet and American Life's latest survey on mobile and social location based services and their use, the perceived threat to Foursquare is small in comparison to the threat to Yelp. The bigger challenge to Foursquare is convincing the public that giving away location specific info is a good thing. Foursquare also might want to consider how to add some content value to its service. Not that this might greatly change people's reticence to share their locations.
Google+ might also be impacted by the purchase. Right now, scuttlebutt has it that many find the learning curve of G+ to be a hindrance to its regular use. But, if particular groups find that their user-generated content can quickly be incorporated into a service like Zagat, which has a high level of credibility with the public, then there may be an uptick in G+ use.
So, right now, watch out for what happens with Yelp now that Google has Zagat, as well as how Google perhaps re-engineers Zagat's paywall, other services, as well as how and where it accumulates new user-generated content. Oh, and then there's search: watch where Zagat info appears now in search vs. where Yelp info appears.
As for Foursquare: the Pew report says a lot more than the Google/Zagat merger.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
In which Jack Shafer is laid off, freemiums are considered, and a note about this blog
I don't know who the genius was who thought that giving away high quality written content on the web was a good idea, but I definitely remember when newspapers thought their websites would be cracking great promotion for their printed product. So,when I read Paul Carr's essay--Now Can We All Agree That The “High Quality Web Content” Experiment Has Failed? and a mention of Slate's decision to lay off Jack Shafer's and three others, well, there was a sense of "ha! I told you so!" as much as an accompanying feeling of dread....
Yes, it's been difficult for newspapers to make money, but it's been even more difficult for online publications to turn a profit and keep the best writers employed. Some are doing it by creating SEO tweaked headlines that lead to slideshows created from stock photography (or so I've been told is one of the tactics of the Huffington Post.) Others rely on free content contributions sorta-smart people (like Forbes has started doing.) Still a scant few others are working on a freemium model (like GigaOm) that gives readers more in-depth writing on niche topics like tech and business....
Carr looks at the advertising game as it relates to online content, and determines that too much cheap online content is being produced to generate income that quality, well-written online content just can't keep its numbers up to generate enough income to pay quality writers. Got to agree with Carr here. I've been looking at this situation too, from the unpaid-looking-to-get-paid angle, and there's not a lot in the way of markets to get paid anymore. When jobs appear for content production, they are usually linked to some type of web site development and social content development as well.
Simply writing for the web, for a web-based publication, just isn't paying any more.
Another reason is that journalistic content is competing with marketing content that masquerades as journalism. In my recent research into fashion journalism on the web (for a project I'd like to develop) I found a number of fashion blogs for women over 40 that were established to promote businesses of some sort. Other fashion blogs are simply income generators, with poorly written posts, product endorsements without disclosure, and all the rest.
Carr sums it up:
Now, the FTC has stepped in to try to do something about the whole disclosure thing (the church-state separation of which Carr speaks.) Still, there are many ambitious marketing professionals dabbling in social media who have no knowledge of the FTC's regulations--yet are well aware of SEO tricks--and go right ahead with creating junk content.
So, where could things go from here? Carr is right in his assessment that the thirst for quality content on the web isn't going to go away. From my experience as part of the SIIA, the ONA, and a liveblogger for a number of Gaspedal's great social media marketing conferences, I can say that people within a number of industries beyond newspapers are interested in seeing quality content thrive on the web and see people get paid for it.
One strategy that has potential for the magazine industry (which is more of what Slate was like than a newspaper) that I have stood by is a freemium model, where either the print publication or the web publication will be paid for, while access to the other remains free. The New York Times, savvy about different digital forms, makes access on its apps available for those who subscribe to its digital content (which I do.) Some magazines are creating new content for the web, separate from their print content, which has the potential to drive readers to either one or the other. Right now, one magazine that does this sort of thing, More magazine, a beauty and fashion publication for women over 40, that features some different web content--which is some of the most lackluster online beauty content I have ever read. Recently, one piece of online content that did not clearly separate church and state was a pictorial on shapewear that read like an ad for Spanx (the only shapewear featured in the pictorial were Spanx products.) I left a comment telling them such, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home when it comes to listening to feedback through the comments, and spam comments are often left to linger beside legitimate, critical constructive or conversational comments.
The print magazine is only marginally better, with some recent layout changes that have made a snappier content presentation. It still features models that are way too thin, and some extremely sappy first person stories (then again, maybe sappy sells.)
However, we are still a few years away from knowing which strategy will be the best for creating the most income for quality content on the web. It may be a combined freemium strategy that links the web, mobile, social, and print, or maybe it will be something different altogether, and might just be relative to the niche audience of each niche publication.
Which leads me to a few words about this blog. Things here have been a bit aimless and inconsistent for quite some time here, and I even wondered why I keep this blog on life support. Over the years, this blog has been the vehicle for creating my reputation, for good or bad, and has been a place where I honed my particular conversational writing style (a style that, from what I've heard, takes a lot of people a long time to figure out.) It has, at various times, even created income for me--not through ads but through other perks like blogging gigs, etc..
Yet I believe that those times have moved on. There are new ways of publishing content on the web, some that limit distribution to social networks, while others expand it. Looking professional while still being considered "amateur" has become more important, which, in the long run, can be costly--if you consider looking professional to be a custom designed template with unique URL, at minimum.
It could be time for me to take a big step forward--to take my experience beyond the bounds of freelancing into a job that's more permanent and secure. I've loved being part of projects that have in some ways changed the ways we consider how journalism is produced, evaluated, and innovated--projects like Assignment Zero, Placeblogger, NewsTrust, and Crowdsourcing.org. I've been very lucky to work with the likes of David Cohn, Lisa Williams, Jay Rosen, Fabrice Florin, Rory O'Connor, Andrew Nachison, and so many others. The experience I've gained from working alongside these visionaries has been invaluable.
It's like being that fabulous studio musician that has to go on and make her own record. Kind of like being the Cheryl Crowe of social media?
We'll see.....
Yes, it's been difficult for newspapers to make money, but it's been even more difficult for online publications to turn a profit and keep the best writers employed. Some are doing it by creating SEO tweaked headlines that lead to slideshows created from stock photography (or so I've been told is one of the tactics of the Huffington Post.) Others rely on free content contributions sorta-smart people (like Forbes has started doing.) Still a scant few others are working on a freemium model (like GigaOm) that gives readers more in-depth writing on niche topics like tech and business....
Carr looks at the advertising game as it relates to online content, and determines that too much cheap online content is being produced to generate income that quality, well-written online content just can't keep its numbers up to generate enough income to pay quality writers. Got to agree with Carr here. I've been looking at this situation too, from the unpaid-looking-to-get-paid angle, and there's not a lot in the way of markets to get paid anymore. When jobs appear for content production, they are usually linked to some type of web site development and social content development as well.
Simply writing for the web, for a web-based publication, just isn't paying any more.
Another reason is that journalistic content is competing with marketing content that masquerades as journalism. In my recent research into fashion journalism on the web (for a project I'd like to develop) I found a number of fashion blogs for women over 40 that were established to promote businesses of some sort. Other fashion blogs are simply income generators, with poorly written posts, product endorsements without disclosure, and all the rest.
Carr sums it up:
Out will go professional writers and church-and-state separation of content and commerce; in will come more Groupon-style “reader offers”, affiliate links behind every keyword and an Idiocracy of dumber and dumber linkbait. Ten ways to make extra income with Lady Gaga Sony Porn — Kittens!
Now, the FTC has stepped in to try to do something about the whole disclosure thing (the church-state separation of which Carr speaks.) Still, there are many ambitious marketing professionals dabbling in social media who have no knowledge of the FTC's regulations--yet are well aware of SEO tricks--and go right ahead with creating junk content.
So, where could things go from here? Carr is right in his assessment that the thirst for quality content on the web isn't going to go away. From my experience as part of the SIIA, the ONA, and a liveblogger for a number of Gaspedal's great social media marketing conferences, I can say that people within a number of industries beyond newspapers are interested in seeing quality content thrive on the web and see people get paid for it.
One strategy that has potential for the magazine industry (which is more of what Slate was like than a newspaper) that I have stood by is a freemium model, where either the print publication or the web publication will be paid for, while access to the other remains free. The New York Times, savvy about different digital forms, makes access on its apps available for those who subscribe to its digital content (which I do.) Some magazines are creating new content for the web, separate from their print content, which has the potential to drive readers to either one or the other. Right now, one magazine that does this sort of thing, More magazine, a beauty and fashion publication for women over 40, that features some different web content--which is some of the most lackluster online beauty content I have ever read. Recently, one piece of online content that did not clearly separate church and state was a pictorial on shapewear that read like an ad for Spanx (the only shapewear featured in the pictorial were Spanx products.) I left a comment telling them such, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home when it comes to listening to feedback through the comments, and spam comments are often left to linger beside legitimate, critical constructive or conversational comments.
The print magazine is only marginally better, with some recent layout changes that have made a snappier content presentation. It still features models that are way too thin, and some extremely sappy first person stories (then again, maybe sappy sells.)
However, we are still a few years away from knowing which strategy will be the best for creating the most income for quality content on the web. It may be a combined freemium strategy that links the web, mobile, social, and print, or maybe it will be something different altogether, and might just be relative to the niche audience of each niche publication.
Which leads me to a few words about this blog. Things here have been a bit aimless and inconsistent for quite some time here, and I even wondered why I keep this blog on life support. Over the years, this blog has been the vehicle for creating my reputation, for good or bad, and has been a place where I honed my particular conversational writing style (a style that, from what I've heard, takes a lot of people a long time to figure out.) It has, at various times, even created income for me--not through ads but through other perks like blogging gigs, etc..
Yet I believe that those times have moved on. There are new ways of publishing content on the web, some that limit distribution to social networks, while others expand it. Looking professional while still being considered "amateur" has become more important, which, in the long run, can be costly--if you consider looking professional to be a custom designed template with unique URL, at minimum.
It could be time for me to take a big step forward--to take my experience beyond the bounds of freelancing into a job that's more permanent and secure. I've loved being part of projects that have in some ways changed the ways we consider how journalism is produced, evaluated, and innovated--projects like Assignment Zero, Placeblogger, NewsTrust, and Crowdsourcing.org. I've been very lucky to work with the likes of David Cohn, Lisa Williams, Jay Rosen, Fabrice Florin, Rory O'Connor, Andrew Nachison, and so many others. The experience I've gained from working alongside these visionaries has been invaluable.
It's like being that fabulous studio musician that has to go on and make her own record. Kind of like being the Cheryl Crowe of social media?
We'll see.....
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
New York Times Limits Comment Characters from 5,000 to 2,000*
Yesterday, the New York Times announced that it would limit the number of characters that can be used to write a comment from 5,000 to 2,000. Aron Pilhofer, told The Wrap that:
Later, Pilhofer explains that 5,000 character comments are time consuming to moderate. (The Times has always had some of the best community moderation out there.)
HOWEVER, the headline for The Wrap article says 5,000 words, which is vastly different from 5,000 characters. Now, some may think that 5,000 of *anything* is too high a number, but as to whether 5,000 characters constitutes an article is a tad debatable.
Blog post, maybe. Full-blown article, maybe not.
If Aron Pilhofer could clarify whether it's words or characters, that would be great....because readers may still be a bit confused by The Wrap's headline...
I can, though, empahtize with The Times moderators, who I'm sure have a high volume of comments to moderate and can devote only a certain amount of eyeball time to spend on one comment. It stands to reason that it makes good sense to limit the character count for the moderators benefit, thus decreasing the amount of time spent reviewing and leading to a speedier time in seeing one's post up on The Times' comments boards.
Whether or not 5,000 characters constitutes an article is a matter of opinion. Has anyone ever been given a character count from an editor? Usually, it's word count. Whether it's 2,000 or 5,000 words, both counts usually qualify as a full-lenght article.
So the Wrap's headline confuses on the matter of words and characters...which, coupled with Pilhofer's comment about articles and character count which could make the verbose commenter feel a bit put upon.
But perhaps in a good way...
Here's a couple of suggestions for The Times: would it be possible to make it so that there is an easier way for readers to submit articles? or is that asking too much? Right now, the gatekeeping mechanisms for getting published in the Times are pretty strict. Usually, one can't even get a pitch in without a connection. I'm sure, too, that to institute something like a reader's columns section would cost money, and there'd probably be a lot of disgruntled readers once they receive rejections, but perhaps it's worth a try?
Or maybe just encourage the long commenters to start their own blogs. The Times has, over the years, displayed links back to their articles, which encourages bloggers immensely. Or allow for html code in posts so that commenters could leave links back to full blown comments on their blogs. (to avoid spam links, they could do some sort of CAPTCHA or other automated service for grabbing spam posts.)
Overall, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that The Times is limiting characters in comments. I get it from a moderation perspective, and it makes total sense. However, the Times might want to consider ways to encourage commenters who want to extrapolate to either blog on their own or submit articles. But the Wrap should have been more careful in its headline. There is, after all, a HUGE difference between 5,000 words and 5,000 characters.
And I don't mean 2,000 various personalities who leave comments--who could also be considered "characters" ;)
"We've had one of the highest character limits known to humanity for a long time. We've gotten feedback from readers and frequent commenters, as well as internally, that our character limit is too high, that maybe we should force people to be a little more succinct.
"5,000 [characters] is a lot," he added. "That's not a comment, that's an article."
Later, Pilhofer explains that 5,000 character comments are time consuming to moderate. (The Times has always had some of the best community moderation out there.)
HOWEVER, the headline for The Wrap article says 5,000 words, which is vastly different from 5,000 characters. Now, some may think that 5,000 of *anything* is too high a number, but as to whether 5,000 characters constitutes an article is a tad debatable.
Blog post, maybe. Full-blown article, maybe not.
If Aron Pilhofer could clarify whether it's words or characters, that would be great....because readers may still be a bit confused by The Wrap's headline...
I can, though, empahtize with The Times moderators, who I'm sure have a high volume of comments to moderate and can devote only a certain amount of eyeball time to spend on one comment. It stands to reason that it makes good sense to limit the character count for the moderators benefit, thus decreasing the amount of time spent reviewing and leading to a speedier time in seeing one's post up on The Times' comments boards.
Whether or not 5,000 characters constitutes an article is a matter of opinion. Has anyone ever been given a character count from an editor? Usually, it's word count. Whether it's 2,000 or 5,000 words, both counts usually qualify as a full-lenght article.
So the Wrap's headline confuses on the matter of words and characters...which, coupled with Pilhofer's comment about articles and character count which could make the verbose commenter feel a bit put upon.
But perhaps in a good way...
Here's a couple of suggestions for The Times: would it be possible to make it so that there is an easier way for readers to submit articles? or is that asking too much? Right now, the gatekeeping mechanisms for getting published in the Times are pretty strict. Usually, one can't even get a pitch in without a connection. I'm sure, too, that to institute something like a reader's columns section would cost money, and there'd probably be a lot of disgruntled readers once they receive rejections, but perhaps it's worth a try?
Or maybe just encourage the long commenters to start their own blogs. The Times has, over the years, displayed links back to their articles, which encourages bloggers immensely. Or allow for html code in posts so that commenters could leave links back to full blown comments on their blogs. (to avoid spam links, they could do some sort of CAPTCHA or other automated service for grabbing spam posts.)
Overall, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that The Times is limiting characters in comments. I get it from a moderation perspective, and it makes total sense. However, the Times might want to consider ways to encourage commenters who want to extrapolate to either blog on their own or submit articles. But the Wrap should have been more careful in its headline. There is, after all, a HUGE difference between 5,000 words and 5,000 characters.
And I don't mean 2,000 various personalities who leave comments--who could also be considered "characters" ;)
Monday, June 20, 2011
Local Newspaper Experiments with Crowdsourcing in News Cafe
Can a local paper really get the community involved in the process of creating local news? If you ask John Paton, CEO of the Journal Register Co, the answer might be "yes." Mr. Paton was the keynote speaker at the 10th International Newsroom Summit held last week in Zurich, Switzerland, where he discussed about the company's "news cafe" experiment in Torrington, CT....
In this short recap of the conference, we get little info about the keynote (ok, it's a *short* recap, I know) other than repetition of the axiom (platitude?) "The crowd knows more than we do. . ."
Yadda, yadda, yadda....
I wonder, really, how well the experiment is working, if the "crowd" is really stepping up, and how the newsroom folks are handling the "crowd"....
Crowdsourced journalism isn't an easy thing to do, and the quality of the news can be affected by the quality of the crowd. If the crowd is doing newsgathering, and thus contributing to the news in some way, that would be innovative...but...
One of the biggest problems with doing anything "crowd" is managing said crowd. In order to achieve success, there needs to be good community guidelines and management. The Register Citizen folks held a meeting in December 2010 to discuss comment approval guidelines.
A very good discussion--esp. on the bit of not saying anything bad about businesses--appears in the comments to the post...
So, that's a good start, but I wonder where it went from there?? (any Register Citizen folks, please feel free to leave a comment....)
I also wonder if anyone at the Register Citizen read up on the subject of online community management, and, perhaps, informed the folks at the meeting that there are a great number of resources out there to help them develop suitable guidelines...
We don't need to re-invent the wheel here, folks. There's solid scholarship on online communities. Please, don't leave the public in the dark to fumble around and figure it out for themselves. IMO, there's something both unethical and dishonest when that's done.
As for the project itself, here's the site for The Register Citizen Newsroom Cafe Project, very nicely built on Wordpress.com. There's also a very niceOpenNewsroom Wiki
I am very interested to really know how this project is working out, and may have to take a trip to Torrington, CT to find out....
We'll see...
In this short recap of the conference, we get little info about the keynote (ok, it's a *short* recap, I know) other than repetition of the axiom (platitude?) "The crowd knows more than we do. . ."
Yadda, yadda, yadda....
I wonder, really, how well the experiment is working, if the "crowd" is really stepping up, and how the newsroom folks are handling the "crowd"....
Crowdsourced journalism isn't an easy thing to do, and the quality of the news can be affected by the quality of the crowd. If the crowd is doing newsgathering, and thus contributing to the news in some way, that would be innovative...but...
One of the biggest problems with doing anything "crowd" is managing said crowd. In order to achieve success, there needs to be good community guidelines and management. The Register Citizen folks held a meeting in December 2010 to discuss comment approval guidelines.
A very good discussion--esp. on the bit of not saying anything bad about businesses--appears in the comments to the post...
So, that's a good start, but I wonder where it went from there?? (any Register Citizen folks, please feel free to leave a comment....)
I also wonder if anyone at the Register Citizen read up on the subject of online community management, and, perhaps, informed the folks at the meeting that there are a great number of resources out there to help them develop suitable guidelines...
We don't need to re-invent the wheel here, folks. There's solid scholarship on online communities. Please, don't leave the public in the dark to fumble around and figure it out for themselves. IMO, there's something both unethical and dishonest when that's done.
As for the project itself, here's the site for The Register Citizen Newsroom Cafe Project, very nicely built on Wordpress.com. There's also a very niceOpenNewsroom Wiki
I am very interested to really know how this project is working out, and may have to take a trip to Torrington, CT to find out....
We'll see...
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Future of Media: Women and Minorities Need Not Apply...
Some of the most important conversations about where media, marketing, and technology are headed are often conducted behind closed doors, at conferences and panel discussions attended by industry insiders who received invitations or could afford to attend. Rarely, if ever, are the conversations or findings from these events reported or published where anyone might read them. As a result, certain attitudes that might perpetuate sexism and raceism might be allowed to continue unchecked and unquestioned....
It has always been part of the mission of this blog to expose and disclose what goes on at some of these hush-hush gatherings. Unfortunately, I missed a good one the other day--one that should have been reported on*: The Future of Media panel presented by the New America Foundation and held at their offices in Washington D.C. The panelists were Steve Coll, President of the NAF; Commissioner Michael Copps of the FCC; and Ted Koppel, Sr News Analyst at NPR.
All old (born sometime in the 1940's) white guys.
Let me note that this is not to say that the NAF deliberately chose not to include a woman and a minority in the discussion. But it does indeed raise the question why, if the recent joint FCC FTC report “Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age" discusses the need of "diverse voices," that the panel did not include any diverse voices.
There does not seem to be any clear and compelling reason why a woman and minority--two diverse voices-- weren't included. There are many, many non-white, non-guys of the same generation (if we want to talk generations, too) who are as equally august as the gentlemen included here, who would have been great on this panel. They would have had the experience and direct information to answer questions regarding participation of these two diverse groups in the new digital media landscape.
This isn't a lone incidence of something like this: rather, it's endemic to closed-door conversations and many professional conferences. When the conversation about something so important as the future of media is occurring not just behind a closed door, but also among a group that has held sway over it for so long, one might be able to reach the conclusion that the discussions may, perhaps, be held merely as a way to pay lip-service to the changes in order to feel good about the perpetuation of the status quo.
I'd like to be fair to the New America Foundation and its efforts to hold some meaningful dialogue on the FCC's report, but it's awfully hard when it seems so much like the same old same old hush-hush hegemony.
Fortunately,NAF recorded the event. You can find A Conversation on the Future of Media here. Finding the FCC report itself, however, isn't as easy...go figure.
*although it may have been reported on C-Span. yeah, like most people watch that network...
See also: FCC Backs Away from Aiding Media
and
Less of less: FCC-commissioned report finds a "surprisingly small audience for local news traffic.
It has always been part of the mission of this blog to expose and disclose what goes on at some of these hush-hush gatherings. Unfortunately, I missed a good one the other day--one that should have been reported on*: The Future of Media panel presented by the New America Foundation and held at their offices in Washington D.C. The panelists were Steve Coll, President of the NAF; Commissioner Michael Copps of the FCC; and Ted Koppel, Sr News Analyst at NPR.
All old (born sometime in the 1940's) white guys.
Let me note that this is not to say that the NAF deliberately chose not to include a woman and a minority in the discussion. But it does indeed raise the question why, if the recent joint FCC FTC report “Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age" discusses the need of "diverse voices," that the panel did not include any diverse voices.
There does not seem to be any clear and compelling reason why a woman and minority--two diverse voices-- weren't included. There are many, many non-white, non-guys of the same generation (if we want to talk generations, too) who are as equally august as the gentlemen included here, who would have been great on this panel. They would have had the experience and direct information to answer questions regarding participation of these two diverse groups in the new digital media landscape.
This isn't a lone incidence of something like this: rather, it's endemic to closed-door conversations and many professional conferences. When the conversation about something so important as the future of media is occurring not just behind a closed door, but also among a group that has held sway over it for so long, one might be able to reach the conclusion that the discussions may, perhaps, be held merely as a way to pay lip-service to the changes in order to feel good about the perpetuation of the status quo.
I'd like to be fair to the New America Foundation and its efforts to hold some meaningful dialogue on the FCC's report, but it's awfully hard when it seems so much like the same old same old hush-hush hegemony.
Fortunately,NAF recorded the event. You can find A Conversation on the Future of Media here. Finding the FCC report itself, however, isn't as easy...go figure.
*although it may have been reported on C-Span. yeah, like most people watch that network...
See also: FCC Backs Away from Aiding Media
and
Less of less: FCC-commissioned report finds a "surprisingly small audience for local news traffic.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Wall St. Journal Reporter Takes Heat for Helping Us Know What They Know
For years now, tech entrepreneurs have been telling us not to worry about the information we upload to their sites, and advertisers have tried to assure us that they were collecting only that information that's necessary for them. In fact, we've been told that giving them all kinds of information is actually a *good* thing. That for the advertisers, giving us better targeted ads really helps us make better purchasing decisions. As for the entrepreneurs: well, all that data they collect on us helps them to earn money and keep providing us with services. Yet, many consumers and site participants (as well as gadget purchasers) don't quite know what sort of information is being gathered daily, with every click, as well as not knowing who's using that data and why....
That's why the "What They Know" series in the Wall Street Journal is really something of a public service.
Let's face it, being forthcoming about people's personal data, and what's being done with it, isn't necessarily in the best interest of those collecting it (and, if the companies are privately owned, they don't have to disclose a darned thing about what they collect.) And that's in part why WSJ reporter Julia Angwin was given a bit of shite about the series at the recent pii2011 conference.
I have steadfastly maintained that, often, the debates and discussions that go on at insider tech conferences (most of them are for "insiders") are important for anyone who uses the Internet to know about. Yet we rarely, if ever, hear about these discussions. Had more of the general populace known about some of the statements made regarding privacy--such as how "kids" don't care about online privacy and gladly give up information for nothing--there might have been more concerned voices raised well before 2011.
Groups are now feeling the heat, and are lashing out against the journalism that reported it.
It just figures.
Also check out FTC details mobile app privacy concerns on last week's hearings. There is strong concern for the amount of info collected from mobile devices IF the mobile device is in the hands of a person defined by law as a child. Some of the data collected could violate FTC regs on marketing to children...just sayin'....
That's why the "What They Know" series in the Wall Street Journal is really something of a public service.
Let's face it, being forthcoming about people's personal data, and what's being done with it, isn't necessarily in the best interest of those collecting it (and, if the companies are privately owned, they don't have to disclose a darned thing about what they collect.) And that's in part why WSJ reporter Julia Angwin was given a bit of shite about the series at the recent pii2011 conference.
I have steadfastly maintained that, often, the debates and discussions that go on at insider tech conferences (most of them are for "insiders") are important for anyone who uses the Internet to know about. Yet we rarely, if ever, hear about these discussions. Had more of the general populace known about some of the statements made regarding privacy--such as how "kids" don't care about online privacy and gladly give up information for nothing--there might have been more concerned voices raised well before 2011.
Groups are now feeling the heat, and are lashing out against the journalism that reported it.
It just figures.
Also check out FTC details mobile app privacy concerns on last week's hearings. There is strong concern for the amount of info collected from mobile devices IF the mobile device is in the hands of a person defined by law as a child. Some of the data collected could violate FTC regs on marketing to children...just sayin'....
Friday, November 05, 2010
Screw Your Copyright Infringing Content Grab! Pay Me!
It was no surprise when I heard the story that a post by blogger Monica Gaudio had been lifted by a famous cooking magazine and posted on their site. Ms. Gaudio had been given a byline, but was never informed the post had been taken, nor was she paid for the scraped post (it was not re-posted, as there was no link back to Monica's original.)
Why should she have been both notified and paid? Because the site, Cook's Source is connected to a magazine which is ad supported. Even $10--the average payment offered by many teeny-tiny online mags/blogs that solicit contributors--would have been a nice (albeit cheap)gesture.
What Monica got was this terse response from the editor (taken from NPR's report on the incident):
Wow. But I'm not surprised by any of this--I've heard the nonsense before. BTW I live in Western New England (oddly), the magazine's region, yet I know of a number of "journalists" around the country who have no clue about new media, blogging, publishing online, etc. but are working for online publications. Note to those hiring: make sure your "digital" people understand about blogging, copyright, linking, etc. Don't be an ass and hire someone just because they have print creds and maybe took a college class on "writing for the web." They may know writing, but they don't know jack about the web.
Be that as it may, what else does not surprise me--about what was done and the editor's response--is that this game, as the editor notes, has been going on for awhile. I've been blogging since 1995, and some of my stuff over the years has been scraped and put on splogs (fake blogs) for one reason or another. I was quoted in both Time and Newsweek back in '97, and neither linked back to me. But that's not all....
My first and only post for The Huffington Post went through an editor, and I was not compensated for that--but I was told upfront I wouldn't be. I was a new writer back then, and liked the promise of the return of "traffic" for my blog. Which never materialized. So, because my goal was to get paid, I didn't write any more for The Huffington Post....because the "cachet" of writing for HufPo and $3 might not be enough for a latte at Starbucks...but I digress again....
Some of the posts on my blog (this as well as my old personal blog) were also in very bad need of editing. I never asked anyone to edit them, and since it's my blog, I am not obligated to edit them any further than spell check will allow. And I've never heard of anyone scraping a post, editing it, and NOT linking or informing the original author.
Once I was asked by the then-editor of Silicon Alley Business Insider for a post. I was told that I wasn't going to get paid, but that was ok, as I know the rep of that publication, and wanted the byline (their reasoning was that it wasn't an original post. that's fine by me.) I obliged, and sent the link. He took the post, did a quick edit--which he told me he was going to do--and then posted it on SABI. And I got some traffic. That's the first post I ever did for someone else that actually *did* pay me in traffic. SABI was totally up front about the process, the editing, the reason for not paying. If a publication is up-front with me, and I believe the publication will enhance my reputation, I *may* consent to a re-post of something I previously published. But I won't write/blog new content for free.
But now for a look at the point about the Internet being "public domain." I think there's a lot of confusion on this. We are told that if we post personal information on the Internet, that it is then "public domain" and can be scraped, repurposed, sold, used by marketers, etc. There is, however, a difference between the personal information we might "publish" on Facebook, and the post we "publish" on our blogs. As I understand it, even if we do not put in a copyright mark, there is implied copyright on blogs and other self-publishing platforms. I might not be getting paid because I choose not to have ads, but my work is protected by implied copyright. I could also add a Creative Commons License for a little extra protection. However, no one has a right to lift my work, edit it, and re-post it, even if "it happens a lot"--as it does when it's done by mainstream media outlets (many of whom have taken information from several of my posts--most notably two I've written on Google and personal searches--and never gave any credit), college students, corporate communications departments, and whomever else might feel the need for content.
There is a lot of weirdness going on right now regarding copyright, which could have lead to the editor's confusion. There are folks called "copyright trolls" who attack mainstream media outlets and say that they have a right to re-publish news articles in full. Here's one case in Las Vegas that details this kind of thing. Now, it's not right for bloggers to re-post articles in this manner, but it also isn't right for newspapers, magazines or others to re-post bloggers' posts either.
Actually, if the Cook's Source editor was really interested in knowing about copyright, a quick search on "blogs and implied copyright" gave me this wonderful article "Copyright Law: 12 Dos and Don'ts". This is an excellent breakdown of what is/isn't covered by U.S.copyright law, as well as what is and isn't considered "public domain." In fact, here's #7 of the don'ts:
7. Don’t assume that if you credit the author there is no copyright infringement
Still the other big issue out there that this massive faux pas brings up is the attitude about when to pay someone for their contribution. As I noted earlier, some small blogs will offer $10 or less for a post. And bigger new media outlets, like The Huffington Post, won't pay at all, even if something is edited. At "content mills" one can get paid whatever the publisher is offering or get paid/not paid on whatever earnings scheme the content mill offers ("scheme" not in the derogatory sense here.)
As for me--I've been at this writing thing long enough now that I expect to get paid more than $10 a post or a promise of traffic for any original blogging. I'm not going to submit my work to a mill so that I can get a clipping. I have those, albeit on the very esoteric topics of developments in mainstream journalism (but, hey, my work's not bad.) I'm not afraid of editors, but can do my own editing when required--I just need a day to let my eyes rest and to bring a new set to the work. And I think it's time others stand up for themselves and start demanding better pay. The golden moment of free user-generated content and notions that publications can stomp all over a blogger's implied copyright are over.
Further: The Copyright Clearance Center has some new stuff and advice to help bloggers ferret out copyright infringement. Check them out.
Why should she have been both notified and paid? Because the site, Cook's Source is connected to a magazine which is ad supported. Even $10--the average payment offered by many teeny-tiny online mags/blogs that solicit contributors--would have been a nice (albeit cheap)gesture.
What Monica got was this terse response from the editor (taken from NPR's report on the incident):
...Honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"
Wow. But I'm not surprised by any of this--I've heard the nonsense before. BTW I live in Western New England (oddly), the magazine's region, yet I know of a number of "journalists" around the country who have no clue about new media, blogging, publishing online, etc. but are working for online publications. Note to those hiring: make sure your "digital" people understand about blogging, copyright, linking, etc. Don't be an ass and hire someone just because they have print creds and maybe took a college class on "writing for the web." They may know writing, but they don't know jack about the web.
Be that as it may, what else does not surprise me--about what was done and the editor's response--is that this game, as the editor notes, has been going on for awhile. I've been blogging since 1995, and some of my stuff over the years has been scraped and put on splogs (fake blogs) for one reason or another. I was quoted in both Time and Newsweek back in '97, and neither linked back to me. But that's not all....
My first and only post for The Huffington Post went through an editor, and I was not compensated for that--but I was told upfront I wouldn't be. I was a new writer back then, and liked the promise of the return of "traffic" for my blog. Which never materialized. So, because my goal was to get paid, I didn't write any more for The Huffington Post....because the "cachet" of writing for HufPo and $3 might not be enough for a latte at Starbucks...but I digress again....
Some of the posts on my blog (this as well as my old personal blog) were also in very bad need of editing. I never asked anyone to edit them, and since it's my blog, I am not obligated to edit them any further than spell check will allow. And I've never heard of anyone scraping a post, editing it, and NOT linking or informing the original author.
Once I was asked by the then-editor of Silicon Alley Business Insider for a post. I was told that I wasn't going to get paid, but that was ok, as I know the rep of that publication, and wanted the byline (their reasoning was that it wasn't an original post. that's fine by me.) I obliged, and sent the link. He took the post, did a quick edit--which he told me he was going to do--and then posted it on SABI. And I got some traffic. That's the first post I ever did for someone else that actually *did* pay me in traffic. SABI was totally up front about the process, the editing, the reason for not paying. If a publication is up-front with me, and I believe the publication will enhance my reputation, I *may* consent to a re-post of something I previously published. But I won't write/blog new content for free.
But now for a look at the point about the Internet being "public domain." I think there's a lot of confusion on this. We are told that if we post personal information on the Internet, that it is then "public domain" and can be scraped, repurposed, sold, used by marketers, etc. There is, however, a difference between the personal information we might "publish" on Facebook, and the post we "publish" on our blogs. As I understand it, even if we do not put in a copyright mark, there is implied copyright on blogs and other self-publishing platforms. I might not be getting paid because I choose not to have ads, but my work is protected by implied copyright. I could also add a Creative Commons License for a little extra protection. However, no one has a right to lift my work, edit it, and re-post it, even if "it happens a lot"--as it does when it's done by mainstream media outlets (many of whom have taken information from several of my posts--most notably two I've written on Google and personal searches--and never gave any credit), college students, corporate communications departments, and whomever else might feel the need for content.
There is a lot of weirdness going on right now regarding copyright, which could have lead to the editor's confusion. There are folks called "copyright trolls" who attack mainstream media outlets and say that they have a right to re-publish news articles in full. Here's one case in Las Vegas that details this kind of thing. Now, it's not right for bloggers to re-post articles in this manner, but it also isn't right for newspapers, magazines or others to re-post bloggers' posts either.
Actually, if the Cook's Source editor was really interested in knowing about copyright, a quick search on "blogs and implied copyright" gave me this wonderful article "Copyright Law: 12 Dos and Don'ts". This is an excellent breakdown of what is/isn't covered by U.S.copyright law, as well as what is and isn't considered "public domain." In fact, here's #7 of the don'ts:
7. Don’t assume that if you credit the author there is no copyright infringement
Still the other big issue out there that this massive faux pas brings up is the attitude about when to pay someone for their contribution. As I noted earlier, some small blogs will offer $10 or less for a post. And bigger new media outlets, like The Huffington Post, won't pay at all, even if something is edited. At "content mills" one can get paid whatever the publisher is offering or get paid/not paid on whatever earnings scheme the content mill offers ("scheme" not in the derogatory sense here.)
As for me--I've been at this writing thing long enough now that I expect to get paid more than $10 a post or a promise of traffic for any original blogging. I'm not going to submit my work to a mill so that I can get a clipping. I have those, albeit on the very esoteric topics of developments in mainstream journalism (but, hey, my work's not bad.) I'm not afraid of editors, but can do my own editing when required--I just need a day to let my eyes rest and to bring a new set to the work. And I think it's time others stand up for themselves and start demanding better pay. The golden moment of free user-generated content and notions that publications can stomp all over a blogger's implied copyright are over.
Further: The Copyright Clearance Center has some new stuff and advice to help bloggers ferret out copyright infringement. Check them out.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Why I'm Quitting Foursquare (you might want to think about it too....)
Update 11/13/10: Jon Evans @TechCrunch writes similar sentiments in
Dear Foursquare, Gowalla: Please Let's Stop Pretending This is Fun Um, yeah--because it's not...
By the time Foursquare came out, geo-location apps weren't news to me. I'd already heard of BriteKite and Gowalla. Friends (predominantly male) were using both to regularly inform me of their whereabouts. It was all rather ho-hum, and I wasn't necessarily interested in revealing my every whereabout to the people I follow on Twitter and Facebook. One of the reasons for that is that I, like most women, have been taught to be *very* careful about to whom we reveal our locations (so it's no real surprise that Pew reports they're not catching on.) Even folks we supposedly know and trust--whether Internet acquaintance or casual f2f acquaintance--wasn't to be naively trusted with all our regular location-based comings and goings.
But then, everyone started to get all freaky about Foursquare. "I'm the Mayor of Starbucks in Cambridge!" "I'm the Mayor of Dunkin' Donuts in Silver Springs!" "I'm the Insert the badge du jour here of the Roger Williams Hotel Cocktail Lounge!" Foursquare, you see, was more than just a way to let your "friends" know your location--it was also a game! The most super-fun game in the world! Because you could earn badges that told everybody how often you were at that location!
Oh, great. Now it's not just that I'm revealing my location, but I'm also revealing how many times I go to that particular location. That's not the smartest thing in the world for a woman to do.....and need I say why??
When I told some of my male acquaintances who regularly used geo-location apps, I was told how "square" I was, how I had to get with it, and I was being over-cautious. Yet rarely did I ever see their spouses or girlfriends giving away their whereabouts on a regular basis. Hmm...can anyone say "double standard"????
Given that what I do for a living often requires that I advise clients on the latest and greatest social networking sites, I felt it necessary to go in and check it out at least. Ever since Ann Landers lashed out at the Cure's "Let's Go to Bed," I'd vowed never to vehemently criticise something unless I really knew what it was about. So, I got me a Foursquare account....
At the beginning it seemed to be a time-sink. Whenever I was at a location, if the location wasn't in Foursquare, I got the privilege to be the first one to laboriously enter all the location information. If I wanted to use Foursquare effectively, I had to download the Foursquare app to my iPod Touch (didn't want to sacrifice good cell reception for a shiny, expensive iPhone.) Given that wifi's kind of spotty where I live, I never really used the app. And after the initial pain-in-the-ass location upload, I felt I simply didn't have time for it.
So, I stopped using it. To me, if I have to spend time with something, I just can't be bothered. There has to be a significant and compelling reason for me to be bothered.
Foursquare then started to come up with ways beyond its badge-earning game that might make it appealing to me. They started to form partnerships with retailers and to offer coupons based on my geo-location. So, if it knew I was at, oh, the Gap or something, it could give me a coupon for the Gap (when this was tried, even many Gap employees had no idea about Foursquare and no idea about the coupon. So much for corporate communications.)
Women are supposed to be all about the coupons and saving money, aren't we? As far as I'm concerned, not if it takes giving away my location information....and, contrary to what some acquaintances think, many people (not just women) are concerned about a loss of privacy due to the use of geo-location apps....
This brings me to the status of my Foursquare account, which has been dormant since that first use. Foursquare often reminds us that the info we put there is private, and that we shouldn't be friends with anyone we do not know personally (when it comes to those who might do women harm, sometimes it's not strangers--but I digress...) Odd thing is, though, with my dormant account, I seem to get a whole lot of requests to be "friends" from people I don't know. Which drives me up the wall....
And it's been all those people I don't know--be they network marketers, real estate agents, virtual stalkers, or anyone in between--that's contributed to my desire to delete my Foursquare account.
Which I just did.
Do I feel any remorse? Absolutely not.
But what about potential clients? How can I advise them properly if I don't personally use Foursquare???
Simple answer to this: I've used it--I know the upsides and the downsides, esp. if it's not maintained. Find out who the customer base is, and the most recent intelligence on the demographic represented in that customer base. Consider recent surveys on attitudes towards this particular form of social networking. Once this info is known, a determination can be made as to whether Foursquare might help or if maintaining it will be a time-sink. If the client's customers aren't there, then what's the point?
Further reading: check The Foursquare Conundrum on Bitches Get Stuff Done which gives another good p.o.v. on why neither women nor men should feel so darned comfortable giving away their locations.
Dear Foursquare, Gowalla: Please Let's Stop Pretending This is Fun Um, yeah--because it's not...
By the time Foursquare came out, geo-location apps weren't news to me. I'd already heard of BriteKite and Gowalla. Friends (predominantly male) were using both to regularly inform me of their whereabouts. It was all rather ho-hum, and I wasn't necessarily interested in revealing my every whereabout to the people I follow on Twitter and Facebook. One of the reasons for that is that I, like most women, have been taught to be *very* careful about to whom we reveal our locations (so it's no real surprise that Pew reports they're not catching on.) Even folks we supposedly know and trust--whether Internet acquaintance or casual f2f acquaintance--wasn't to be naively trusted with all our regular location-based comings and goings.
But then, everyone started to get all freaky about Foursquare. "I'm the Mayor of Starbucks in Cambridge!" "I'm the Mayor of Dunkin' Donuts in Silver Springs!" "I'm the Insert the badge du jour here of the Roger Williams Hotel Cocktail Lounge!" Foursquare, you see, was more than just a way to let your "friends" know your location--it was also a game! The most super-fun game in the world! Because you could earn badges that told everybody how often you were at that location!
Oh, great. Now it's not just that I'm revealing my location, but I'm also revealing how many times I go to that particular location. That's not the smartest thing in the world for a woman to do.....and need I say why??
When I told some of my male acquaintances who regularly used geo-location apps, I was told how "square" I was, how I had to get with it, and I was being over-cautious. Yet rarely did I ever see their spouses or girlfriends giving away their whereabouts on a regular basis. Hmm...can anyone say "double standard"????
Given that what I do for a living often requires that I advise clients on the latest and greatest social networking sites, I felt it necessary to go in and check it out at least. Ever since Ann Landers lashed out at the Cure's "Let's Go to Bed," I'd vowed never to vehemently criticise something unless I really knew what it was about. So, I got me a Foursquare account....
At the beginning it seemed to be a time-sink. Whenever I was at a location, if the location wasn't in Foursquare, I got the privilege to be the first one to laboriously enter all the location information. If I wanted to use Foursquare effectively, I had to download the Foursquare app to my iPod Touch (didn't want to sacrifice good cell reception for a shiny, expensive iPhone.) Given that wifi's kind of spotty where I live, I never really used the app. And after the initial pain-in-the-ass location upload, I felt I simply didn't have time for it.
So, I stopped using it. To me, if I have to spend time with something, I just can't be bothered. There has to be a significant and compelling reason for me to be bothered.
Foursquare then started to come up with ways beyond its badge-earning game that might make it appealing to me. They started to form partnerships with retailers and to offer coupons based on my geo-location. So, if it knew I was at, oh, the Gap or something, it could give me a coupon for the Gap (when this was tried, even many Gap employees had no idea about Foursquare and no idea about the coupon. So much for corporate communications.)
Women are supposed to be all about the coupons and saving money, aren't we? As far as I'm concerned, not if it takes giving away my location information....and, contrary to what some acquaintances think, many people (not just women) are concerned about a loss of privacy due to the use of geo-location apps....
This brings me to the status of my Foursquare account, which has been dormant since that first use. Foursquare often reminds us that the info we put there is private, and that we shouldn't be friends with anyone we do not know personally (when it comes to those who might do women harm, sometimes it's not strangers--but I digress...) Odd thing is, though, with my dormant account, I seem to get a whole lot of requests to be "friends" from people I don't know. Which drives me up the wall....
And it's been all those people I don't know--be they network marketers, real estate agents, virtual stalkers, or anyone in between--that's contributed to my desire to delete my Foursquare account.
Which I just did.
Do I feel any remorse? Absolutely not.
But what about potential clients? How can I advise them properly if I don't personally use Foursquare???
Simple answer to this: I've used it--I know the upsides and the downsides, esp. if it's not maintained. Find out who the customer base is, and the most recent intelligence on the demographic represented in that customer base. Consider recent surveys on attitudes towards this particular form of social networking. Once this info is known, a determination can be made as to whether Foursquare might help or if maintaining it will be a time-sink. If the client's customers aren't there, then what's the point?
Further reading: check The Foursquare Conundrum on Bitches Get Stuff Done which gives another good p.o.v. on why neither women nor men should feel so darned comfortable giving away their locations.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Mayhill Fowler and the pitfalls on the road from unpaid blogger to paid journalist
The other day, Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who broke the "Bittergate" story announced that she was leaving the Huffington Post Fowler states in her intro: I want to be paid for my time and effort—or at a minimum, to get a little remuneration in return for the money I spend myself in order to do original reportage. I would not expect to be paid for punditry. But can a "blogger" go from rank punditry to reportage? Therein lies the rub...and it's not easy to overcome.
Fowler goes on to recount how she pitched stories to Huffington, only to have them rejected. Yet she continued to write/report for them for free. And when she was writing for OffTheBus, as a "citizen journalist," she never expected to get paid. She also never considered herself the kind of "who, what, when, where, why" type of journalist, but wants to get paid for political reporting (which, actually *is* a form of 5W journalism, whether you bury the lede or not.)
This seems to be the same dilemma of many a fine blogger finds his or herself in when they who would like to be taken seriously and be paid for their work. It's very easy for a journalist, or someone with a journalism or publishing background, to go from journalist to blogger. There are several celebrated "bloggers" who follow this pattern, including Josh Marshall and Ana Marie Cox. And I don't begrudge them their success, and obstacles they may have had to overcome. But having the the journalist(Marshall) or editorial (Cox) creds before they became maverick bloggers was probably an advantage that many of us among the "unwashed" don't have.
In the eyes of the folks who edit and publish, previous career creds mean something. They mean, perhaps, that the individual understands the process that creates journalism. That they even might understand standards of objectivity and the pursuit of truth.
But that doesn't mean that those of us who did not get a degree in journalism or go to work in publishing/media straight from college are incapable of understanding principles of objectivity and the pursuit of truth. In fact, there have been many debates regarding the abilities of news journalists to be objective in this current day and age.
Back before OfftheBus (the initiative that launched Fowler in '08) it was the hyperbole around the term "citizen journalist" that got a lot of bloggers motivated to delve into the fray and try to become something other than unpaid personal publishers. I've always hated the term "citizen journalist' and found it somewhat derogatory. It always seemed to mean that you, the "citizen journalist" was going for the guts (byline) and not the glory(pay.) In 2005 I ruminated on the term and found that it was best used to describe journalists who had left the newspaper or magazine industry to be private citizens yet still published from time to time--and that the term was not really descriptive of what citizens, at that time, were doing with blogs.
We have seen many changes since 2005, and there are some great "citizen journalists" out there who have created news sites for their local neighborhoods and are carrying forward with the ideas of "civic journalism." That is indeed one kind of citizen journalist.
And I doubt today that many would be willing to call the person who posts an anonymous snarky diary blog or a teen-ager posting to LiveJournal a "citizen journalist." As they once might have argued vociferously in the halls of academia....
So where does that leave Fowler in the journalist vs. citizen journalist fracas? Well, I have some trouble with many of the things she says in this regard. Fowler goes back and forth, wanting to get paid for reporting, but not wanting to consider herself a journalist. As if to consider herself one she is perhaps insulting a whole bunch of others who have "paid dues" literally to a union or in a figurative sense to some gods of journalism. As I learned after my own HufPo experience (where I wasn't paid but was edited), if one is going to have one's work go through an editorial process, and one is going to get paid for one's work, then one is, in some form, a journalist. Why deny it? One can certainly have respect for the "who, what, when, where, why" local or national reporter and still be a journalist in his or her own right....
This is something I had to get used to myself. It took, and continues to take, lots of good conversations with longtime journalists to remind me that, yes, I've built a reputation beyond blogger, and can indeed call myself, at least, an online journalist. Yes, I even have a professional membership in the Online News Association. All that took was getting the respected, paid bylines.
Deep down, though, I have to believe that my writing is worth being paid for, and that I must be paid in some form or another for my work. Whether it is livebloging/"livetweeting" a really great conference (where I get "paid" by having the registration fee waived) or getting a check for something I wrote, I will not write for free. There may be some rare circumstances where I might contribute for free, but the organization must have some merit and certainly must enhance my bottom line in some form. I will not submit posts of 500 words and be paid $10 because some guy somewhere wants to build a "great blog network." Are you kidding me? I'm not going to put in my time and my effort, even for a blog post, for a mere 10 bucks.
To get to this point, it has taken years of constant building, of making connections, of working on start-ups and for very low pay. It's been a lot of pushing and insisting and serendipitous interactions that have contributed to bringing me from mere blogger to paid online journalist. Not to mention the great people who've been part of the process in one way or another--as supporters, as folks who've given me a break, as just cheering section. Still, I have a very long way to go before I am able to support myself totally from what I make thur writing.
But, when I consider where many other folks might be in their quest to be more than just a "blogger," I consider myself lucky, even with all the struggles and the bill collectors and the big ole annoying tax bills and lousy part-time jobs, and lectures and webinars and workshops I have to do in while I continue get paid for my writing.
So, Mayhill Fowler can stand on principals, can be wishy-washy on whether or not she wants to be, or even is, a kind of journalist. As for me, whether I'm using a blogging platform or a Google Doc or whatever, I want to be paid for my work when I'm writing for someone else. I want to be considered an online journalist who knows how to blog. Because I do know the process of journalism, I can be objective, and I do pursue truth (now). Not to mention that I'm also a damned good writer. :)
Note: While Fowler was standing her ground with HufPo, another blogger who's not a journalist (that I know of), Mike Arrington, founder of TechCrunch sold the most important blog in Silicon Valley to AOL. From all that I've read, Mike worked his ass off to build TechCrunch into something important--and yes, a lot of negative things have been said about Mike and powerbrokering in Silicon Valley over the years. I know nothing of that stuff. All I know is that he built it himself, posted constantly to keep it going, and wasn't a jounalist to start out with. Sure like most bloggers, many would argue that he's still not a journalist. But what he's done is pretty admirable.
Fowler goes on to recount how she pitched stories to Huffington, only to have them rejected. Yet she continued to write/report for them for free. And when she was writing for OffTheBus, as a "citizen journalist," she never expected to get paid. She also never considered herself the kind of "who, what, when, where, why" type of journalist, but wants to get paid for political reporting (which, actually *is* a form of 5W journalism, whether you bury the lede or not.)
This seems to be the same dilemma of many a fine blogger finds his or herself in when they who would like to be taken seriously and be paid for their work. It's very easy for a journalist, or someone with a journalism or publishing background, to go from journalist to blogger. There are several celebrated "bloggers" who follow this pattern, including Josh Marshall and Ana Marie Cox. And I don't begrudge them their success, and obstacles they may have had to overcome. But having the the journalist(Marshall) or editorial (Cox) creds before they became maverick bloggers was probably an advantage that many of us among the "unwashed" don't have.
In the eyes of the folks who edit and publish, previous career creds mean something. They mean, perhaps, that the individual understands the process that creates journalism. That they even might understand standards of objectivity and the pursuit of truth.
But that doesn't mean that those of us who did not get a degree in journalism or go to work in publishing/media straight from college are incapable of understanding principles of objectivity and the pursuit of truth. In fact, there have been many debates regarding the abilities of news journalists to be objective in this current day and age.
Back before OfftheBus (the initiative that launched Fowler in '08) it was the hyperbole around the term "citizen journalist" that got a lot of bloggers motivated to delve into the fray and try to become something other than unpaid personal publishers. I've always hated the term "citizen journalist' and found it somewhat derogatory. It always seemed to mean that you, the "citizen journalist" was going for the guts (byline) and not the glory(pay.) In 2005 I ruminated on the term and found that it was best used to describe journalists who had left the newspaper or magazine industry to be private citizens yet still published from time to time--and that the term was not really descriptive of what citizens, at that time, were doing with blogs.
We have seen many changes since 2005, and there are some great "citizen journalists" out there who have created news sites for their local neighborhoods and are carrying forward with the ideas of "civic journalism." That is indeed one kind of citizen journalist.
And I doubt today that many would be willing to call the person who posts an anonymous snarky diary blog or a teen-ager posting to LiveJournal a "citizen journalist." As they once might have argued vociferously in the halls of academia....
So where does that leave Fowler in the journalist vs. citizen journalist fracas? Well, I have some trouble with many of the things she says in this regard. Fowler goes back and forth, wanting to get paid for reporting, but not wanting to consider herself a journalist. As if to consider herself one she is perhaps insulting a whole bunch of others who have "paid dues" literally to a union or in a figurative sense to some gods of journalism. As I learned after my own HufPo experience (where I wasn't paid but was edited), if one is going to have one's work go through an editorial process, and one is going to get paid for one's work, then one is, in some form, a journalist. Why deny it? One can certainly have respect for the "who, what, when, where, why" local or national reporter and still be a journalist in his or her own right....
This is something I had to get used to myself. It took, and continues to take, lots of good conversations with longtime journalists to remind me that, yes, I've built a reputation beyond blogger, and can indeed call myself, at least, an online journalist. Yes, I even have a professional membership in the Online News Association. All that took was getting the respected, paid bylines.
Deep down, though, I have to believe that my writing is worth being paid for, and that I must be paid in some form or another for my work. Whether it is livebloging/"livetweeting" a really great conference (where I get "paid" by having the registration fee waived) or getting a check for something I wrote, I will not write for free. There may be some rare circumstances where I might contribute for free, but the organization must have some merit and certainly must enhance my bottom line in some form. I will not submit posts of 500 words and be paid $10 because some guy somewhere wants to build a "great blog network." Are you kidding me? I'm not going to put in my time and my effort, even for a blog post, for a mere 10 bucks.
To get to this point, it has taken years of constant building, of making connections, of working on start-ups and for very low pay. It's been a lot of pushing and insisting and serendipitous interactions that have contributed to bringing me from mere blogger to paid online journalist. Not to mention the great people who've been part of the process in one way or another--as supporters, as folks who've given me a break, as just cheering section. Still, I have a very long way to go before I am able to support myself totally from what I make thur writing.
But, when I consider where many other folks might be in their quest to be more than just a "blogger," I consider myself lucky, even with all the struggles and the bill collectors and the big ole annoying tax bills and lousy part-time jobs, and lectures and webinars and workshops I have to do in while I continue get paid for my writing.
So, Mayhill Fowler can stand on principals, can be wishy-washy on whether or not she wants to be, or even is, a kind of journalist. As for me, whether I'm using a blogging platform or a Google Doc or whatever, I want to be paid for my work when I'm writing for someone else. I want to be considered an online journalist who knows how to blog. Because I do know the process of journalism, I can be objective, and I do pursue truth (now). Not to mention that I'm also a damned good writer. :)
Note: While Fowler was standing her ground with HufPo, another blogger who's not a journalist (that I know of), Mike Arrington, founder of TechCrunch sold the most important blog in Silicon Valley to AOL. From all that I've read, Mike worked his ass off to build TechCrunch into something important--and yes, a lot of negative things have been said about Mike and powerbrokering in Silicon Valley over the years. I know nothing of that stuff. All I know is that he built it himself, posted constantly to keep it going, and wasn't a jounalist to start out with. Sure like most bloggers, many would argue that he's still not a journalist. But what he's done is pretty admirable.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The death of RSS might be greatly exaggerated. Here's why....
 |
| bye, bye Bloglines |
First, let's talk RSS readers. Years ago when I started talking about the power of blogs to small business owners, I suggested they start using an RSS reader to track news in their industry and other related bloggers. Back then, there weren't too many readers other than Bloglines, FeedDemon, and perhaps Pluck's reader (which a client told me about.) Pluck shut down its reader in January, 2007. At the time of the shutdown announcement, ReadWriteWeb's Richard McManus declared in headline "Consumer RSS Readers a Dead Market Now."
In that article, McManus gave three alternatives for consumers: Microsoft's Outlook integrated reader, MyYahoo's mail integrated reader, and the upcoming Google Reader (also integrated with Gmail, then the hot new email client on the block.)
The shift at that time was from desktop or separate web-based readers to readers included with email. Consumers could check their mail *and* check their news.
Novel concept, eh??
One of the reasons Bloglines probably lasted longer than Pluck's reader may be that it had fairly high adoption levels among bloggers, who weren't necessarily the most tech savvy folks even if many were "early adopters." Bloglines was suggested to me in 2005 by fellow blogger Jill Fallon. It became the go-to site where I could not just collect feeds but also bookmark and keep individual posts.
Remember, in 2005 many of us didn't use Delicious. It was, more than likely, not known outside of geekier circles. In fact, its founder didn't leave his day job until 2005, once the project received significant venture capital. Del.icio.us became more popular after Yahoo! acquired it in December '05.
Ok...so, in 2005 we have Del.icio.us, which took the place of one of the tasks of an RSS reader.
Then, along came Google Reader in October, 2005. Gmail had just opened to the public in August of that year, but opening an account wasn't necessarily a consumer-friendly process. Google also got Gtalk going, hoping to lure people away from AOL Messenger and other chat clients.
Gtalk didn't necessarily take of bigtime--like a lot of Google products--but the Google Reader did. I would hazard a guess that it had something to do with a really nice user interface and features that made it easy to email articles to others, etc. Google could see the social networking writing on the wall, and that information wanted to be shared as much as it wanted to be (cost) free.
Which leads me back to Bloglines. In many of the posts I read on the demise of Bloglines, few if any have noted what type of RSS reader consumers might be using in its stead. The overall assumption is that consumers are now relying on links from friends on social networking sites.
But that begs the question: where are these authoritative friends getting their information? Are they going directly to websites from their browser's bookmarks? Or are they, perhaps, perusing headlines on custom homepages that may include an RSS aggregator? Could they also be picking headlines from email integrated RSS readers?
To really know what's going on with RSS readers, some smart analysts would have to do a bit of market research. Otherwise, what's being said in the press is a lot of conjecture about the health of RSS. Now, . assuming that RSS is dead because Bloglines is shutting down and, supposedly, "people" get their news from their social network neglects the places where RSS readers reside. Further, it neglects how and why people other than "people" are using RSS readers. In the work I do for the Telefonica Developers Blog, and for work I've done for the WeMedia conferences, for Placeblogger, for NewsTrust.net, and for others, I'd say that I'd be up a creek without an RSS reader. And, since so many other businesses, including most media businesses (and, yes, that includes p.r. firms) generate RSS feeds for at least part of their sites, it may be safe to say that for many professionals in media, marketing, public relations, and many related (and perhaps even un-related) industries, RSS readers are still quite important for accessing the most information in a concise and timely manner.
Further: the post that had so many bloggers, tech journalists and the like freaking out about the imminent death of RSS as a whole started with this post from Doug Leeds on the Ask.com blog. The fact that Ask.com has been lagging as a search engine for years, and that Bloglines was purchased by Ask in '05 rather than Google, Yahoo! or even Microsoft (which developed their own RSS readers) says more about Bloglines and Ask.com than it says about RSS readers as a whole. Think about it.....
Monday, September 13, 2010
From 2005 and Present Again.....On Reviving the Constant Observer
Now, the writing projects are complete, the workshop is finished, and while I'm working on a few more webinars and blogging daily at the Telefonica Developer's Blog, I find that I can indeed pick up blogging again--here at the Constant Observer and at other blogs (which I will mention at the end of this post.)
In fact, the significance of blogging in my life has changed somewhat. In 2005, when I started this blog, its purpose was to shift my focus from personal essay blogging to observation and analysis. That process took several months to figure out--you can see that in some of the posts from that time. That same year, I tapped into the tech, marketing and journalism conference circuit. I went to the very first women bloggers conference, BlogHer, which is now a thriving franchise. I tapped into the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. I met many wonderful people whose names some of you would know, and others you would only know if you were a certain kind of insider....
What ended up happening was that I met some of the most interesting people--folks who are shaping what is becoming of the Internet and of new media, technology, mobile tech, the newspaper industry, the magazine industry, marketing, and the thing that became "social media" (a term almost nauseating in its ubiquity nowadays--and not consistent in its meaning.)
All influenced me in some way or another, and many helped me along the road to figuring out what it is I want to do in this vast media/technology space. Did I want to start a hyperlocal news blog? Did I want to write marketing copy for blogger outreach? Did I want to develop something cool and new, or did I want to help something cool and new become the Next Big Thing?
In some sense, I've figured out part of what I'm going to be when I grow up. I like writing--even when I struggle with writer's block. I like ferreting out the truth (some call that being a journalist). I like making money when I write about the truths that I've found, even when people aren't comfortable with those truths--and indeed many aren't. And even though I've developed a reputation and a portfolio, the publishing landscape has changed, and blogging is important for freelancers, copywrighters, editors--pretty much anybody looking to have work featured anywhere. It's a rare place that looks down on blogging these days (well, maybe some newspapers--but even that's changing.)
So, I'll be blogging here again--as well as the occasional post at Cinema Omnibus--my Postserous blog on cult cinema/grindhouse/etc, as well as a to-be-created fashion blog. These two blogs represent personal personal passions that are fun to write about (and may, I hope, lead to other gigs.) The content here, on this blog, will be more focused: more tech blogging, more research, more interviews, more mobile industry (because it's an exciting space.) Less on "social media"--because everybody and their siblings seem to be writing about it while, simultaneously, saying very little. So I won't bother wasting any further hot air unless connected to larger issues beyond "why your business needs to use social media for marketing purposes."
And there you have it. I hope to be doing a little liveblogging tomorrow, depending on whether or not I can do a 5 a.m. wake-up call. If not, I will be blogging on some tech issue, I'm sure.
As the old blank billboards used to say "Watch This Space...."
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Find me at Poynter.org....(or, so long and thanks for all the cookies...)
May marks the five-year anniversary of this blog, and I've had some time to think about where this blog is going as much as I have about where I'm going(career-wise.)
This blog is now going on extended--and perhaps permanent--hiatus. Part of this decision has to do with the simple fact that, after five years, this blog feels played out. Five years is a long time in blog years, and I've pretty much said all that I've want to say using this blog. More importantly, I've found a better venue for the stories I have been wanting to write and that I am capable of writing.....
Currently, I am working on several articles, including two 3-article series, for Poynter.org's E-Media Tidbits column. I've been a contributor to this column since 2006 and have watched it evolve beyond a blog into a full-fledged column on important changes in the newspaper industry and journalism landscape that are brought on due to the rapidly changing environment of the Internet. I am currently writing on "content mills" as well as on services that work with newspapers on copyright issues, and more. I have the freedom, flexibility, and editorial oversight at Poynter that I've wanted for a long time. I'm happy to be there and more than happy that Poynter likes and encourages my work.
I'm also looking to do more freelance writing. Granted, this is hardly the time to start a freelance career--what with all the lay-offs. But I have a strategy, and I'm more interested in getting some sort of pay for what I write than I am for writing stuff just for the heck of it.
Writing isn't the solution to the career dilemma though. There are far more opportunities in social media nowadays than there were when I started this blog. There are more community development positions, more director of social media positions--the space is "hot" at the moment I am told. So, why not take all that I've done--all the projects, all the teaching, all the speaking--and bring that to a place that will value my expertise.
As for blogging in general, I may be starting up at other sites--but blogging isn't necessarily what it used to be. The blogosphere is a crowded landscape now, with highly organized and well-financed media and business blogs crowding out the voices of people. Which is kind of sad, actually. The blogosphere was a fun place way back when, and I think I miss some of the collegiality that used to exist here--even though I was only a small part of it.
So, it is fondly, sadly, happily, that the Constant Observer bids a fond farewell to the blogosphere as I once knew it, as it is becoming...and as I am becoming something more than just a bigmouth in blogosphere.
P.S.: I've started a Posterous site on my passion for old movies: Cinema Omnibus I was going to keep "professional" kind of posterous, but I figured that it was time to have some fun again with blogging. And if I wanted to write seriously, I could write for someone else's blog. So, that's the upshot of all of this. Blogging, for me, isn't necessarily a profession, unless I'm getting paid to do it. And if I'm not getting paid for it, I'm going to write about what I want to write about. Which, apparently, is old movies....
This blog is now going on extended--and perhaps permanent--hiatus. Part of this decision has to do with the simple fact that, after five years, this blog feels played out. Five years is a long time in blog years, and I've pretty much said all that I've want to say using this blog. More importantly, I've found a better venue for the stories I have been wanting to write and that I am capable of writing.....
Currently, I am working on several articles, including two 3-article series, for Poynter.org's E-Media Tidbits column. I've been a contributor to this column since 2006 and have watched it evolve beyond a blog into a full-fledged column on important changes in the newspaper industry and journalism landscape that are brought on due to the rapidly changing environment of the Internet. I am currently writing on "content mills" as well as on services that work with newspapers on copyright issues, and more. I have the freedom, flexibility, and editorial oversight at Poynter that I've wanted for a long time. I'm happy to be there and more than happy that Poynter likes and encourages my work.
I'm also looking to do more freelance writing. Granted, this is hardly the time to start a freelance career--what with all the lay-offs. But I have a strategy, and I'm more interested in getting some sort of pay for what I write than I am for writing stuff just for the heck of it.
Writing isn't the solution to the career dilemma though. There are far more opportunities in social media nowadays than there were when I started this blog. There are more community development positions, more director of social media positions--the space is "hot" at the moment I am told. So, why not take all that I've done--all the projects, all the teaching, all the speaking--and bring that to a place that will value my expertise.
As for blogging in general, I may be starting up at other sites--but blogging isn't necessarily what it used to be. The blogosphere is a crowded landscape now, with highly organized and well-financed media and business blogs crowding out the voices of people. Which is kind of sad, actually. The blogosphere was a fun place way back when, and I think I miss some of the collegiality that used to exist here--even though I was only a small part of it.
So, it is fondly, sadly, happily, that the Constant Observer bids a fond farewell to the blogosphere as I once knew it, as it is becoming...and as I am becoming something more than just a bigmouth in blogosphere.
P.S.: I've started a Posterous site on my passion for old movies: Cinema Omnibus I was going to keep "professional" kind of posterous, but I figured that it was time to have some fun again with blogging. And if I wanted to write seriously, I could write for someone else's blog. So, that's the upshot of all of this. Blogging, for me, isn't necessarily a profession, unless I'm getting paid to do it. And if I'm not getting paid for it, I'm going to write about what I want to write about. Which, apparently, is old movies....
Monday, April 19, 2010
Will "content" kill "journalism"?
Ever since the term "content mills" was coined, and ever since there's been much hue, cry and discussion on Demand Media (what some considered the preeminent content mill) and their deal with USAToday's Travel section, I've been wondering: is "content" a form of journalism, or is it just website filler with little or no journalistic value?
Or is it really that cheap "content" on a news site becomes a great way for a news site to increase its revenue?
And is cheap "content" the new alternative to "expensive" journalism? (even when some of that journalism wasn't that expensive in the first place....)
A quick-and-short Google search on the topic of "is content journalism" didn't reveal much. Although, oddly enough, a misspelling of the word "journalism" did mine a great discussion on Mark Brigg's blog (cached copy only). Briggs asks some very important questions regarding content vs. journalism:
Is it just journalists who feel that the word "content" cheapens what they do? Maybe it's not just journalists. As a news consumer, I'm concerned about the connotation and evolution of the word "content" to describe what I'm reading. Here's why: not too long ago (and even currently) the term "user-generated content" was used to describe pretty much anything that was coming into a site, or was produced for a site (blog, etc) that was not produced by a professional journalist. What defined a professional journalist was debatable: is it whether or not someone has a degree? or writes for pay for a newspaper or other "journal"? or because they belong to a particular union? What defined "user-generated content" however, was pretty clear: stuff publishers got for free, from the general public; usually poorly written stuff that nobody would want to publish in print, but they'd be glad to publish, and not pay for, on the web.
In 2007, the owner of a Santa Rosa TV station said he wanted "harvest" user-generated content to fuel his station's evening news program....
User-generated content has been viewed by owners of media outlets as cheap, poor quality stuff that had as much a hope of getting legitimately published as journalism as a snowball has a chance of making it from one side of Hell to the other.
Removing the words "user-generated" from "content" doesn't make it much better. "Content" is still synonymous with lower quality writing than professionally produced journalism--even if the content is produced by journalists who are no longer working for newspapers or magazines due to staff cuts.
That's another part of the conundrum: if a journalist loses his/her job, is that person no longer a journalist? Does that person, who perhaps now works as a freelancer, become simply a "content producer" who toils for the highest-paying-of-the-low-wage content production houses? Does that person then switch fields to public relations or marketing simply to get a good paying job?
Which makes me wonder: "content mills" might be helping to prop up the failing business models of newspapers, but could the reliance on cheaply produced "content" end up lowering the standards and quality of "journalism". Or is "content" just another disruptor on the road to something new and better?
For further reading: Ken Doctor's post The Newsonomics of Content Arbitrage raises some points about content and curation and that editors may end up becoming "content brokers" (as in someone who buys content from a third party vs. content directly from an individual.) Listed also a a number of "brokerage" initiatives going on right now.
Also check out: "Seed's Goal Is To "Redefine Journalism For The Internet Age," Its Reality Is Untangling Cat Hair an interesting look into AOL's new content-on-the-cheap site.
Or is it really that cheap "content" on a news site becomes a great way for a news site to increase its revenue?
And is cheap "content" the new alternative to "expensive" journalism? (even when some of that journalism wasn't that expensive in the first place....)
A quick-and-short Google search on the topic of "is content journalism" didn't reveal much. Although, oddly enough, a misspelling of the word "journalism" did mine a great discussion on Mark Brigg's blog (cached copy only). Briggs asks some very important questions regarding content vs. journalism:
Journalists prefer their craft not be cheapened with a label like “content.” But what if that’s what’s been killing the business?
Do consumers (readers) differentiate between a product called journalism than one simply known as news or content? They pay for this content with their time and attention, which is why plenty of web sites that publish content are making plenty of money with advertising. Sites that focus on journalism, however, are still struggling with this basic economic model. . .
Is it just journalists who feel that the word "content" cheapens what they do? Maybe it's not just journalists. As a news consumer, I'm concerned about the connotation and evolution of the word "content" to describe what I'm reading. Here's why: not too long ago (and even currently) the term "user-generated content" was used to describe pretty much anything that was coming into a site, or was produced for a site (blog, etc) that was not produced by a professional journalist. What defined a professional journalist was debatable: is it whether or not someone has a degree? or writes for pay for a newspaper or other "journal"? or because they belong to a particular union? What defined "user-generated content" however, was pretty clear: stuff publishers got for free, from the general public; usually poorly written stuff that nobody would want to publish in print, but they'd be glad to publish, and not pay for, on the web.
In 2007, the owner of a Santa Rosa TV station said he wanted "harvest" user-generated content to fuel his station's evening news program....
User-generated content has been viewed by owners of media outlets as cheap, poor quality stuff that had as much a hope of getting legitimately published as journalism as a snowball has a chance of making it from one side of Hell to the other.
Removing the words "user-generated" from "content" doesn't make it much better. "Content" is still synonymous with lower quality writing than professionally produced journalism--even if the content is produced by journalists who are no longer working for newspapers or magazines due to staff cuts.
That's another part of the conundrum: if a journalist loses his/her job, is that person no longer a journalist? Does that person, who perhaps now works as a freelancer, become simply a "content producer" who toils for the highest-paying-of-the-low-wage content production houses? Does that person then switch fields to public relations or marketing simply to get a good paying job?
Which makes me wonder: "content mills" might be helping to prop up the failing business models of newspapers, but could the reliance on cheaply produced "content" end up lowering the standards and quality of "journalism". Or is "content" just another disruptor on the road to something new and better?
For further reading: Ken Doctor's post The Newsonomics of Content Arbitrage raises some points about content and curation and that editors may end up becoming "content brokers" (as in someone who buys content from a third party vs. content directly from an individual.) Listed also a a number of "brokerage" initiatives going on right now.
Also check out: "Seed's Goal Is To "Redefine Journalism For The Internet Age," Its Reality Is Untangling Cat Hair an interesting look into AOL's new content-on-the-cheap site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)