In my Independent Media class, we each had to come up with a startup website with a business plan and pitch it to the class. Out of all the pitches, my winning pick had to be Patrick's Police Beat.
Police Beat would be a site where police brutality is kept in check. It would be a combination of user-submitted content (stories and pictures of their experiences with police brutality) as well as more investigative and court report pieces by the staff of the website.
What I loved about this idea was how focused it was, how popular it could be and how it would expand. Anyone who has experienced police brutality or knows someone who has experienced it would probably want to visit the website. People love to be able to their own stories.
The site would start in New York City and grow to other cities. This continual growth pattern is great for a steady stream of new readers.
Police Beat would also be able to receive a lot of money from organizations involved with investigative journalism and police misconduct (including racism). That money alone could possibly keep the site on its feet, not to mention the ad money that could come from lawyers and other related services.
Out of all the ideas, I think Police Beat has the best chance at becoming the most successful enterprise.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The 2014 Izzy Awards
I had the opportunity to attend the 2014 annual Izzy Award ceremony at Ithaca College on Monday. Some students, including myself, were invited to go to a Q&A with the winners before the ceremony.
The Izzy Award (given by the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College) is the only journalistic award that is given in recognition of excellence in independent journalism. This year's winners were Nick Turse and John Carlos Frey; Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill were inducted into the I.F. Stone Hall of Fame. The awards are named after great independent journalist I.F. Stone, known for his dissident coverage of politics and critique of major newspapers at the time.
To hear from these individuals was incredible. I have never met journalists of their caliber in my life - the closest I came was being able to hear two Boston Globe journalists speak about covering the 2013 marathon at the SPJ conference the weekend before in Boston.
While I was most familiar with the work of Scahill and Turse (as well as Greenwald, but he was not able to attend the awards), my favorite speaker was Frey. Frey has been reporting on the U.S.-Mexican border, covering border patrol brutalities and drug cartels. He gave up a career in acting to pursue intense, independent, investigative journalism.
I have the utmost respect for these kinds of journalists. They often put their lives and reputations on the line in order to bring a voice to the voiceless and investigate issues that are affecting the little people. Frey exposed some of the ignorance and lack of journalistic responsibility that is present in modern broadcast corporations. Even with video evidence and thorough investigation and proof, almost every program refused to air a story which detailed the beating and murder of an undocumented migrant by U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The topics that all of these journalists covered in their discussions and speeches confirmed that we need independent journalists as a society - at least for now. The established media of the U.S. refuses to acknowledge any story that could have negative repercussions for their friends in the government or in major corporations.
While I don't think I have the gall or the courage to do what these journalists do, I hold them in high esteem and will support this kind of work until the established media becomes what it should be - a voice for the voiceless and a check against those who hold power.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Cara Lemieux on Starting a Publication (Sort Of)
Cara Lemieux came to speak with the Ithaca College SPJ chapter this Monday and discussed with us about how she helped start the ShriverReport.org.
The Shriver Report website is the online companion of the actual Shriver Reports, which are lengthy published reports on different aspects of women in society. The Shriver Report launched in October 2013 and Lemieux helped make it happen.
She said that before the site even launched, she had to drum up interest in the social media world. Before it came out, the Shriver Report had around 2,000 followers on different social media. But how do you get followers without producing any original content yet? They retweeted other publications that had similar missions as they did and linked around to other sites like HuffPost Women.
Lemieux gave an interesting insight into Google +. Even though the service isn't nearly as active or popular as other social media like Twitter and Facebook, when people share stories on Google + it helps with Google page rankings in the search engine. Because of this, they focused a lot of attention on Google + and now have over 30,000 followers on the site, dwarfing their other social media numbers.
When I talk about "they," I'm referring to the three individuals who work on the website and launched it. Together, they help keep the site and social media running and come up with two to three pieces of original content to post everyday. The site gets submissions from a lot of citizen journalists who are not paid.
One of the most interesting things I learned from Lemieux was about fully understanding your idea before launching it. As Jeff Jarvis wrote in his piece about his entrepreneurial journalism class,
If you can't stand behind and clearly explain your site to yourself, it's not going to sell anyone else.
It was so great to hear from someone who was an Ithaca College graduate that made it in the industry and even helped create a successful and interesting publication like the Shriver Report. From where they have come from and the number of people they have to make the site run, I'd say it's pretty successful. And it gives young journalists hope that one day they could make a successful website.
The Shriver Report website is the online companion of the actual Shriver Reports, which are lengthy published reports on different aspects of women in society. The Shriver Report launched in October 2013 and Lemieux helped make it happen.
She said that before the site even launched, she had to drum up interest in the social media world. Before it came out, the Shriver Report had around 2,000 followers on different social media. But how do you get followers without producing any original content yet? They retweeted other publications that had similar missions as they did and linked around to other sites like HuffPost Women.
Lemieux gave an interesting insight into Google +. Even though the service isn't nearly as active or popular as other social media like Twitter and Facebook, when people share stories on Google + it helps with Google page rankings in the search engine. Because of this, they focused a lot of attention on Google + and now have over 30,000 followers on the site, dwarfing their other social media numbers.
When I talk about "they," I'm referring to the three individuals who work on the website and launched it. Together, they help keep the site and social media running and come up with two to three pieces of original content to post everyday. The site gets submissions from a lot of citizen journalists who are not paid.
One of the most interesting things I learned from Lemieux was about fully understanding your idea before launching it. As Jeff Jarvis wrote in his piece about his entrepreneurial journalism class,
If you can’t describe what you’re doing — to customers as well as investors — in 17 words, then you’re probably trying to do too much or you haven’t worked hard enough to define what you are doing or you simply aren’t describing it well and you’re going to lose people.Lemieux told us that at first, the site was way too broad. She had to sit down and come up with a mission statement that clearly and succinctly said what the site was and stood for. She then had to completely work the design and decide every single little piece of how the website worked.
If you can't stand behind and clearly explain your site to yourself, it's not going to sell anyone else.
It was so great to hear from someone who was an Ithaca College graduate that made it in the industry and even helped create a successful and interesting publication like the Shriver Report. From where they have come from and the number of people they have to make the site run, I'd say it's pretty successful. And it gives young journalists hope that one day they could make a successful website.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Net Neutrality and Balanced Service
Net neutrality is a relatively new term that has been thrown around a lot in the past few years. Free Press' Save the Internet blog has the best rundown of what exactly net neutrality is and what is happening with it.
In a quick summation, net neutrality stops big corporations like Verizon and Google from creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Internet content. Big names with lots of money can pay their way into fast lanes, while content creators that can't pay up or don't fit with the big owners' status quo get stuck in slow lanes.
In 2010, the FCC passed a rule that allowed them to enforce net neutrality. But then in January of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's rule and opened up the Internet's infrastructure to corporations.
So what happens if Verizon decides to implement its once-proposed two lane system? Independent media get left behind.
The Internet brought with it an astounding surge in everything independent. Musicians can distribute music easily without the cost of CD production. Photographers and filmers can post their work cheaply (or free) to be seen by anyone. Journalists can start their own independent publications and write without restrictions set upon them by the massive corporations that pay their salary.
But if we let those big corporations take control of the Internet, independent creation will be stifled significantly.
Striking down net neutrality goes against the foundations of the First Amendment. For the success of independent producers, whether they be musicians, painters, bloggers, poets, game designers or jewelry makers, net neutrality needs to be reinstated.
As I have said before, journalism needs a constant flow of new independent journalists to keep a real check on the government and corporations. A corporate Internet goes against this completely.
In a quick summation, net neutrality stops big corporations like Verizon and Google from creating fast lanes and slow lanes for Internet content. Big names with lots of money can pay their way into fast lanes, while content creators that can't pay up or don't fit with the big owners' status quo get stuck in slow lanes.
In 2010, the FCC passed a rule that allowed them to enforce net neutrality. But then in January of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's rule and opened up the Internet's infrastructure to corporations.
So what happens if Verizon decides to implement its once-proposed two lane system? Independent media get left behind.
The Internet brought with it an astounding surge in everything independent. Musicians can distribute music easily without the cost of CD production. Photographers and filmers can post their work cheaply (or free) to be seen by anyone. Journalists can start their own independent publications and write without restrictions set upon them by the massive corporations that pay their salary.
But if we let those big corporations take control of the Internet, independent creation will be stifled significantly.
Striking down net neutrality goes against the foundations of the First Amendment. For the success of independent producers, whether they be musicians, painters, bloggers, poets, game designers or jewelry makers, net neutrality needs to be reinstated.
As I have said before, journalism needs a constant flow of new independent journalists to keep a real check on the government and corporations. A corporate Internet goes against this completely.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Sensationalism Held Higher Than Ethics
In this stunning timeline from USC's Online Journalism Review, we can get a good look at just how unethical mainstream journalism outlets can be.
In short: A woman had declared that Bill Clinton was the father of her son, Danny Williams. She claimed that their resemblance was uncanny and had been getting a DNA test to see if they were really a match.
The Rupert Murdoch conglomerate picked up the story and ran with it, which can be seen as suspicious since the story was not fully developed and Murdoch is known for having politically right views. Does every person who claims a celebrity is the parent of their child get a soapbox and major media attention? No. And if they do so without any evidence, that is unethical.
The Drudge Report picked up the tale and posted their own article claiming that they had seen video of the mother confessing what she had been claiming. Does that constitute as proof? Again, no.
If some of these journalists at these tabloids and mainstream publications came in with purest intentions, they certainly would come out with a whole different view of journalism. I'm sure that some people in these publications did not want to write about rumors and wild claims but were forced to comply to the higher ups. And that's the problem with corporate news - the politically-fueled millionaires and billionaires that have their hands in journalism will want to skew it to fit their own agenda.
In journalism school we learn about the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. The very first pillar of journalism ethics is "Seek Truth and Report It." These stories, while they might have been true at the end (they were not), were just rumors. You can't know the truth of it until the tests come back, so you should not report on it until you know the facts.
The second pillar, "Minimize Harm," would also go against the reporting of these damning rumors. These publications created buzz around an event that made Clinton look unjustifiably bad. Sure, people in the media spotlight have to have tough skin but there's no need to help spread false rumors about them. It's unethical.
If you make these mistakes, at least follow the last pillar and "Be Accountable." Admit to your mistakes, and maybe think about the actual impact of your stories before reporting on whatever new rumor has your political opposite in the hot seat.
In short: A woman had declared that Bill Clinton was the father of her son, Danny Williams. She claimed that their resemblance was uncanny and had been getting a DNA test to see if they were really a match.
The Rupert Murdoch conglomerate picked up the story and ran with it, which can be seen as suspicious since the story was not fully developed and Murdoch is known for having politically right views. Does every person who claims a celebrity is the parent of their child get a soapbox and major media attention? No. And if they do so without any evidence, that is unethical.
The Drudge Report picked up the tale and posted their own article claiming that they had seen video of the mother confessing what she had been claiming. Does that constitute as proof? Again, no.
If some of these journalists at these tabloids and mainstream publications came in with purest intentions, they certainly would come out with a whole different view of journalism. I'm sure that some people in these publications did not want to write about rumors and wild claims but were forced to comply to the higher ups. And that's the problem with corporate news - the politically-fueled millionaires and billionaires that have their hands in journalism will want to skew it to fit their own agenda.
In journalism school we learn about the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. The very first pillar of journalism ethics is "Seek Truth and Report It." These stories, while they might have been true at the end (they were not), were just rumors. You can't know the truth of it until the tests come back, so you should not report on it until you know the facts.
The second pillar, "Minimize Harm," would also go against the reporting of these damning rumors. These publications created buzz around an event that made Clinton look unjustifiably bad. Sure, people in the media spotlight have to have tough skin but there's no need to help spread false rumors about them. It's unethical.
If you make these mistakes, at least follow the last pillar and "Be Accountable." Admit to your mistakes, and maybe think about the actual impact of your stories before reporting on whatever new rumor has your political opposite in the hot seat.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Access for Indie Journalists
A strange thing has happened with bloggers. Because bloggers have been dismissed as being non-journalists, they have been shut out of events. The distinction that bloggers are in fact journalists was recently seen in a court case that gave journalists' rights to a blogger, even though the debate started years ago.
But if bloggers have a hard time getting into major press events, what can they do? I.F. Stone was noted as saying that he preferred to read the press transcripts after the fact because then he could better analyze and understand what was being said. So bloggers have that advantage, but how big of an advantage is that really? I don't think it's too big.
If bloggers aren't defined as "the press," then they can get into non-press events. Mayhill Fowler, a fresh face in the blogging world in 2008, exposed two of the biggest presidential campaign blunders by getting close to campaigners in non-press settings.
First, Fowler unleashed a stinging quote from Barack Obama into the world. She managed to get into the Obama non-press dinner and was openly recording it along with other people. When you aren't a recognizable face in the journalism crowd, I guess you can get in anywhere.
The left-wing blogger then posted a rant from Bill Clinton on Huffington Post. These two instances lit up the blogging world and helped boost the conversation around journalism and bloggers.
So bloggers might give up major press event action but they can get into places where nobody has ever heard their name before. This is a great way for bloggers to break major stories and get their names out there, but once they become known they won't be able to keep doing the same trick over and over. At best you can get away with it twice but after that you won't be getting into any non-press events.
This is why journalism needs a constant flow of independent writers and reporters, to get into places and events that normal and well-known journalists can't.
But if bloggers have a hard time getting into major press events, what can they do? I.F. Stone was noted as saying that he preferred to read the press transcripts after the fact because then he could better analyze and understand what was being said. So bloggers have that advantage, but how big of an advantage is that really? I don't think it's too big.
If bloggers aren't defined as "the press," then they can get into non-press events. Mayhill Fowler, a fresh face in the blogging world in 2008, exposed two of the biggest presidential campaign blunders by getting close to campaigners in non-press settings.
First, Fowler unleashed a stinging quote from Barack Obama into the world. She managed to get into the Obama non-press dinner and was openly recording it along with other people. When you aren't a recognizable face in the journalism crowd, I guess you can get in anywhere.
The left-wing blogger then posted a rant from Bill Clinton on Huffington Post. These two instances lit up the blogging world and helped boost the conversation around journalism and bloggers.
So bloggers might give up major press event action but they can get into places where nobody has ever heard their name before. This is a great way for bloggers to break major stories and get their names out there, but once they become known they won't be able to keep doing the same trick over and over. At best you can get away with it twice but after that you won't be getting into any non-press events.
This is why journalism needs a constant flow of independent writers and reporters, to get into places and events that normal and well-known journalists can't.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Breaking In through Indpendence
Yesterday I went to Ithacon and attended a panel called "How I Broke In," where people including Roger Stern (Marvel writer) and Will Dennis (DC/Vertigo editor) talked about how they got into the comic book industry.
One of the most resonant ideas during this panel was that of working independently. Times were different in the '70s when some of these guys started, and even in the '90s. Comic books have largely been dominated by Marvel, DC and a few other giants up until recently. If people wanted to produce a comic and have it read by more than their friends and family, they had to constantly be sending samples to these few dominant companies in the hopes that they will be hired.
One of the panelists, Storn Cook, talked extensively about what has been happening today in the art world. He was urging artists to just work and post their work up online for free. Because of the Internet and the ability to post things online for little-to-no cost, the independent comic industry has boomed.
Instead of the few publishers that existed up until the aughts, there are now hundreds of small little publishers and even more people putting their work up online. Cook was a freelance artist for several tabletop game companies but is now currently teamed up with Justin Evans and creating his first comic book with the help of Kickstarter.
I met several other writers and artists outside of the panel who were working independently. One was Camilo Nascimento who gave me a free signed print of one of his online comics, which is available for free at ArhantaComics.com. Not only can he post his work for free online and get people to view it, but he can also expand the medium of sequential art into something much greater and more diverse than was ever possible on paper. This comic has dynamic coloring on the panels as you hover over them and a track that can play to fit the story.
There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the comic book industry and the journalism industry thanks to the Internet. Working independently on something you love is now a completely viable way to sustain a living, whether its through an online comic or a blog, whether revenue is made through advertisements, donations, merchandise, or all three.
One of the most resonant ideas during this panel was that of working independently. Times were different in the '70s when some of these guys started, and even in the '90s. Comic books have largely been dominated by Marvel, DC and a few other giants up until recently. If people wanted to produce a comic and have it read by more than their friends and family, they had to constantly be sending samples to these few dominant companies in the hopes that they will be hired.
One of the panelists, Storn Cook, talked extensively about what has been happening today in the art world. He was urging artists to just work and post their work up online for free. Because of the Internet and the ability to post things online for little-to-no cost, the independent comic industry has boomed.
Instead of the few publishers that existed up until the aughts, there are now hundreds of small little publishers and even more people putting their work up online. Cook was a freelance artist for several tabletop game companies but is now currently teamed up with Justin Evans and creating his first comic book with the help of Kickstarter.
I met several other writers and artists outside of the panel who were working independently. One was Camilo Nascimento who gave me a free signed print of one of his online comics, which is available for free at ArhantaComics.com. Not only can he post his work for free online and get people to view it, but he can also expand the medium of sequential art into something much greater and more diverse than was ever possible on paper. This comic has dynamic coloring on the panels as you hover over them and a track that can play to fit the story.
There are so many parallels that can be drawn between the comic book industry and the journalism industry thanks to the Internet. Working independently on something you love is now a completely viable way to sustain a living, whether its through an online comic or a blog, whether revenue is made through advertisements, donations, merchandise, or all three.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Impossible Objectivity
"I asked Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Walter Mears whom he was supporting for president. He replied (paraphrasing!), 'If I tell you, how can you trust what I write?,' to which I replied that if he doesn’t tell us, how can we trust what he blogs?"
David Weinberger wrote this in a piece about objectivity in journalism on his blog, which details the shift from objectivity to transparency that was caused by the advent of blogging. Is it because people have just stopped trying to be objective? Not necessarily.
When independent journalists started gaining a wider audience through the medium of the Internet, and more unorthodox and non-professionally trained writers set up their virtual soap boxes, the face of journalism started changing. We still have our regular mainstream writers and reporters but bloggers have added a new twist on an old tradition. New journalists are just wearing their hearts on their sleeves.
As David Carr wrote for the New York Times, these new journalists are looking a lot more like activists than the old media would prefer them to. The old media want people to think they are perfectly objective and take no sides, but in reality there is no such thing as objectivity. Just because a writer doesn't tell you exactly what to think and how to act, they push you in that direction through subjective coverage.
What a writer chooses to cover is the act of putting that topic on a higher echelon than other issues. We see it all the time — a topic gets little-to-no coverage on mainstream news even though many could see it as very important. In this day and age, it's easier to trust publications when they tell us exactly what their views are.
The idea of transparency over objectivity has gained a lot of ground because bloggers really brought it to light, and through the freedom of the Internet it has spread far and wide. Everyone has opinions, so just tell us what they are instead of hiding them and trying to seem like you're someone you're not. It's unethical.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
On Building a Blog and an Audience
Legal Insurrection is a conservative blog launched in 2008, and its creator came to speak in my Independent Media class.
William Jacobson is a Cornell law professor who said he was never really political until a dinner conversation he had with a friend the summer before the 2008 presidential elections. His friend, a liberal, said he had never heard a conservative talk about and explain their side so well, and suggested that Jacobson make a blog.
So Legal Insurrection was born. Like a lot of sites run by people who are not well-known writers, Jacobson's did not makes leaps and bounds out of the gate. He said most of his readers were family and friends.
In the beginning, he said the biggest upswing he got in viewership was due to him writing on other (more popular) sites. He wrote one particular piece on a political website that spread out pretty far and garnered a lot of attention. This got his name out to wider audiences and ultimately attracted a lot of attention back to his blog.
This tactic makes a lot of sense. A budding blogger can do freelance writing for another similar website to get their name and blog out to wider audience. Said freelancer may have to forgo payment to plug their own work but getting those big numbers can be really beneficial to the long-term success of the blog. Jacobson said that big numbers come from random, nice, successful people that link to little bloggers.
Legal Insurrection hit its one-millionth visit 11.5 months after it went live. During most of this time, the only contributor was Jacobson. The blog continued to grow and now has 11 other contributors, some paid, and nets in around $5,000 a month. What gets all that money? Advertising.
Legal Insurrection employs numerous different advertising strategies to make money. The site has no control over what ads appear on the pages, which may not be great for a blog with a political agenda but they make money nonetheless. The key component to making money off the advertising is page views.
To make a good amount of money off advertising, a site needs a lot of page views. Jacobson said one of the key components of keeping viewers coming back is to update regularly and often.
Updating with a new story once per day could be hugely beneficial because people can come back everyday with the fulfilled expectation that there is something new to see. If someone sees the site for the first time and comes back the next couple days to nothing new, they probably will be hard-pressed to keep coming back at all. People like to get into a rhythm with a website and not allowing for that will drive viewers away, even they like the content.
William Jacobson is a Cornell law professor who said he was never really political until a dinner conversation he had with a friend the summer before the 2008 presidential elections. His friend, a liberal, said he had never heard a conservative talk about and explain their side so well, and suggested that Jacobson make a blog.
So Legal Insurrection was born. Like a lot of sites run by people who are not well-known writers, Jacobson's did not makes leaps and bounds out of the gate. He said most of his readers were family and friends.
In the beginning, he said the biggest upswing he got in viewership was due to him writing on other (more popular) sites. He wrote one particular piece on a political website that spread out pretty far and garnered a lot of attention. This got his name out to wider audiences and ultimately attracted a lot of attention back to his blog.
This tactic makes a lot of sense. A budding blogger can do freelance writing for another similar website to get their name and blog out to wider audience. Said freelancer may have to forgo payment to plug their own work but getting those big numbers can be really beneficial to the long-term success of the blog. Jacobson said that big numbers come from random, nice, successful people that link to little bloggers.
Legal Insurrection hit its one-millionth visit 11.5 months after it went live. During most of this time, the only contributor was Jacobson. The blog continued to grow and now has 11 other contributors, some paid, and nets in around $5,000 a month. What gets all that money? Advertising.
Legal Insurrection employs numerous different advertising strategies to make money. The site has no control over what ads appear on the pages, which may not be great for a blog with a political agenda but they make money nonetheless. The key component to making money off the advertising is page views.
To make a good amount of money off advertising, a site needs a lot of page views. Jacobson said one of the key components of keeping viewers coming back is to update regularly and often.
Updating with a new story once per day could be hugely beneficial because people can come back everyday with the fulfilled expectation that there is something new to see. If someone sees the site for the first time and comes back the next couple days to nothing new, they probably will be hard-pressed to keep coming back at all. People like to get into a rhythm with a website and not allowing for that will drive viewers away, even they like the content.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Journalism Paid by Fans
Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites have been a huge boom for independent producers in recent years. For filmmakers, novelists, comic book artists and more, crowdfunding has been a huge help in getting non-corporate-sponsored projects off the ground.
But I have yet to see crowdfunding have a big impact on journalism. In my independent media class I learned about Spot.us, a journalism-focused crowdfunding website that is currently on hiatus. It is a very cool idea but seems to be very selective in terms of who gets to receive funding. I do not think a website like that is what young journalists need; it could make journalists change and shape what they are writing about to make the criteria of the site.
I also learned about Beacon, which is a service that requires a patron to pay $5 a month to one writer hosted on Beacon. If you pay for one writer, then you get access to everything that is hosted on Beacon. This is another cool idea but it requires you to put your content behind a paywall. If a writer does not want to do that, it is not the best path to take. A key to getting a wide audience from the start is allowing your content to be accessed for free and easily shared, and Beacon would stifle that.
I recently wrote an article on VGJ Review about the journalism surrounding crowdfunding and put together this graphic showing the success of video game developers that have used Kickstarter to fund their projects.
Video games make up the largest portion of Kickstarter projects, and the money there looks very promising. I looked up journalism projects on Kickstarter and the selections are not very good. I think the problem is that campaigns have to reach their money goals to get any of that revenue.
The best site I have seen for funding journalism so far is Indiegogo. Projects do not need to reach their goal in order for the creator to get his or her money. If I wanted to get people to support my website, I would ask for money on Indiegogo. Because journalism is project that is continuous, unlike making a movie or a game, the funding needs to be different.
Funding would ideally be continuous. Because (most) people can already write without having to make any money from it, as I do, I think the idea would be to enable the person to spend more time writing. If I made a little money off Indiegogo, I could quit my school job and focus on my passion more without having to worry about my finances.
But again, just because you put an item up for crowdfunding does not mean it will make any money. The trick is to make "true fans," as described in the "1,000 True Fans" article on The Technium. These true fans will buy anything you create and try to get other people to check out your work. You may not need 1,000 to make money but it would sure help. According to the article, reaching 1,000 would make it possible to sustain yourself on that work alone.
Thanks to crowdfunding, I think that number can be set even lower, and hopefully it helps journalists get started on projects that they are passionate about.
But I have yet to see crowdfunding have a big impact on journalism. In my independent media class I learned about Spot.us, a journalism-focused crowdfunding website that is currently on hiatus. It is a very cool idea but seems to be very selective in terms of who gets to receive funding. I do not think a website like that is what young journalists need; it could make journalists change and shape what they are writing about to make the criteria of the site.
I also learned about Beacon, which is a service that requires a patron to pay $5 a month to one writer hosted on Beacon. If you pay for one writer, then you get access to everything that is hosted on Beacon. This is another cool idea but it requires you to put your content behind a paywall. If a writer does not want to do that, it is not the best path to take. A key to getting a wide audience from the start is allowing your content to be accessed for free and easily shared, and Beacon would stifle that.
I recently wrote an article on VGJ Review about the journalism surrounding crowdfunding and put together this graphic showing the success of video game developers that have used Kickstarter to fund their projects.
The best site I have seen for funding journalism so far is Indiegogo. Projects do not need to reach their goal in order for the creator to get his or her money. If I wanted to get people to support my website, I would ask for money on Indiegogo. Because journalism is project that is continuous, unlike making a movie or a game, the funding needs to be different.
Funding would ideally be continuous. Because (most) people can already write without having to make any money from it, as I do, I think the idea would be to enable the person to spend more time writing. If I made a little money off Indiegogo, I could quit my school job and focus on my passion more without having to worry about my finances.
But again, just because you put an item up for crowdfunding does not mean it will make any money. The trick is to make "true fans," as described in the "1,000 True Fans" article on The Technium. These true fans will buy anything you create and try to get other people to check out your work. You may not need 1,000 to make money but it would sure help. According to the article, reaching 1,000 would make it possible to sustain yourself on that work alone.
Thanks to crowdfunding, I think that number can be set even lower, and hopefully it helps journalists get started on projects that they are passionate about.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Blog Dreams
The readings for Tuesday's class gave me a ray of hope for the future of my writing career. Josh Marshall's speech gave a small insight into the importance of independent media and what it was like to see Talking Points Memo grow. It was inspiring to see how he made his passion grow and turn it into something that supports him.
But politics are such a hot topic, so it makes sense that a great writer and investigator who focuses on that field would become popular and successful. Politics affect everyone and stories about corruption will almost automatically reach a huge audience. My dreams lie in something much less accessible to the general public: video games.
And yet I was still inspired. The second reading from Business Week provided a list of successful blogs and how they made their money. TPM was on that list but what stuck out to me most was the slide about Kottke. Kottke is a very niche website that generates content around things that exist on the Internet. And that's also what I do.
I run VGJReview.com, and have been adding to it at least once a week for the past six weeks. I focus on journalism surrounding the video game industry, which would attract a relatively small audience. It is aimed toward people who care about video games and how people write about them. The concept does not exactly have the widest draw but it isn't something that is out there right now, I think it needs to be.
These readings gave me hope that my website could be successful. It's independent, niche and so far only run by me. I'm passionate about the subject and have fun writing about it, and I think that is a big part of what goes into the start of a successful project. If you can't believe in what you are doing, I don't believe you will easily find other people that would believe in it.
If I Can Haz Cheezburger can exist and be incredibly successful, I think VGJ Review could at least make me a little bit of money.
But politics are such a hot topic, so it makes sense that a great writer and investigator who focuses on that field would become popular and successful. Politics affect everyone and stories about corruption will almost automatically reach a huge audience. My dreams lie in something much less accessible to the general public: video games.
And yet I was still inspired. The second reading from Business Week provided a list of successful blogs and how they made their money. TPM was on that list but what stuck out to me most was the slide about Kottke. Kottke is a very niche website that generates content around things that exist on the Internet. And that's also what I do.
I run VGJReview.com, and have been adding to it at least once a week for the past six weeks. I focus on journalism surrounding the video game industry, which would attract a relatively small audience. It is aimed toward people who care about video games and how people write about them. The concept does not exactly have the widest draw but it isn't something that is out there right now, I think it needs to be.
These readings gave me hope that my website could be successful. It's independent, niche and so far only run by me. I'm passionate about the subject and have fun writing about it, and I think that is a big part of what goes into the start of a successful project. If you can't believe in what you are doing, I don't believe you will easily find other people that would believe in it.
If I Can Haz Cheezburger can exist and be incredibly successful, I think VGJ Review could at least make me a little bit of money.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
I.F. Stone
The I.F. Stone's documentary from 1973 gives a very detailed look into the life of Izzy Stone during the last couple years of his weekly. He created a newspaper that was "radical in viewpoint but conservative in format." His works became so popular, I think, because it was so professionally produced and looked very good. If you put quality content in poor packaging it probably will not sell very well.
The documentary paints Stone as an incredibly intelligent man with an incredible drive to work. In the beginning he produced the paper almost single-handedly. I think the culminating image to his nature was that of him walking down the street and placing all of the mail into the street postbox. He could handle things himself, he handled them well, and it was probably best done without intervention.
I think one of the greatest things he did was stand up against Joseph McCarthy before Edward R. Murrow ever took up the microphone against him. While Murrow had CBS to back him up, little Izzy Stone fought all by himself. So many people were negatively affected by the witch hunt McCarthy had brought to the United States and Stone dared to go against the crusade immediately. He faced being labeled a communist but contended with the government anyway.
His views were progressive, yet he criticized all parties when they required criticism. He was very inclusive and pro-equality as Peter Flint points out in his New York Times obituary. ''Once you put ifs and buts in the Bill of Rights, nobody's civil liberties will be secure.''
Stone certainly had his opinions and he voiced them strongly without holding back. Opinions can sometimes go against the "pure nature" of journalism that we learn about in classes. At Ithaca College I have learned that true objectivity is impossible, but I do still think that striving for it in terms of content is beneficial.
I do not think that the documentary showed enough of Izzy Stone's faults. Like so many documentaries I have seen that focus on a single person, they always seem to show the greatest side of the person and ignore the negatives. We did not watch the entire film but I can't imagine the pieces we missed had a lot of critique. Everyone appeared to love Stone and everything that he touched.
Stone's own nature was to question things, the opening line of the documentary being his own:
"There are certain basic assumptions you must make. The first is that every government is quite capable of lying"
So why not question Stone himself? He did a lot of thorough investigative pieces that certainly benefited society at large but he was clearly very opinionated. I would like to see more analysis on how his personal interests went into his work and how they affected what topics he wrote about in his weekly.
From what I understand though, Stone feels like he belongs among the top journalists of U.S. history. His tenacity, ethics and quality of writing stand as one uniquely in the history of journalism. It is amazing that so many youth at the time could trust the words of an older newsman, but he did it.
The documentary paints Stone as an incredibly intelligent man with an incredible drive to work. In the beginning he produced the paper almost single-handedly. I think the culminating image to his nature was that of him walking down the street and placing all of the mail into the street postbox. He could handle things himself, he handled them well, and it was probably best done without intervention.
I think one of the greatest things he did was stand up against Joseph McCarthy before Edward R. Murrow ever took up the microphone against him. While Murrow had CBS to back him up, little Izzy Stone fought all by himself. So many people were negatively affected by the witch hunt McCarthy had brought to the United States and Stone dared to go against the crusade immediately. He faced being labeled a communist but contended with the government anyway.
His views were progressive, yet he criticized all parties when they required criticism. He was very inclusive and pro-equality as Peter Flint points out in his New York Times obituary. ''Once you put ifs and buts in the Bill of Rights, nobody's civil liberties will be secure.''
Stone certainly had his opinions and he voiced them strongly without holding back. Opinions can sometimes go against the "pure nature" of journalism that we learn about in classes. At Ithaca College I have learned that true objectivity is impossible, but I do still think that striving for it in terms of content is beneficial.
I do not think that the documentary showed enough of Izzy Stone's faults. Like so many documentaries I have seen that focus on a single person, they always seem to show the greatest side of the person and ignore the negatives. We did not watch the entire film but I can't imagine the pieces we missed had a lot of critique. Everyone appeared to love Stone and everything that he touched.
Stone's own nature was to question things, the opening line of the documentary being his own:
"There are certain basic assumptions you must make. The first is that every government is quite capable of lying"
So why not question Stone himself? He did a lot of thorough investigative pieces that certainly benefited society at large but he was clearly very opinionated. I would like to see more analysis on how his personal interests went into his work and how they affected what topics he wrote about in his weekly.
From what I understand though, Stone feels like he belongs among the top journalists of U.S. history. His tenacity, ethics and quality of writing stand as one uniquely in the history of journalism. It is amazing that so many youth at the time could trust the words of an older newsman, but he did it.
x
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Citizen Journalists Bear More Witness
In Arianna Huffington's article, "Bearing Witness 2.0: You Can't Spin 10,000 Tweets and Camera Phone Uploads," she writes about a criticism from New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, saying you can only get a real feel for a story when you are there and reporting it, not from any new technology.
This is incredibly backwards. During the Iranian protests of 2009, Twitter and YouTube were two of the biggest catalysts in spreading information during the uprising. The Washington Post had a story about how Twitter allowed people on the ground to get information out quickly that many other people would not have access to. When you have people directly involved with the conflict giving their own experiences and opinions, it can be a much deeper look than through the eyes of a journalist.
If the journalist covering a conflict is parachuted it without a deep knowledge of the people, the culture and maybe even the conflict, there is a much greater disconnect with the story. People fighting in their own country will have much more raw emotion and feeling behind what they are saying and sharing.
With the help of YouTube in Iran, citizens could post their own videos of what they were involved in and witnessing throughout the conflict. This video, probably shot with a cell phone, brings viewers straight into the heart of a conflict. Reporters may not be out in the middle of protests or riots out of fear, and then would not get the same raw footage.
There is a major difference between having a camera down in the crowd and having one off in safety with a bird's eye view. Cell phone videos can transport viewers into the eyes of someone down in the opposition. You get that real taste of fear and excitement from being in the middle of the movement. A professional journalist can write about that but they can't actually know the real feeling of being a part of that unless they are taking part.
In the recent uprising in Ukraine, some of the biggest news pieces came from amateur video of the protests and pictures posted by protesters on Twitter and Instagram. There are several professional journalists that are down in the streets with the opposition but what gives them any better capabilities to capture the environment around them than the citizen journalists in the same place?
This is incredibly backwards. During the Iranian protests of 2009, Twitter and YouTube were two of the biggest catalysts in spreading information during the uprising. The Washington Post had a story about how Twitter allowed people on the ground to get information out quickly that many other people would not have access to. When you have people directly involved with the conflict giving their own experiences and opinions, it can be a much deeper look than through the eyes of a journalist.
If the journalist covering a conflict is parachuted it without a deep knowledge of the people, the culture and maybe even the conflict, there is a much greater disconnect with the story. People fighting in their own country will have much more raw emotion and feeling behind what they are saying and sharing.
With the help of YouTube in Iran, citizens could post their own videos of what they were involved in and witnessing throughout the conflict. This video, probably shot with a cell phone, brings viewers straight into the heart of a conflict. Reporters may not be out in the middle of protests or riots out of fear, and then would not get the same raw footage.
There is a major difference between having a camera down in the crowd and having one off in safety with a bird's eye view. Cell phone videos can transport viewers into the eyes of someone down in the opposition. You get that real taste of fear and excitement from being in the middle of the movement. A professional journalist can write about that but they can't actually know the real feeling of being a part of that unless they are taking part.
In the recent uprising in Ukraine, some of the biggest news pieces came from amateur video of the protests and pictures posted by protesters on Twitter and Instagram. There are several professional journalists that are down in the streets with the opposition but what gives them any better capabilities to capture the environment around them than the citizen journalists in the same place?
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Sideways news traffic
Eli Pariser's article, "Beyond the Front Page of the Newspaper," brings up the fact that consumers finding news content from social media has been increasing. The issue with that is people tend to follow softer stories rather than hard stories when finding them on social media. According to Pariser, a Jerry Seinfeld article received more than 12 times as many Facebook shares as a story about children killed in Syria.
The front-page no longer has as much drive as it used to because of people sharing stories through social media. Some readers may never even go to the homepage of a publication, instead opting to rely on others to show them what they should read.
Pariser's point about advocacy groups taking up the social media charge makes sense. Considering the fact that journalism is meant to make readers aware of what important things are happening, I do not believe relying on advocacy groups for production is a bad idea. In some cases, media that are too unbiased can be admittedly boring. Bringing in a slice of human interest and passion can help increase eyeballs.
News sites could reach out to these advocacy groups to write pieces and have them mutually shared, and advocacy groups could share news pieces and comment on them to spread information.
I still think an issue of social media sharing is that people are probably less likely to follow hard news when they see it on Facebook. Most people are on Facebook for leisure and a bit of thoughtless downtime. When faced with a hard-hitting piece about child deaths in Syria, I think many people would skip over it because that is not what they are looking for at the moment.
The front-page no longer has as much drive as it used to because of people sharing stories through social media. Some readers may never even go to the homepage of a publication, instead opting to rely on others to show them what they should read.
Pariser's point about advocacy groups taking up the social media charge makes sense. Considering the fact that journalism is meant to make readers aware of what important things are happening, I do not believe relying on advocacy groups for production is a bad idea. In some cases, media that are too unbiased can be admittedly boring. Bringing in a slice of human interest and passion can help increase eyeballs.
News sites could reach out to these advocacy groups to write pieces and have them mutually shared, and advocacy groups could share news pieces and comment on them to spread information.
I still think an issue of social media sharing is that people are probably less likely to follow hard news when they see it on Facebook. Most people are on Facebook for leisure and a bit of thoughtless downtime. When faced with a hard-hitting piece about child deaths in Syria, I think many people would skip over it because that is not what they are looking for at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)