Archive for March, 2006

Gravediggers?

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

This is getting interesting. The Swedish journalist union reacts to Metro’s citizen reporting initiative under the headline “Gravedigger of journalism?” (via Media Culpa). The alleged gravedigger is Metro editor Sakari Pitkänen. The union’s main argument is that the public deserves media produced by professional journalists, not Metro’s amateurs. Let’s see if the debate can develop: What kind of journalists and journalism do we need? What can citizen reporters contribute? What should the division of labour look like?

Fritt Ord blog debate

Tuesday, March 21st, 2006

The debate about blogs and journalism (and some other issues) in Oslo yesterday drew a full house – and turned out to be rather informative in many ways. Some blogosphere reactions:

UPDATE: Even more contributions, from Post-modern Politics and VamPus.

Monday, March 20th, 2006

One fine feature of Guardian’s Comment is free is the A to Z of contributors. When you find people that interest you, go to their page and subscribe to their feed.

The editor comments on the first week.

Online news: confusion and monologue

Monday, March 20th, 2006

“Rather then being delivered as the only and true version of reality, news stories on the Internet have more of a provisory multi-meaning characteristic to them,” Michael Karlsson concludes in his doctoral dissertation at Lund University. “If this is practised in most online journalism, we may stand on a brink of a new kind of journalism and journalistic norms,” he goes on.

Karlsson studied four leading Swedish news sites in 2004-2005. What he found looks like a good snapshot of the state of online news in Scandinavia, though things might be changing now:

Interaction is widely present in the form of hyperlinks and e-mailing opportunities, but it does not take the form of public conversational interaction. There is not one single instance in the study where readers and publishers meet in a public dialogue about news content. This shows that it is still the producers that are heard in the news, although the technical means allow consumers to be heard.

What online news editors definitely should take note of, is Karlsson’s criticism of certain practices that might seem logical to journalists and editors, but can make the experience of using online news exasperating, confusing and almost surreal:

  • The news is updated without readers being aware
  • The author of the article changes
  • Sources come and go
  • The meaning of the news changes
  • News stories disappear from the website
  • Pictures and graphics are changed or removed
  • Information that is promised is not delivered

An important point here must be to note that bloggers often are more reliable when it comes to linking to sources, telling readers why elements disappear (the practice of striking out errors instead of just removing them), etc. There’s an ideology of transparency and etiquette among bloggers that journalists might do well to copy.

Karlsson’s dissertation in full text (10,2 MB PDF!). There’s a longer English summary from page 213.

Blogging and opinion formation

Monday, March 20th, 2006

In this week’s Mandag Morgen, I contributed to an analysis (subscription required) of blogging and opinion leadership in Norway (a favourite topic). Some key figures from a survey among the Norwegian online community (83 percent of Norwegians over 12 years are online):

  • 7 percent of users read blogs every day.
  • An additional 19 percent of users read blogs at least once a week. Hence, 840.000 Norwegians are at least weekly blog readers.
  • Of those reading blogs, 86 percent follow one to four blogs. Only 2 percent read more than ten blogs.
  • 36 percent have contributed comments to blogs.

Coverage of the story in Dagbladet.

Sunday, March 19th, 2006

Blogs following events after the Belarus election:

Saturday, March 18th, 2006

Teodor Lysander, a Norwegian election monitor, is writing a mobile blog from Belarus.

Sign a petition in support of democracy in Belarus.

Also: Norwegian site run by political youth organizations in support of Belarus democracy.

Friday, March 17th, 2006

chicagooct06.jpg

This weekend extra: The Economist’s new Chicago survey gives me the perfect excuse to publish my own favourite Chicago photo! Taken on a very warm evening last October.

This weekend # 5: Glenn Reynolds

Friday, March 17th, 2006

1595550542.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Judged by its title, Glenn Reynolds’ new book “An Army of Davids. How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths” puts all the usual pro-blogging, anti-media rhetoric to use. The book excerpt starts that way, with tales of small bloggers taking on the tremendous power of “Big Media” (Reynolds actually goes so far as to claim that media power hasn’t been countervailed by other institutions such as political parties, churches and labour unions since before the 2nd world war. Though researchers generally agree that media power has been on the rise in industrialized countries – see Norway – clearly debates about media power and the rise of blogging will be somewhat different when held in other regions).

But read on, and you will find that Reynolds’ argument isn’t one-sided after all. In fact, he can be interpreted in much the same way as recent statements by other “we media” champions like Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales and Craigslist’s Craig Newmark: They don’t want to “defeat” media and journalism – they want better journalism, investigative stories, more reporting, community-building media. Here’s CNET indirectly quoting Newmark from a discussion between the two this week:

But where some in the blogosphere are increasingly calling for the death of the so-called mainstream media, he said, it is important to have professional writers and editors, since such work is difficult. Further, he said, it is important to have professionals willing to spend long days devoted to covering crucial stories. Still, he noted that the mainstream press has increasingly dropped the ball and that society suffers because of it. Thus, he said, the ideal situation would be for the mainstream press and citizen journalists to join forces.

Recently, Wales said something similar: “Asked if traditional media would be squeezed out by the proliferation of user-generated content, Mr Wales repeated that: “everybody makes jokes, but we still need professional comedians”.”

Reynolds arrives at a related conclusion after a tour of extraordinary examples of a new kind of journalism. The most surprising is Michael Yon. I, for one, have always thought that war reporting would be the ultimate border between amateur and professional journalists. Yon maybe proves otherwise, though of course he must acquire some of the same skills as war reporters to survive.

Reynolds’ prediction, then, sounds much like Newmark’s:

Over the coming decade, we’lll see the growth of alternatives to traditional Big Media, and-if we and Big Media are lucky-we’lll see the Big Media Goliath moving to ally itself with the Davids, rather than positioning itself against them. We’lve seen a few signs of that. After the Indian Ocean tsunami, and again after hurricanes like Katrina and Rita, we’lve seen newspapers and television stations incorporate citizen journalism into their coverage via blogs, chat boards, and other mechanisms. In a crisis, the value of having thousands of potential correspondents out there with computers, digital cameras, and other technology is obvious. But in fact, the value is there all the time. Noticing that may take them a bit longer, but I suspect that they will notice it in the end. Those who don’lt may wind up being replaced by those who do.

Opinion leaders for “we media” forming an informal movement for the improvement of big media? Why not. And pushing it further: Imagine that the whole bunch of media-critical bloggers (discovered a new one today) in fact are nothing else but a people’s movement for – better media.

Friday, March 17th, 2006

Eliot Spitzer’s golden rule: “Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail.”

The last one not to follow Spitzer’s rule is a media professor with a night job as communications adviser. It’s always fun to read an e-mail which says “confidential”. The memo (pdf, in Norw.) itself contains a fair amount of good analysis. The outrageous part is of course that the researcher played neutral expert at the same time as advising one of the parties.