Unhappy readers, all — reacting to a change that is unsettling to readers and journalists alike, according to Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. “These norms are shifting almost invisibly beneath the seat of journalists,” Mr. Rosenstiel said. “It is even harder for audiences ... to recognize the cues and the hand gestures that indicate whether a story is one kind of story or another.”
The trend has been decades in the making, but Mr. Rosenstiel believes the online medium is an accelerant in the process: “I think we are seeing the beginning ... of a new hybrid style of writing which is a blend of opinion and news.” | source : www.nytimes.com
Several studies have highlighted the fact that many young people feel overwhelmed by the deluge of information presented on news sites. (My two favorite pieces on this are both from the Media Management Center, found here and here here [pdf].)
This sentiment is understandable: On one day I counted, the New York Times’ homepage offered 28 stories across four columns above the scroll cutoff and another 95 below it — for a total of 123 stories, along with 66 navigation links on the lefthand bar. CNN.com also had 28 stories on top and 127 total, along with 15 navigation links. Imagine a newspaper with that many choices.
The point is that news sites need to be designed to help users manage and restrict the wealth of information, rather than presenting them with all of it at once. People can and are doing the work of “curation” on their own, of course, through iGoogle, Twitter, RSS, and social networks both online and off — but those efforts leave behind the vast majority of news outlets. | source : www.niemanlab.org
Perhaps it’s youthful naivete, but I’m fairly certain there are a few steps between reading the news on a mobile phone and the inability of a people to govern themselves. And this isn’t the first time a generation of young people has been accused of marching the world toward languid doom. The question that matters is this: What will replace the morning newspaper as the news habit of the first generation of Americans to grow up immersed in a digital culture? I recently finished a year of research and review in an attempt to find some answers to this question. | source : www.niemanlab.org
The Ushahidi Platform allows anyone to gather distributed data via SMS, email or web and visualize it on a map or timeline. Our goal is to create the simplest way of aggregating information from the public for use in crisis response. | source : www.ushahidi.com
"Would you trust a citizen brain surgeon?" This was a common refrain in 2005, as the news industry grappled with citizen journalism and the implications of a new technologically empowered public. But many of the most promising and worthy projects have vapourised. While the concept seems admirable, and experimentation valuable, it is invariably the finances that just don't work. So is there any viable commercial future?
The "citizen journalism" label has been largely unhelpful. The most exciting developments now might be news, but the content is often closer to community activism. Many are finally beginning to tap into the growing resources of community tech tools, from FixMyStreet.com to a wave of civic-minded apps, such as those developed by Social Innovation Camp. | source : www.guardian.co.uk
in my not-so-humble-opinion, The Huffington Post is not, per se, a news organization. Its content relies upon on a mixed bag of high profile bloggers, drawn from Arianna Huffington’s vast personal network; these individuals deliver thoughts of varying depth, ranging from fun stuff to leftovers quickly produced by an obscure assistant. The rest is an army of bloggers (thousands) whose only pay is the virtual currency of visibility. Under such circumstances, you get what you paid for. The Huffington Post is above all a very well staged aggregator with a razor-thin layer of editorial.
There is much worse than the HuffPo. And it is called Content Farms. I must confess that it showed up only recently on my personal radar screen. First thanks to one of the best columnists in the business: New York Times’ David Carr, a true hard-core journalist (see his complicated background here). In this remarkable piece, David explains his encounter with a Demand Media exec. | source : www.mondaynote.com
Demand Studios is the original content engine that, coupled with SEO technology, powered Demand Media’s sprawling internet presence to #17 on the comScore Media Metrix U.S. properties list in January. Explaining Demand’s existing guidelines, Kydd raised and dismissed the idea of sites full of user-gen content: freelancers are approved only after submitting a sample and resume (and not all are accepted); articles go through a copy editor, a plagiarism check and fact check. He isn’t looking for advisers to tell Demand how to be professional, but how to be better. “We know we need to do better.” | source : paidcontent.org
Demand Media just announced the formation of an advisory board; Staci Kramer has the details at PaidContent. I was invited to join but decided to decline. I’ve been saying a lot about Demand — sometimes disagreeing with the common and negative perception that it is a content farm, arguing that we should not miss the key insights and lessons in Demand’s model (first, finding new ways to listen to what readers and the market want and letting that be its assignments and second, cutting content creation into its constituent elements and creating a market for creation to find new efficiencies). | source : www.buzzmachine.com
WikiLeaks publishes its material on its own site, which is housed on a few dozen servers around the globe, including places like Sweden, Belgium and the United States that the organization considers friendly to journalists and document leakers, Mr. Schmitt said.
By being everywhere, yet in no exact place, WikiLeaks is, in effect, beyond the reach of any institution or government that hopes to silence it. | source : www.nytimes.com