Final Memo

I think that there are two projects that really excite me.  The first project is "Manual Focus."  I don't know anything about photography but I think this website seems to be meeting a real niche need for photographers and I'm surprised something like this doesn't already exist. I want to encourage her to develop an app, because I think it could turn into a kind of go-to app for those learning the skill.

The second website I want to express support for is the website about police brutality.  I think it has a lot of potential, and I think it is an important site to have up and running. Police brutality is a real problem in this country and around the world and I think there is desperate need for something like this to help expose and fight this problem. 

NPR bias

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) released a study that I recently read indicating serious issues with NPR's news coverage. I will go through some of their findings in this post.

The first thing that struck me, although it was not suprising, was the fact that Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). 

The second thing that hit me was that 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.

People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources.

Finally, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1

Now like I said, these things were not surprising, but knowing these are true after empirical studies is stunning.  One response may be that racial and gender issues are being covered by white male republicans that make up the bulk of NPR; NPR doesn't need black guests or hosts to cver black issues...

In class we were shown evidence that similar journalistic issues were present aroun environmentalism.  During the rare moments when the environment was discussed, it wasn't done by experts.

If this is the case, NPR is conceding that it is seriously dropping the ball in terms of getting experts on their shows.

It seems like common sense that if you are going to be talking about gender issues, you'll want women as a part of the discussion (though obviously there are male experts/scholars of gender issues).  In the same way, you'll want environmental science experts when you're talkng about environmental science issues.

In my view, this FAIR study shows one of two things.

Most likely, NPR is biased against these moe lefty issues, and that's why they aren't touched upon.

Or less likely, NPR is just poor quality in terms of getting expert, knwledged voices on the air.

Independent media startups

After reading this article I think I have a new perspective on prospective jobs and startups in independent media.

I want to run through a couple of hurdles and considerations that the article made me think about before I pitch an indy.

1. Competition. In a market, there's always going to be competitors that will be trying to do what you do but better. The article was essentially arguing that there are NO niches.  You're only hope is to do something nichey and do it better.

2. Simplicity. In the words of Thoreau: "simplicity, simplicity, simplicity."  The article says, "You can never be short and clear enough in your elevator pitch."  I take this to say that pitches are not only elevator pitches. Everytime a new or prospective audience member, viewer, listener hears about your project – that's an opportunity for a simple, concise speech. The website must be simple, clear, and concise, like an elevator pitch. Even if your niche or idea is complex, it has to be able to be conveyed in simple, bite-sized terms because of the plain fact that people's curiosity is ephemeral, and you may only have their attention piqued for a few seconds before they're gone forever and with it your hopes of popularity.

3. Marketing. If you're going to stay alive you need a crowd, and you need to crowdsource that crowd.  There are many ways to do this but it's critical to have a plan.  Without a marketing plan you're just sitting and wishing when competitors are chomping at the bit. 

Drudge - How does he do it?

How is it possible to maintain respect as a journalist when you self-admit that only 80 percent of what you report on is accurate? And other estimates are far lower. There is myriad media critique of Drudge, example. How does he get away with this? Why does his audience keep coming back.

 It's my view that if his major source of viewers wasn't coming from those looking for his aggregational services, he would be out of luck.  Most people visit his site because of his ability to collect breaking news, as quick as the quickest. Good lord it's marred by his reporting though. Scandal after scandal has discredited this man's work, and yet he stays afloat. I suppose it helps to be so well connected to those in the mainstream media. It's not uncommon for those journalists who could criticise Drudge end up sticking their necks out for him. Why? Power and influence. Even the independent media should be scared of criticising Drudge. For a small online periodical or blog to be linked by the Drudge Report could crash their servers. Such is the volume of traffic on Drudge's terribly designed website (another thing that baffles me as to why he's still in business.)

Solutions? Simple, forget about your journalistic goals and ambitions and be a journalist: speak truth to power. Sound unrealistic? My advice is to adopt the old anarchist saying, be realistic, demand the impossible.

Fowler and Clinton

Mayhill Fowler of Huffington Post released this article, and a scandal began. The story is summed up in the full audio. Tod Purdam from Vanity Fair released a "hackjob" of an article, which pained Clinton pretty poorly. In an effort to catch Clinton off-script, Fowler did two things, during the interview, that were journalistically touchy. She asked Clinton a question without identifying herself as a journalist (though she was apparently obviously holding a recording device). For context, she was in a rope line, a public place where Clinton was intended to shake hands, make short conversation etc.  Secondly, she asked him a very leading qustion, the intent must have been to elicit the exact kind of incriminating response that she got. The question was, "what did you think of that hackjob" referring to Purdam's article, which was highly critical of Clinton.

Her article explaining the one question interview was misleading. Take a look at the first paragraph of her article. It misrepresents the nature of the leading question.  She was acting questionably when she did two things unorthodoxically. Perhaps it would have been alright if she asked the leading question after identifying herself.  Perhaps she could have gotten away with remaining unidentified as a reporter, but asked a less leading question. Doing these two things at the same time was questionable. My opinion is that this article tries to make it seem like she caught Clinton off script, an insight into his real character. I don't think this is accurate. Clinton was very much on script. In a rope line, he is campaigning. Every comment, every handshake is intended on a vote. If one crazy in the line says something outlandish, he might not disagree simply for the sake of being personable.  This is essentially what happened with Fowler, she asked a leading question and it inevitably affected his answer.  The worst part of this scandal, and Fowler's journalism is that this doesn't come across in her feature. It's completely camouflaged.

I'm all in favor of exposing two-faced political hypocrisy, rope-line or no.  But Fowler could have and should have avoided breaking two journalistic norms at one.  If she didn't do that, she should have at least put the whole thing in context, something her article fails to do.

Transparancy vs. Objectivity

I recently read this blog post about the dialogue surrounding transparent and objective journalism. The author's view is that, given that bias is unavoidable, transparency of point of view is a superior mode of operation.

I'm not entirely certain that there is no such thing as bias. Listing off voting records something like VoteSmart may be unbiased, but then, perhaps this isn't journalism. Maybe it is data entry, which by itself can be partisan.

In any case, I descry a desperate need for transparency in journalism today.  I think every piece, whether it is an opinion piece or not should come with some form of ideological disclaimer. That said, to strive for objectivity is critical. As much as I am enamored by the move towards transparency, in no way should this replace the drive to be objective.

There must be a place in the middle wherein journalists strive towards objectivity, a virtually unreachable goal, but always accepts its failures. I would go so far as to say that anything less than this is dishonest.

Youtube - a lucrative mouthpiece

I read this article about youtube stars who came to find a following of other youtube goers, and they ended up making a living.  Michael Buckley is a self-made star who began his own youtube channel commenting on culture, and other topics of inters chosen by himself. He began posting youtube videos daily, roughly 40 hours a week for a year before he made any money at all.

Once he amassed a following, about 180,000, he was making roughly $20,000 every month.

His voice was primarily comedic, but there are many voices that have been brought to a larger audience because of Youtube.

Social activism, journalism, anonymous hactivism, and other critically important social voices have been brought to light because of the open format of youtube.

What I think is interesting about Youtube is that most contributors have virtually no intentions to make money from the site. They simply post content for the sake of content.  I view this as fundamentally different than a capitalist motivation for being a productive, creative being. Though it must be acknowledged that Youtube itself is clearly embedded within capitalism. Seen in this context, I think I can get away with calling posting on Youtube a revolutionary act.