And The Top Media Story of 2008 is...

No, you didn't miss the first nine installments of this series. I'm not one for Top 10 lists unless they're being read by Mr. Late Night. But in this the first year of This Media Moment, I'd be remiss if I didn't end 2008 with at least one retrospective post.

So what'll it be? We lost a dogged reporter/interviewer in Tim Russert. We saw Obama/Clinton press coverage mimicked on (and change because of?) SNL, the show that also brought us Tina Fey's dead-on impression of Sarah Palin.

But there's really no story in '08 that could overshadow the crisis facing traditional print media. It's been a dismal year of job cuts, product shrinking and investor unease. Newspaper business sections have become media obituaries, and 2009 likely promises much of the same.

There's much to say about the dreadful outlook for some longstanding print publications, but what can I add that hasn't been said already? My wish for the New Year is that one -- just one -- struggling newspaper or magazine tries to bolster its staff, increase its reporting reach and see what happens in a competitive marketplace when the tough-times-mean-downsizing orthodoxy faces off against the adversity-means-put-out-a-better-product model. Pipe dream? Probably. But someone's gotta be ready to take a stand.

Many in the media alredy have. This was a banner year for start-up publications, many of which are online, nonprofit and emphasizing public interest journalism. Thorough work continues to attract readers -- see Nate Silver's political site that was a must-read throughout the summer and fall.

Editors are finding ways to interact more effectively with their audience, and individual readers are opening their pocketbooks to support good journalism. There's plenty of reason for optimism in 2009 because of great media minds who are adapting and innovating.

I raise my glass to them.

Deep Gratitude

It goes without saying that Mark Felt, the former FBI associate director and most famous anonymous source of all time, changed the course of American journalism. His tips to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about the 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee's Watergate headquarters, which led to the scoop of the century, put investigative journalism on a pedestal.

Felt died Friday at the age of 95, just three years after he finally revealed his identity as "Deep Throat" in a Vanity Fair magazine article. We'll remember him for his courage and adherence to civic duty.

And for being the inspiration behind the most badass scene in "All the President's Men."

Magapaper: The New J-School Track?

Back in college, the default pickup line was "what's your major?" Snoozer. But within the journalism school, it was the slightly more interersting "what's your track?" As in, newspaper, magazine or the slightly mysterious new media.

If I'd had any foresight I would have chosen new media over magazine. But, hey, it was 1999 and the glossy covers won me over. New media has obviously become the hot track, so much so that I'm guessing the "new" is no longer part of the name.

But what about the newspaper and magazine tracks? Someone's gotta want them. Here's an idea: Why not merge them into a track called "magapaper." Some of my favorite online news sites today -- take Slate and Salon -- are what I could classify as a part newspaper, part magazine. In other words, they're updated daily or often more with newsy stories. They are also written in a breezy style that magazine readers recognize.

It's worth noting that Salon calls itself an "online arts and culture magazine," and Slate an"online magazine of news, politics and culture." But you find me a Slate or Salon reporter and I'll show you someone who knows how to turn in a story on deadline, newspaper style. My point being that college journalists need to be taught to be hyrid writers -- able to handle long-form magazine pieces and quick-hitting news stories.

What would a magapaper track teach? Well, certainly a mix of what we traditonaly called newspaper and magazine writing -- that is, before the styles basically fused online. You can't teach personal style, but you can teach stylistic writing, and that would be a foundation of the education.

And, of course, there'd be a lecture devoted to dressing for your cable news cameo debut.

ShoeTube

What the Blagojevich scandal was to bloggers, the Iraqi journalist shoe-throwing incident is to vloggers. That is, an early holiday gift. Watching the clip of this newly annointed folk hero chucking his kicks at our president is such a surreal experience that I've yet to turn my eyes away when it plays again and again and again on cable news. I'm even finding myself amused as anchors fight to find the cutest play on words -- "The lame-duck president had to DUCK out of the way this weekend." (ba da bing)

Is it possible that this is viral video nirvana?

Drumroll Please... A Newspaper That's Added Content

Ok, so I realize this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who's paid attention thus far to the Wall Street Journal's new weekend magazine, WSJ. But, hey, in this media and economic environment until the thing shows up on your doorstep more than once nothing can be taken for granted.

What to make of this new offering? Well, a lot of people are talking about gifts in the latest edition -- the editor, a 13-year-old violinist -- and I suppose the whole mag is a present from Rupert to you, the soft-feature-story-loving reader.

Speaking of Mr. Murdoch, remember when he said pretty plainly that he, um, wanted to displace the Times as the paper of record. Maybe he meant in the regular print edition? Cause while colorful (speed walking across the Sahara, cool), the mag doesn't look like it's going to bring home any Pulitzers. To be fair, it was billed as a luxury lifestyle magazine and the "authority on modern wealth."

And so clearly Rupe's going after the Times in another way. Take a look at the ad on the magazine's home page: Cartier.

Bling's in your court, Sulzberger.

Consistently Inconsistent

In the latest issue of Editor & Publisher, a headline asks the question "The End of 'Objectivity' in New Journalism Era: A Good Thing?" Starting the article with the supposition that there ever was a golden age of objectivity in the press is questionable.

But the author brings up a very important point about a new dilemma facing reporters. He describes a quite common situation in which a journalist is asked to blog about his beat on top of writing daily articles for the print and Web editions. Beyond the workload concern (a topic for another post) is the issue of tone.

Editors tend to like blog posts to be more informal. Fine. Nothing wrong with engaging with your readers in a different style. But there are often expectations that the blogger will include opinions. Therein lies the trouble. If you're asked to play it like Brokaw in print and like Olbermann online (I realize I'm mixing mediums in my metaphor), how do you reconcile your two voices?

I'm a stickler for consistency. Hire a reporter. Hire a columnist. Hire a blogger whose job duties are well defined. It's the middle ground that's dangerous -- editors sending mixed messages to writers about what tone they expect. Or perhaps it's the problem of sending no message at all. "Why don't you start a blog?" is analogous to saying "Why don't you throw up content on the Web." Without direction, the reporter is left guessing.

All this isn't to say that journalists shouldn't be able to vary their styles depending on audience and subject. Casual writing is more a part of the profession now than ever. Edgy is expected, but editorializing still comes with its consequences. Sources on the beat don't -- and shouldn't -- separate the blog persona from the print/online news persona. An off-colored joke won't soon be forgotten. Put another way, Olbermann doesn't face the newsmakers he rants about the morning after.

We're not going back to the era of "and that's the way it is." Some journalists seek out the forum to express their opinions; some would rather write in latin than use the word "I." My concern is for the large group in the middle who are often caught in a world of unclear and inconsistent expectations.

The Obama Observer

I'll see your New York Times choose-your-own-Obama-cabinet Web feature (check out the post below) and raise you a Politico follow-the-president-elect's-every-dry-cleaner-trip-and-basketball-game calendar. On "Politico 44," a Web page within the Web site that the publication describes as "a living diary of the Obama presidency," you can see a daily schedule for the president-elect. Yes, the official meetings are up there with the news that Malia reportedly performed in a play that the whole family attended.

Something tells me "Politico 42" would have been a hotter sell.

Fantasy Politics

WHO YA GOT???

Newspapers are tripping over themselves these days to be as interactive as possible. Reader polls. Live chats with editors. Comment boxes. Sometimes all three in the same graphic.

The New York Times seems to be taking a page from ESPN.com with its latest interactive idea. Titled "If You Were President ..." the feature asks readers to make their selection for President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet by choosing who they would like to see as members of his new administration. Readers do so by using a dropdown bar that gives popular names -- or they can enter their own pick -- along with logos of the office.

College football fans have long gone through the same exercise to select who they think is deserving of a Top 25 ranking. Sports fans in general are used to selecting their dream teams through fantasy sports. Who's to say politicos won't enjoy the same type of game.

C'mon, tell me you wouldn't drool over drafting a Colin Powell, Al Gore, Janet Napolitano, Tim Kaine, Warren Buffett starting lineup. Unstoppable.

Covering an Historic Election

I'm recovering from what can only be described as a post-election hangover. This being the first presidential election I've covered in earnest (I had the much-dreaded man-on-the-street assignment in 2004), I was very excited to learn that I'd be appearing on St. Louis' PBS station, KETC, to talk about my reporting on youth voter turnout.

Throughout the day I checked in with the St. Louis City Board of Elections to see if the projected record turnout was coming to fruition (The jury's still out). I did do some interviewing of voters at the polls, including a trip to Washington University, where the Obama t-shirts and buttons outnumbered McCain apparel about 15-1.

The TV interview went well -- I'm far from an experienced pundit but I got my points across, even if I only got to use two of the many stats I'd memorized. Three minutes on TV goes really fast. My segment was part of an hourlong local broadcast of the election. There were no beamed-in reporters or magic touch screen monitors, but the program was well-conceived and executed.

I spent the rest of the evening at a party for a Republican Missouri state senator who was running for attorney general. It was a surreal scene. Fox News was on every TV set, and the crowd's mood soured little by little as it became apparent that Barack Obama was going to take the big prize.

Finally, at around 10:45, the state senator concedeed, and the place cleared out real quickly. I drove home equally as quickly, rewound the DVR to MSNBC and relived the later part of the evening. History was being made, and I didn't want my lasting memory to be from a party that resembled a funeral.

It's hard to fully appreciate the magnitude of the story I was able to cover this Election Day. Years from now, when I share the story with my children, maybe then it will hit me.

P.S. - Yes, I realize my hair looks kinda ridiculous in this photo. Too much hair gel + closeup profile shot = oh boy.

Waiting to Exhale

That collective sigh you're hearing on TV is coming from the pundits, anchors and reporters who are nearing the end of Campaign 07-08 (think it's really just been a one-year process?). The collective mood you're sensing from reading political blogs and last-minute MSM election coverage is one of, say, exausted elation.

Speaking of exausted... having covered pretty much every angle of the presidential race, journalists are down to talking about how they're ready for it all to be over. Understandable. Months and months on a bus with campaign aides will do that to you.

Funny thing, though, is they are probably the only ones in the industry who feel that way. It goes without saying that readership and ratings are way up when political races steal the headlines. News editors love it. And TV ad managers will be crying once political spots go off the air -- they've been propping up a struggling industry for months.

Programming note: I'll be blogging for the St. Louis Beacon all day tomorrow, and making a brief appearance on KETC, the St. Louis PBS station to talk about youth voting, which I wrote about for the Web site recently. More on covering the Big Day later in the week...

From Punditry to Comedy

Really?

D.L. Hughley as political satirist? Looks like someone at CNN has been enjoying his "Daily Show" lately. The cable news channel has tapped the R-rated comedian to host a primetime weekend show where he'll do some stand up, talk to some newsies and perform some sketch comedy.

CNN told the NY Times that it"is not trying to re-create" Jon Stewart's emmy-winning program, but expects the show to more closely resemble "The Tonight Show." What that says about the state of cable news is the subject of another post. Let's just got with it for now...it has me thinking, what could other TV stations do to match CNN?

Fox News' Deadpan Hour with Ben Stein: The comedian spends 55 minutes explaining the economy and the creation of the universe using silly putty; finishes the show with a roll call....Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

MSNBC's Larry David Variety Show: The "Curb" creator and "Seinfeld" mastermind vents about the state of politics. "What's with the lapel pin? Why is Barack Obama expected to smile during the debates when the camera's not on him? I'd be picking my nose."

C-SPAN's...uhhh, uhhh....

The 9-to-5-ization of Journalism

Among my favorite newsroom cliches is this one: "I didn't get into this field to work a 9-to-5." Translation: The money ain't that good, so I don't want a desk job and sure as hell won't wear a tie." Nothing's changed on the latter front (though anecdotal evidence says journalists are dressing better these days ... who knows when you'll be on cable news). But with the growing popularity of blogging, reporters are becoming accustomed to a more traditional work schedule -- or maybe they're now working both days and nights.

Used to be the reporter's day really heated up (deadline standard time -- another of those cliches) only when the rest of the country was clocking out. No longer. Journalists are being asked to feed their blogs throughout the day to keep the working folk up to date. It's not uncommon for reporters to file a roundup of links before 9 a.m. The way editors see it, the news has to be there when the reader wants it most -- when they get into work and during their lunch break.

As my friend who works at ESPN.com jokes, his job performance is measured by how much productivity decreases at offices across the country. He's transitioned from a schedule where he'd most often be working from 4-11 to one where he's on from 8 till dark.

There are, of course, still the night editors, weekend anchors and all-hours producers to keep the field from getting too much in lock step. But the growth seems to be in 9-to-5 content providers (ughh, speaking of ugly phrases.)

The common complaint is that the constant updates are just extending the work day. But for those who are actually clocking out around 5, this marks a new day for journalists -- they can actually see their kids.

Cover The Vote

Media commentary is so often called media criticism for good reason. There's much to lament in journalism these days. But good coverage shouldn't go unnoticed. And so I say heckuva job to the reporters who've been drawing attention to a range of voting issues that have arisen this fall. There might not be a more important story right now -- and the media have been on top of it.

Publications have dutifully covered accusations of wrongdoing at ACORN and produced timely think pieces -- see Slate's look at the danger of believing in vote fraud. What's heartening, as well, is that the tone of news coverage about long lines for early voting hasn't been overly cheerleaderish -- wow, record turnout! -- but has been somewhat sober. There's plenty of warrented concern about polling places being unprepared on Election Day -- a story that's had legs thus far.

One could argue that the media were caught flat-flooted after the 2000 election debacle, but have learned from their mistakes. As record voter turnout is expected in 2008, reporters, at least, are prepared this time around.

Bull On Parade

Much as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann found his editorial voice attacking right-leaning politicians and their policies, CNN anchor Campbell Brown is making her name calling out campaign leaders and other newsmakers whose comments sound fishy.

Brown isn't relying on hyper-partisan rhetoric. In fact, she's making a painstaking effort to claim neutrality as her network seeks to find a middle ground between MSNBC and Fox News. Her YouTubular-rant directed at Sarah Palin's handlers for shielding her from the media? More of a show of solidarity with spurned reporters than anything else.

In Brown's "Cutting Through the Bull" segment that points out overstatements and debunks campaign ads, it's a Democratic tit for a Republican tat. It's setting the record straight on John McCain's role in the savings and loan scandal and explaining Barack Obama's relationship with violent antiwar protester William Ayers.

Brown's show is fairing well in CNN's 8 p.m. slot. According to The New York Times, the program drew an average of 826,000 viewers a night from March 10 through Sept. 28.

There's nothing wrong with a little fact checking on cable news. Pointing out absurdity has become a nightly ritual on The Daily Show. But Brown and CNN reporters don't use Jon Stewart's brand of satire -- or any humor for that matter. And therein lies the potential problem.

By rehashing the smear campaign of the day in such a serious setting, CNN runs the risk of perpetuating falsehoods. As The Washington Post reported last year:

"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths."

It's not as if Brown invented the "fact checker" feature (newspapers have long run such columns around election season) or broke new ground by responding to puzzling sound bites. It's just that by adopting the "no bull" theme for her show, she is promising evenhanded public interest journalism in a format that rewards partisanship and quick-hitting reports.

Only time will tell if Brown's show has enough meat.

Debate Wrap

Spent most of VP debate night watching live tapings of "Hardball" (got a brief cameo on TV and the fiancee almost got interviewed by Chris Matthews), and blogging for the St. Louis Beacon on student reaction to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

As I had predicted, the event ended up being more theater than news. It was odd hearing pundits more or less agree that the night was a push. No major flubs for Palin; a solid performance from Biden. C'mon, media elites, can't we find anyone to take a contrarian point of view?

Moderator Gwen Ifill put to rest any concern about her ability to be a fair referee -- 90 percent of undecided voters polled at the Washington U. law school said they thought Ifill was evenhanded in her questioning. That same group, for the record, found Palin to be likeable but not substantive. Biden got generally high marks.

It was noteworthy, too, that MSNBC was the only station to have a real presence on campus (or at least the part of campus where those without press passes could wander.) Hardball had several tapings from the quad; CNN and FOX were nowhere to be found. That's curious, given the build up to this debate.

In fact, I saw more of Matthews and John Oliver from The Daily Show than reporters from the major networks and newspapers combined. Guess that's a matter of those programs playing to their base.

Big Pundits on Campus: 24 hours til Palin v. Biden

Took a stroll through the Wash U campus on a nice fall Wednesday. The media frenzy hadn't yet begun but it was Super Tuesday for the tech guys, truck drivers and producers. I'll have plenty to say tomorrow night about the big show, but for now I'll let the pictures tell the story.


Setting up the MSNBC set, a.k.a. making sure Chris Matthews looks pretty.

If this doesn't get you pumped about the campaign season
I don't know what will.

Now we're talking. The best political love bus on television.

In case you're wondering, the Kappa Sig bros support Obama...

... While the Theta Chi boys are in the tank for McCain

Mmmm. Will the media feast on Palin? Ba da bing.

Division III football players dream of having this kind of
media attention.

Tough choice: Debate watching party or arcade night with
the cute pink dude.

Going green. Something both parties can agree on.

Countdown to Veep Debate -- 3 Questions in Media Coverage

Less than 60 hours 'til debate time. Is it just me or does it feel like there's more buzz about Biden v. Palin than Obama vs. McCain? Wash. U. is starting to resemble a county fair with all the tents and fences and signs. But still no sign of media types.

Before reporters go live from campus, here are three questions about how the press will influence the debate and shape the storylines afterward.

1. How many times will Sarah Palin aides, pundits and anchors utter the phrase "exceeded expectations?" If I was creating a drinking game for Thursday night, it would go something like this: Take a shot for every reference to the GOP veep candidate doing better than predicted. With conservatives saying that Palin is simply out of her league in this election, and YouTube junkies expecting no dearth of must-see Palinisms posted by Friday morning, is it possible that Joe Biden's in a no-win situation?

We've seen this act before. Many television pundits declared that Palin had exceeded expectations in her Republican Convention address. Don't expect the analysis to be much different unless Palin follows Tina Fey's lead and actually does ask to phone a friend.

2. Will moderator Gwen Ifill channel Jim Lehrer and push for candidate interaction? After all, that is the point of a debate, right? After McCain and Obama spent the first 10 minutes fixated on the camera, Lehrer did just about everything possible to get them to look at and talk to each other. They loosened up eventually, with an assist to the PBS anchorman.

Ifill might have a tough task getting Palin and Joe Biden to engage in a true back-and-forth, given that Biden can't really prepare for combat without knowing what Palin thinks about the issues, and that Palin is a rookie debater. But if viewers are to get a real sense of Palin's thought process (and not just canned answers courtesty of top aides), it will be Ifill's prodding that likely produces such impromptu moments.

3. Can reporters keep the debate in context? I'm hopeful. On live TV, it's almost guaranteed that this will be viewed as a momentum-seizing night for the GOP or a major flop for the Dems. Print's often a different story -- and beat writers and bloggers have seen enough of these things to put it all in perspective. In all likelihood, we'll hear some about Palin's ideals and Biden's relaxing Amtrak rides. But this will be more theater than anything else.

Circus Week in St. Louis

The show's coming to town. The media trucks are rolling in, campaign buses not far behind. It's the Wolf Blitzer blitz, Anderson Cooper live from the Arch! Joe Biden's coming -- get your digital recorders ready. Oh, and I heard there's another veep candidate who people are kind of curious to hear.

Yep, it's vice presidential debate week in St. Louis. The big event is Thursday evening at Washington University -- about seven blocks from where I live. Check back for regular updates about the media scene and what it's like to cover those covering the debate.

It's a Vertical World

I can remember the sarcastic comments from some journalism buddies in Washington when word starting spreading about a start-up political publication. Wow, political news! Focusing on the Beltway! What a novel idea!

The market's too crowded, we agreed. Even if top dawgs at the Washington Post were coming to start this venture, how would this Web site plan on beating the Post at its own game?

Two years later, the joke's on us. Politico is a powerhouse of political journalism, shining brightly with strong traditional reporting and insightful blogging. During the political conventions last month, its editors helped set the news media's agenda.

What's to learn from Politico's success story? Web journalism is thriving? It's an election year; timing is everything? People really do care about political minutae? Sure. But that's not seeing the bigger picture.

Politico is an example of what's called a vertical publication. One subject. A targeted audience. In other words, a news organization that's not trying to be everything to everyone. And that might just be the future of journalism.

At newspapers and magazines across the country, resources are spread thin. Institutional knowledge is leaving the newsroom with every buyout or layoff. In-depth reporting suffers. But at vertical publications -- mostly Web sites these days -- reporters have well-defined jobs. Editors can focus on their favorite kind of copy. It's perfectly acceptable for a site to post 20 articles in a day. It's fine to post five stories. There's no convention.

Staffs can be lean. Advertisers know what kind of readers they're reaching. Experts in the field can engage with each other on message boards and write op-eds.

There's certainly still room for smart journalism at jack-of-all-trades publications. But as the media come to grips with an increasingly fragmented audience, it makes sense for journalists who are passionate about a topic to coalesce. Of course, there have long been niche publications on everything from gardening to fantasy sports. But many haven't moved online in earnest -- and they certainly haven't embraced interaction with readers.

Vertical start-ups have done well covering higher education, health, sports. There's room for so much more.

Put Up and Read Up

First came “crowdsourcing,” the fancy term for journalists tapping the collective knowledge of their sources (typically through the Internet) to find news tips and expand their networks.

Now a similar word is entering the media lexicon: “crowdfunding.” The idea is simple. People who are interested in reading an article about a certain topic collectively raise money to pay a reporter to investigate.

The model, also called “community funded journalism,” is being tested by a 26-year-old former technology reporter who has received financial backing (a two-year, $340,000 grant) from the Knight Foundation.

David Cohn, project director of the nonprofit Spot Us, spoke with This Media Moment last week about the state of journalism…

"I don't even have to explain this to people outside the media world any more: Everyone knows that newspapers are falling apart in terms of a business model. The newspaper can fall apart. I don’t care as long as journalism doesn’t. Newspapers play an important role in local communities – that of a watchdog. Traditionally investigative journalism was bundled in newspapers, but now with the Internet and the economic crumbling we’re seeing the unbundling of journalism. Audiences who are passionate about investigative journalism won’t necessarily see it in their newspapers, but they still need a place to go."

… and about his endeavor.

“The idea is to make journalism more participatory. This gives a new sense of editorial power to the public. Imagine if you went to a restaurant and a waiter said, ‘Here’s what you’re going to order.’ Essentially that’s what the media have done. The public should be able to create its own freelance budget. That’s what we give people a chance to do.”

Below are some other highlights from our conversation – plus a little narration from yours truly. I recognize that I’m going old media on you all by posting part I of this interview above part II, but, hey, isn’t the point of blogging in the first place to defy conventions?

Put Up and Read Up (Part II)

Here’s the rest of my interview with Spot Us director David Cohn:

This Media Moment: Tell me about your journalism career thus far.

David Cohn: My entire career has been online. I wrote for Wired.com, Seed Magazine, and was a technology and science freelance writer. I interned at the Columbia Journalism Review and worked for (NYU journalism professor and media blogger) Jay Rosen.

Cohn went from being a tech reporter to a tech consultant to news organizations. He explained to editors the idea of citizen journalism and how to implement projects focused on reader-reporter interaction.

While researching crowdfunding for a chapter in a book being written by a Wired Magazine editor, Cohn decided to pitch the idea to news organizations. Why not adopt a platform where readers could suggest topics and help fund the journalism?

Editors didn’t bite. But Knight did.

TMM: So you get this grant and put up a Web site. What’s on there now?

DC: Right now the site is under development. I decided against a “ta-da” moment. I wanted to reveal what I’m doing as quickly as possible. You can see some of the article pitches on the wiki, and between that and the blog, that’s what I’ve been working on.

TMM: Explain what’s on the wiki.

DC: There are two things right now: Pitches from reporters (ranging in topic from recycling to future of policing) and article ideas that were suggested by members of the community. That’s the way it’s going to work – writers will come up with their ideas and pitch them, and the community will also have tips.

TMM: Let’s go through the details of how this is going to work once the site is fully functional. From your Web site…

Step 1: An individual or journalist creates a pitch that outlines an untold story in a local community.

TMM: Which stories move forward and which ones don’t?

DC: I don’t decide, because I don’t want to define what is and isn’t good journalism. In the end what Spot Us is is a marketplace where independent journalists, news organizations and community groups meet and work together. Money has normally been left out of the equation, because it’s assumed the articles are paid for by the news organizations. But that’s increasingly not going to be the case.

Step 2: Members of your community vote, with their money, on what stories are most important to them.

DC: I’d argue that if 50 people come together, agree a topic should be covered and reach for their wallets, news organizations should respond. If we don’t, we deserve everything that’s happened to us as an industry.

Step 3: A journalist researches the facts and puts together an article. Editors provide check-and-balance on the story.

TMM: What’s the journalist’s obligation once he’s pitched the idea and set a price?

DC: If this is a marketplace, the pitch is a contract. The reporter is saying, ‘Here’s what I’ll do and for how much.’ That’s half the contract. Then it goes to the public. Say only $500 is raised for a $1,000 story. The journalist doesn’t have to do anything unless full funding is reached.

TMM: What are you looking for in journalists? Do you have to be a freelancer?

DC: You can be working for a news organization, but anything for Spot Us has to be as a contractor for us. I’m not writing checks to news organizations.

In fact, 90 percent of the money raised by the community goes to the reporter, while 10 percent goes to what Cohn calls a “quality assurance editor,” who is selected by Cohn based on that person's area of expertise. The editor does fact checking to insure balanced reporting, Cohn said.

TMM: What’s an average project going to cost?

DC: I’m expecting in the range of $1,000-$2,000. It’s supposed to be an investigation -- longer-form journalism, not day-one stories. Even if the writer asks for $250, it probably won’t be raised that day.

Readers already raised the $2,500 needed for a project that aims to fact check political ads in local S.F. elections. More than 70 individuals sponsored the project, with some donating as much as $150 and some as little as $2.

Spot Us doesn't allow any one donor to give more than 20 percent of the cost of the story. That's one way Cohn said he addresses the concern that crowdfunding is just journalism being bought by the highest bidder.

DC: A reporter is being commissioned by the public and isn't beholden to one person. Names of the donors are there for people to see. I want to ensure that no more than 20 percent of money for an article comes from anonymous donors. One of my guiding philosophies is that journalism should be a participatory process. I don’t want people to donate money in sort of a hidden way and disappear. The appearance of a scandal is as bad as a scandal itself.

TMM: But what's going to stop a group with a clear political agenda from rounding up its members, pitching a story and collectively paying for it? Are you concerned about the system being abused?

DC: My snide response is there’s no such thing as clean money. The more reasonable response is that there are lots of steps that have to be taken for the system to be abused. First, the political group in the example you use has to be well organized. Then it has to find a reporter who’s willing to put his professional reputation on the line. Group members need to hope a quality assurance editor doesn’t raise a red flag. The idea is that with checks and balances there won’t be any crappy stories.

Even if all this happens, and it gets published on our site, the only people who are going to read it are members of the political group who paid the money.

TMM: But won’t the article be prominently displayed on your site?

DC: I’m not going to be highlighting the content produced. It’s not like a blog or a news site. You can read the stories, but it’s not a news destination. The goal is to get other news destinations to re-publish it.

Step 4: Spot Us publishes the story in its news feed and works with local media outlets to have articles published more widely.

DC: There are three ways a news organization can use the content:

1. We’ll give publications the story once it’s already been published on our site and totally community funded.
2. If editors at a publication find out about an article that’s about to be published and is 100 percent community funded, they can buy it in its entirety, pay the journalist and refund community members 100 percent.
3. If there’s been a public pitch and only 25 percent of the money has been raised, a news organization can put down 50 percent of the price and have temporary exclusive rights to it. That option is there until the story is 51 percent community funded – at that point there’s no exclusivity. So a publication’s buy-in has to be either 50 percent or 100 percent.

TMM: You’re being very up front about what articles are being researched. Is there a concern that between the time money is being raised and the article is finalized that other reporters will pick story idea?

DC: My gut reaction is that [the reporter] will look like a jerk. The real answer is that it makes much more sense for the publication to work with me than against me. Rather than use a reporter, who is a precious resource, the news organization can either have the story for free or buy it early on. Otherwise they’ll be chasing every pitch – and I guarantee we have more freelancers than they have reporters on staff.

TMM: Is the plan to make this a national site?

DCC: This is in the Bay Area only now, and if it ends up being only a San Francisco site I’m totally fine with that. But I’d love it if this grows into a national project -- though it’s always going to be local journalism. If this works here, there’s no reason why we can’t take it to another city. If this idea expands and it’s not on my site, I’m fine with that, too.

An Early Education in Newspaper Woes

If you think about it, student newspapers and metropolitan dailies have quite a lot in common these days. Staff turnover is high. Management changes every few years. Pay is low. Gossip is commonplace.

And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been following the plight of newspapers that campus publications are also taking a financial hit.

The Daily Californian, UC-Berkeley's independent student newspaper, is cutting back a day of publication -- skipping the Wednesday print edition and directing readers to its online version. The paper sites, drumroll please, "a national epidemic of reductions in print ad revenue."

Salaried positions at the newspaper already have taken a 10 percent cut.

Meanwhile, at Syracuse University, The Daily Orange is no longer publishing a print edition of its newspaper on Fridays. New content will still appear on the Web that day.

Facebook, a.k.a. Sourcebook

True story: I joined Facebook strictly for work purposes.

As a higher education reporter constantly searching for student quotes, I needed Facebook in a bad way. Simply put, young people generally don't have land lines. Colleges list students' addresses and room numbers, but again, that's not much help nowadays. (And you can forget about getting any info from schools about high school students.)

Some Facebook searches are so easy that a reporter almost feels guilty. Like when you're doing a story about students who are against college x bringing speaker y to campus, and you find a group called "Students against college x bringing speaker y to campus."

More often, finding good sources through Facebook is like finding good sources via other methods -- it requires putting to use the shotgun method. Put out a bunch of e-mails and see what comes back. (It takes a few tries to learn the art of crafting the initial message to a student explaining that, no, you're not a creepy stranger or Internet spammer.)

And with social networking sites, you can make more informed decisions about who you contact: You can search by major, year in school, political affiliation, etc.

Journalists are increasingly seeing social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace as treasure chests of sources. Beatblogging.org, a collaborative effort by a dozen news organizations and NewAssignment.Net to think about how journalists can use social networks to improve beat reporting, had a recent post about the importance of using Facebook.

The blog's author makes several important points. He writes:

In [one reporter's] current newsroom, it's a bit unclear how editors feel about using social networks in the reporting process. At his old paper, a lot of his coworkers used social networks to help improve their reporting, but social networking is a new frontier for newspapers. Most papers are still forming policies about appropriate use of social networks for work proposes.

"We still have this situation where all the top editors are the old people," he said. "And they just haven't fully embraced how online can help our jobs."

He tries to stress to his editors that he uses Facebook as a starting point. He uses it as a way to contact students via e-mail, the phone or in person. He does not quote people's profiles.

It's hard for young journalists to believe, but there are still editors and reporters who are skeptical of anything found on a social networking site. That's why, as the blog post says, it's important that reporters make clear that they will take the conversation off Facebook as soon as possible.

That's not to say you can't have a few e-mail exchanges to warm up a source, but, as it always has been, a phone conversation is best. At the very least, a reporter should get Facebook sources to respond through another e-mail account as a way of verifying their identity.

The Sexy, Cool, Funny Political News

To find what's above, look where you might not think to during this convention/general election season: alt weeklies. By their nature, they aren't obliged to follow the traditional storylines that are driven now more than ever by cable TV and politics-only blogs. So what you get are some pretty creative ways of covering the news.

Sample this week's offerings, for instance. The Denver Westword has a piece on where prostitutes were during the DNC. City Pages, the Minneapolis alt weekly, set out in true Daily Show fashion to find what it calls the "Republicaniest Republican of them all."

Village Voice Media, the parent company, has been promoting the heck out of these two convention host city weeklies with a "Convention Coverage 2008" box that appears in some of its publications.

Learning From "Learning From YouTube"

As mentioned in a previous post, I spoke about a year ago to a Pitzer College media studies professor who was teaching for the first time a course called “Learning From YouTube.” During that interview, Alex Juhasz explained the concept of a class "on, in, and about YouTube," as she put it.

Students would take a close look at how the video-sharing site serves different audiences, including college students in an academic setting. They’d post every assignment online and speak to each other (and outside observers) primarily through student-generated videos uploaded to YouTube. As another wrinkle, class sessions would also appear on the site for all to see.

So began the most transparent course in American higher education history.

I caught up with Juhasz again last week as she prepared to start another academic year. We spoke about what lessons she and students learned about YouTube, how the media covered the course, and how it ended up taking on a 'Truman Show'-esque quality.

Here’s an abbreviated version of our conversation. (TMM= This Media Moment;
AJ= Alex Juhasz)

TMM: You posted a series of video blogs on the course Web site, and in your final video you called the course a “wild experiment in education.” Are you satisfied with the experiment?

AJ: I’m more than satisfied. It gave me a lot of critical insight into how YouTube works. I’ve written a lot academically about YouTube, but I never would have gained the same insight had I not engaged in the experiment. The interactions with 30 young people were critical. I don’t need to do the experiment again in exactly the same way, because I learned quickly and efficiently what YouTube doesn’t do and why.

TMM: When we last talked you said that you were "underwhelmed" and "unsatisfied" by much of the content on YouTube. Then there’s this passage about class discussions from your blog:

"We've also deduced that there are two YouTubes: the mainstream one made and maintained by Google and millions of users out to waste some time, and the innumerable experiments in form, content, behavior, and community that fall outside the logic of entertainment, advertisements, popular culture, hits, numbers, and favorites. See one and the other becomes less visible; ask a question of the other and learn little of use to understand the first. Our class falls into the second category: unseen by most, unattended to by the site's architecture and poorly supported, barely getting by but learning nevertheless."

It seems like your critique of the site and its ability to serve your class didn't change much from start to finish?

AJ: Our critique of the site stayed the same. I’d have to say it sounds banal, but it’s important to emphasize that corporate ownership of the site produces certain structures; it has a logic of its own. There’s nothing wrong with corporate logic. That logic is organized around making you want to waste time by moving from video to video in a form of distraction that gets viewers to ads. My criticism isn’t that it’s corporate – God bless them that they figured out a way to make money.

But it’s not a structure that produces other things humans might want. I’m a college professor. I’m interested in looking at things carefully, linking and working collaboratively. [The people behind YouTube] don’t want it to be a place of community. They want you to stay distracted as an individual watching a lot of videos.

TMM: Did the students feel the same way?

AJ: They came in as boosters of the site and didn’t leave as boosters. They still generally like YouTube, have fun on it and think it’s exciting. But when the guy who runs the politics page at YouTube came to speak to us, students were very critical of the way that page limits interactions -- one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0.

Put it this way: Everyone can put a video on YouTube, but if only three people see a video it won’t ever move up. It’s democratic in that people can get on it, but it’s not democratic in the ability for people to move equally within the site.

TMM: The course received quite a bit of media attention. Among other appearances, you went on Fox News and CNN. The television headlines ranged from “You Kidding: Class focuses on YouTube” to “YouTube 101: Educational Wave of the Future?” – and both of those titles appeared on FOX during the same interview. A local NBC affiliate referred to “that laughter of a class.”

So I was a bit surprised to see on your blog this post:

"I've been able to do nothing else all day but worry about how I represent myself, my ideas, my course through a mainstream media which does not usually talk my language or acknowledge my concerns, given their erudite nature and political leanings (see my blog!). But reporters have been polite and inteligent, I'm an expert after all, a PhD; as have I. Why?"

I'm curious to hear more.

AJ: The reality was that I was treated well by everyone in the media. They are smart people, and they understand that people want to think about new technology. I think they were enjoying talking to me, as I was relatively capable of saying what issues were on the table.

The radio talk shows were generally serious. Most stations screened it as a joke. That was their entry in. It’s easy to joke about it, to say kids are watching car crashes and kittens, but anyone who spends any time on YouTube knows there’s a lot more going on than that. Again, everyone was respectful and serious, but most could only frame the course as a joke.

One of the problems is that video blogging and consumer-produced culture is still considered a joke. But we ignore YouTube and user-produced content at our own risk.

TMM: How did it go with students’ work and comments in class being out there for everyone to see?

AJ: It didn’t go very well. Students didn’t like the course being that public, and being judged by the YouTube community. It points to the poor standards of cultural interaction on that space – and to the differences in social norms. You aren’t allowed to make fun of people in the classroom, but on YouTube you can say what you want.

Most people who came to watch the class were interested in the experiment, but we had our problems and students felt attacked. People were putting response videos on the site just to get hits and to get their cause mentioned on TV. At one point we stopped allowing others to add video.

TMM: How did the cameras affect you?

AJ: It got easier as the semester went on, but it does limit your freedom of expression. And maybe that’s good. There’s a lot of self-censoring that occurs. I was self-conscious that colleagues were watching and saying, “she totally missed that.” I probably didn’t teach as well because I thought I was being judged all the time.

TMM: So are you teaching this course again?

AJ: Yes, this fall, though there are some changes. We likely won’t be taping all the lectures. Students will still do assignments as before on video, but we’ll be reading real books on Internet studies and media culture instead of mostly limiting interactions to YouTube. It’s important for them to see the limitations of the site, and to value long-form content.

The best way to learn is to see what you can’t do in three minutes.

The New Rules on Corrections

At a time when journalism conventions are changing rapidly, and print publications are cutting staff and reducing page sizes, at least one tradition remains: the correction box typically posted on the bottom of page 2.

It has long been the place to find out about yesterday's mistakes, and to feel vindicated after alerting an editor that your aunt Beth's last name was spelled wrong. There's a pretty simple rule about when to run a print correction: If there's a confirmed factual error, set it straight. If the word "too" appeared when the sentence called for "to," well, then, let your English teachers foam at the mouth, confront your copy editor by the snack machine...and move on.

Some of the same rules apply to online news sites, which have the luxury of making instantaneous changes. You won't find editors alerting readers of punctuation errors, and you'd like to think that major factual errors would get the ol' "Editor's note: This passage has been changed from its original version" treatment.

But there's undoubtedly a larger gray area for when to correct online mistakes. What if it's 7:15 a.m. and a reporter notices he attributed a quote to the wrong source. He calls the editor, who makes the change. Do you run a correction with the story, even if it attracts attention to an error that few people ever saw?

Then there's the question of whether readers even know where to find these online versions of correction boxes. It's been noted that a large percentage of daily newspaper Web sites don't have such a link on their home page -- if at all.

Still, some of the most popular sites do due diligence on this front. The New York Times puts its correction link on the left bar of its home page, in between the classifieds and crosswords links. (Not a far cry from a virtual page 2 treatment.) The L.A. Times gives corrections a similar treatment. MSNBC also gives prominent play to its correction link, as does Salon.com.

What's missing, though, is consistency and transparency. News sites would do well by readers to include a corrections link on the home page. This link should take readers to a page that has a real-time list of corrections made (however small). That way, even if the editor in my 7:15 scenario above decides not to draw attention to the error by noting the correction in the story, a curious reader could still find out what a previous version of the story said.

Editor's Note: I accidentally published this post the first time without making sure it was the final version. As a wise man once wrote: D'oh!

Increased Viewership In Sight

Interesting news today that the Oscar-nominated documentary "No End in Sight," about the early stages of the Iraq War, will be screened on YouTube starting in September and running through the November election.

Filmmaker Charles Ferguson is quoted as saying that he wants to make the film "accessible to a larger group of people." Makes you wonder what would have happened had YouTube been around for Michael Moore to screen "Fahrenheit 9/11" before the 2004 election.

Should J-Schools Teach Blogging?

By any measure, it's been a trying few years for journalism and j-schools. No need to rehash the past, but it's worth talking about pedagogy of the future. Namely, blogging. It's already here in a big way at national publications -- just count the number of reporters churning out bite-sized news nuggets for their blogs about the Democratic National Convention this week.

And, in my estimation, it's not long until every beat reporter at a major daily/Web pub/radio station/local TV station is required to post news/analysis several times a day. In some cases it might help them do their jobs better by pushing sources for constant information, and by forcing them to figure out in real-time what news is most important. It might also be considered a hindrance -- how does one flesh out a multi-source feature article on deadline while also feeding a blog?

With beat blogging becoming a fixture, what's a j-school to do? Blogging has been worked into the curriculum for years, but it's yet to become a mainstay. Should it be taught as part of newswriting courses? Should there even be a separate course?

I'd break down the issue into two questions:

1. Should j-schools teach students how to quickly process information, write and edit? Yes, yes and yes. At the summer journalism program where I teach, an exercise called "rotating rewrites" calls upon students to take a series of facts and work them into a one-sentence news lead. Students are asked to write and rewrite that lead until we the instructors think they have it right. To some extent, this skill has long been taught in classes -- in the past it meant being able to file one article for an evening deadline; now it means filing clean, informative copy several times a day.

2. Should the schools teach students how to be pithy, write in short form and interact with readers? Ok, I'm unfailry lumping all blogs together, but you get the point. Journalists develop their own blogging style. Editors have different expectations. Teaching the "art of blogging" is futile, given that the industry standards are rapidly changing along with the technology. Assign students to practice blogging on their own time. Teach them how to write punchy leads and headlines. By all means teach editorial writing (not that all blogs are opinion-laden.) Just don't get bogged down with making blogging a part of every class assignment. Much like time management itself, it's a skill best learned on the job.

My former colleague at Inside Higher Ed wrote recently about j-schools trying to stay fresh by adding courses that emphasize reporting across media platforms. More power to them. Still, many readers posted comments below the article saying, in one way or another, "don't forget about teaching core journalism skills."

My addendum: Yes, but stress speed and accuracy.

Playing Right Along?

Two of the most provocative media pieces to come out this month both relate broadly to the theme of journalists craving news to break and politicians going out of their way to pass it along to audiences themselves.

David Carr's NY Times story focuses on Barack Obama's press strategy of speaking directly to Democratic voters through text messages and notes on the campaign Web site, rather than through leaks to the media. Saturday's 3 a.m. text about Joe Biden as VP is just the latest example.

From many accounts, despite the Obama camp's up-front announcement that it would alert folks through texting, reporters still were in a frenzy to break the news themselves. This included frantically calling campaign sources to get a revised "short list," and checking cell phones every five minutes for updates.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with some good-old-fashioned hustle, but why all the effort on this story? Picture Obama standing on a desk, tossing a paper airplane to John Q Public with the words "Biden's My Man" written on the wings. Then tilt down to see a swarm of wee reporters jumping as high as they can to grab the darn thing out of the air... na na na na na, you can't get it!

The press is getting played, and for what? So that a news organization can claim that it saw the text first at 2:45 a.m. and post the news on its Web site -- which who, exactly is reading at that hour? -- five minutes before a competitor has it up. The stories about speculation make for good office fodder, sure. But what's the value to readers/listeners?

Slate columnist Jack Shafer points out the absurdity of the great veepstakes information chase. "If Obama is guilty of gaming the press to sustain interest in his campaign, his partner in crime is John McCain, who as early as May 21 was auditioning potential vice presidents and continues the tease this week," he writes.

It's best to view this episode as a teachable moment. Instead of getting caught up in the fracas, why not report on the story for what it is -- a game of information keep-away. Do as Carr and Shafer did and write about the implications of politicians speaking directly to their constituents, and what role the media has in setting the agenda.

That way, readers can only complain about getting woken up by an early morning message -- and not about the press latching onto any speculation about a horse race that isn't even the main event.

Media Articles

I'm already breaking my promise to be outward-focused in this space, but before I get to commentary and whatnot I want to link to a few media-related articles I've done recently.

One of my favorites is about how the news media cover campus violence. Less than a year after the Virginia Tech shootings, reporters planted themselves on Northern Illinois University's campus in suburban Chicago. While coverage of this shooting rampage wasn't as all-encompassing as the reportage from Blacksburg, Va., (morning show anchors didn't show up in DeKalb, for one), the NIU shootings did receive quite a bit more coverage nationally than did a campus attack earlier in the week at Louisiana Technical College’s Baton Rouge campus. Journalism professors, media commentators and others sounded off on why certain violent outbursts tend to receive the lion's share of attention.

On a completely different subject, here's a piece I did about a new product that offers athletics departments help tracking what their players are writing on the two most popular social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace. This gets at the issue of whether athletes should be held to a different standard than students when it comes to projecting a positive image of a university. And, perhaps more to the point of this blog, it's an example of software that users say is invaluable but some argue is too invasive.

On yet another note, this is a feature story on a Pitzer College course called "Learning From YouTube." The interesting hook here is that the class not only focused on the Google-owned site, but the professor asked students to post all of their assignments on YouTube, and she taped the entire course and posted the videos for all to see.

Finally, here's a short story I did about a viral video that explains -- and demonstrates --Web 2.0.

The Lead

So, the last thing I want to do is make this a blog about me. I'm not a fan of the personal chronicle. And this won't be. Promise.

Having said that, and having already used the word "I" three times in the first 40 words, endulge me while I get some of the background info out of the way. My life in journalism consists of five plus years as a reporter for newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Web sites like Inside Higher Ed, two summers of teaching writing and editing at a summer journalism program, four years of studying journalism at Northwestern University, and several years of writing articles before that -- including putting together a family newsletter that would years later make for great college essay material.

I'm currently living in St. Louis and freelancing for the city's new online news site, the St. Louis Beacon. That's all I have to say on that front, but (self-promotion alert) my other site, http://www.eliapowers.com/, has links to other work that I've done.

My plan here is to link to interesting media commentary and news, write some of my own, and discuss the future -- and current state -- of journalism education. Why I am interested in all that? Well, as a reporter, my career is dependent on a thriving media industry. And I'd like to be a part of writing about trends, new ideas, old complaints, etc. Plus, I'm interested in continuing my teaching career.

With that, a word-for-word explanation of how I named this site. It's instructive in that it has lots to do with two of my favorite media shows.

"This": A nod to the ever-popular Chicago Public Radio slice-of-life radio program "This American Life." If I can be anything like a print version of Ira Glass, I'll have done my job.

"Media": I suppose this could be anything. But I'll go with my favorite media news show, WNYC's "On the Media." For non-listeners, it's an hour-long radio program that includes commentary and reporting about the media, broadly defined: journalism, advertising, technology, etc. Very informative for anyone in the biz.

"Moment": Notice I said "two of my favorite media shows." I won't lie, this third word just sounded right. But I'll make up another story. One of my favorite times of the year is March --and the NCAA basketball tournament. One of my favorite parts of March Madness is at the very end, when CBS plays a sappy (but still lovable) anthem called "One Shining Moment" that's recorded by Luther Vandross. Here's a version of the song set to video of my beloved Washington Huskies:

And there you have it.