Finding what’s lost, via the media

November 25, 2012

Nice piece in the Boston Globe about the search for a runaway child. It makes the point that the parents used social media cleverly, and hence new media was key to success. But they didn’t succeed until the story hit TV (old media) and then a whistleblower called the cops (old fashioned source).

In fact this is interesting I think precisely because the three techniques all worked together. The parents have produced  a guide to using social media to find runaways and set up a nonprofit, “Find Your Missing Child,” which seems like a great idea. Its interesting to compare also with the old technique of putting ads on milk cartons. Anyone know if there are any data on relative success rates? What works? Any evidence?


Can non-profit journalism save the day?

September 20, 2010

The non-profit sector and the media continue to flirt with each other, and even have the occasional offspring. This morning, the Guardian launched its website on global development, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development. Madeleine Bunting introduced the new baby on the oped page and the web. It is interesting because it is funded by the Gates Foundation, and indeed they are credited on the site’s home page. The peg is the UN summit on Global Development in New York, though the partnership is longer lasting and more substantial.

“It is the first time the Guardian has developed a partnership with a major charitable foundation to fund a strand of its core journalism,” says Bunting. “Part of the agreement includes safeguarding the Guardian’s editorial independence. Both organisations are committed to making achievement of the UN goals a central strand of the new site. But alongside the challenge of working in a partnership with a foundation, the site has set itself a big ambition of curating a global conversation about development.”

Beyond editorial independence, a second (and related) issue is that not everyone agrees about development: its importance, how it is funded, what results are possible or desirable. There are lots of different audiences, and as Bunting says: “The problem about these different audiences is that while they often have much knowledge of the subject, they don’t much like talking to each other. Part of the challenge on the new site will be to host all these conversations – all of which are crucial to the debate in their very different ways. Will that mean that everyone gets cross at some point or another with the site? Probably.”

Non-profits have an agenda, a way of working and resolving conflicts, and they have  financial interests. It will be interesting to see how the new experiments work out. How easy will the site and its funders be with controversy? And with mistakes? And with conflict? All of these things are somewhat inevitable in reporting. The cultural issues will be significant if the new journalism is to mean more than just taking a handout.

My own brief experience in non-profits is that there are massive opportunities for both sides in teaming up, or working alongside each other, or even in replacing each other from time to time. Non-profits are starting to make interesting moves into the field; journalism is starting to look for other funding .

There are many different models. ProPublica is essentially a news venture that focuses on developing public interest stories and finances them through foundation grants and individual donations. It aims to get its stories into mainstream publications and media where possible. FreePress puts more of a political and social message around non-profit and low-profit ventures. The Guardian is featuring journalism funded by the non-profit sector, but not guided by it. National Public Radio (often forgotten) is a hybrid of public and private funding. Human Rights Watch produces its own media, more or less, and hired a bunch of journos.

Not surprisingly, this flirtation between non-profits and journos has excited a lot of policy wonkery. Duke University’s Sanford School looked at the options in this series of papers, based on a conference. This conference at UW Madison examined some of the ethical issues, including who was an acceptable backer. And the Nieman Journalism Lab has looked at what makes non-profit journalism legit, and proposed some standards. This blog covers the issues.

Despite the anguished ethical debates, conflict of interest is only part of the issue: it is at least as much a question of conflict of cultures, and this will be hard to bridge, as Mary Walton explains in the American Journalism Review. “Says Laura Frank, who is navigating the new channels as head of a startup, the Rocky Mountain Investigative News Network, “People think, ‘Oh, wow. You don’t have to deal with advertisers,’ but it’s kind of the same thing. Foundations are used to funding something and having control over it. You have to explain to them that there is a firewall: ‘What you’re funding is the act of journalism for the benefit of society.’ ”

There are a couple of bigger questions for the non-profits and foundations, too – like: why fund journalism? “I have in my wallet three million dollars,” said Jack Shafer, media critic of Slate, at a symposium on investigative reporting quoted in the AJR piece.  “The opera wants it, the ballet wants it, the museum wants it, the YMCA, poor kids in Africa want it.” Why give it to journalists? Or journalism? Or news? Or media?  Can they get more by handing over money, or internalizing the resources and doing it themselves? What bang for their buck do they get?

Newsosaur, a blogger who writes on the news and business, is completely unconvinced. It would require far, far more money than the charitable sector is capable of providing to pay for all current newsgathering, he says. “So, let’s stop dreaming about a visit from the Non-Profit News Bunny and get serious about discovering some realistic possibilities.” To be fair, no-one is saying that everything will go this way, but he has a point.

The trend can only continue; I have some (non-rhetorical) questions about this:

  1. Is this a good use of money (Can’t they get a proper job)? Why does journalism deserve charitable status or money? What are the non-profits getting out of it that they couldn’t through other means?  Why pour money into activities and people that apparently weren’t capable of generating it themselves?
  2. Will this produce good journalism (Up to a point, Lady Bountiful)? Does the institutional culture of journalism work with a foundation culture? Will people still pick fights, dig dirt, kick against the pricks? Or will it tend towards the worst aspects of non-profits and trade journalism: inward looking, clubby, self-satisfied? Does the need to sell and be read actually have a role to play 9and can these be decoupled)?
  3. What about competition (Mr Gates)? What impact will this have on other media that remains revenue-focussed? Will it price some of it out of the market? Will there still be a role for competition in the coverage of, say, development through (for example) the New Internationalist (a workers co-op, btw). Does it make sense to have competition in any case?
  4. Does this only work for some things? Does this decouple investigative and public interest journalism from the city beat, sports, financial, community reporting, politics etc? One of the advantages of the old model was that everyone competed for space and shared resources; is that over? Does public interest journalism now exist in a subsidized, gilded ghetto?
  5. What happens to the stuff that gets left out? We accept that not all new business models will cover everything. So: if some stuff can be paid for (business, sport and celebrity); and some can be locally  or crowd-sourced (community news, reviews etc); and some gets paid for by non-profits, what falls through the cracks? What can’t be covered by money, vanity, love and charity? And does it matter? Reporting on mental health? Local government?

The Job Of The Week

September 6, 2010

One of the best places for a comms professional to find news about jobs is on the Job Of The Week email. This is mainly, but not exclusively, US, and includes most forms of comms – PR, internal comms, social media.   

It comes in the form of a long email, and can be found at www.nedsjotw.com. It is put together co-operatively by members who send jobs.  If you find out about a job opportunity in communications, send it to Ned Lundquist (lundquist989@cs.com), and he’ll share it. Sign up by sending a blank e-mail to JOTW-subscribe@topica.com. There are over 11,000 subscribers.

Some examples: 

  1. Communication for Development Specialist (Polio Eradication),  UNICEF, New Delhi, India
  2. The Phoenix Art Museum is seeking a Director of Marketing & Public Relations
  3. Fall Intern, Marketing Strategy & Operations (unpaid internship), Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Atlanta, GA
  4. Senior Manager; Corporate Communications (PT), AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware
  5. Lecturer: Social and Behaviour Change Communication, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  6. Marketing/Communications Manager, Oregon Zoo, Portland, OR
  7. Associate Director of Alumni Relations Communications, The American University, Washington, DC
  8. Art Director, Photography, Victoria’s Secret Direct, New York, NY
  9. Internal Communications Manager, Tesco-VMA Group, Hertfordshire, UK
  10. Communication Specialist, Outreach to Development Professionals,  L-3, United Nations Children’s Fund, USA

I’ll be posting a few more items about jobs in the next week.


Articles that get forwarded inspire a sense of – awe?

February 10, 2010

What types of article or email get forwarded on to others? Awesome ones, according to this article in the New York Times. It is based on this piece of research (a pdf) by UPenn researchers, into what NY Times articles got forwarded the most.

“Awe-inspiring articles are more likely to be among the newspaper’s most e-mailed stories on a given day. Practically useful, surprising, positive, and affect-laden articles are also more likely to be viral. The magnitudes of these relationships are considerable.”

Building on prior research, the Penn researchers defined awe as an “emotion of self-transcendence, a feeling of admiration and elevation in the face of something greater than the self.” They used two criteria for an awe-inspiring story: Its scale is large, and it requires “mental accommodation” by forcing the reader to view the world in a different way.”

“It involves the opening and broadening of the mind.”

Awe is something that we often consciously sought t arouse in readers when I was in journalism: space, nature, science, technology, weather, human achievement could all do it, and pictures were great at bringing it to life. Politics could do it too: think about the Prague Velvet Revolution.

My sense is that the virality of this has something to do with what we feel about ourselves, but also what we want others to think of us… it is socially reflexive.

I am really interested in this and will try to come back to it.


Finding the news through Facebook

February 4, 2010

Facebook is increasingly being used as a way of reading the news – real news about real-world events, not just the tedious meanderings of self-obsessed friends.

ReadWriteWeb has an interesting article on the use of facebook as a news source. “Hard numbers have now confirmed that Facebook is already the biggest news reader on the web,” it says.  Hitwise has some good stats and a good graph. Last week, Google Reader accounted for .01% of upstream visits to News and Media websites, about the same level as a year ago. Google News accounted for 1.39% of visits and Facebook 3.52%.” Any facebook user will have noticed that friends increasingly link to news; and that news producers increasingly encourage staff to use Facebook as a means of distribution. “Facebook was the #4 source of visits to News and Media sites last week, after Google, Yahoo! and msn,” says Hitwise.

Many people use RSS readers like FeedDemon to read news; but for the casual browser, these are a bit intense and clunky. Facebook is easier: you encounter what your friends suggest, and that element of casual surprise that is part of the news experience is reproduced.

Facebook is increasingly aware of this, and targeting the phenomenon. “Late last week Facebook threw its hat in the ring and called on users to use its service as a news feed reader,” says ReadWriteWeb.

“Last week, Facebook’s Malorie Lucich posted to the company blog encouraging users set up their Facebook accounts for news reading. Lucich suggested becoming a “fan” of news organizations that publish to Facebook, then adding those connections to a dedicated “list” that only displays updates from news sources.”

Other news on social media use: a new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that blogging is (predictably) less fashionable and microblogging is (predictably) more fashionable, especially amongst the young. “Since 2006, blogging has dropped among teens and young adults while simultaneously rising among older adults. As the tools and technology embedded in social networking sites change, and use of the sites continues to grow, youth may be exchanging ‘macro-blogging’ for microblogging with status updates,” says the survey. Meanwhile, “Both teen and adult use of social networking sites has risen significantly, yet there are shifts and some drops in the proportion of teens using several social networking site features.”


Journalism Online tests one-click paywall tool

February 3, 2010

Journalism Online's new venture

The one-click pay-to-view tool could transform some areas of journalism. We accept it for music and other online goodies; why not for news? (That isn’t a rhetorical question – there may well be good reasons why it doesn’t work for news).

The Guardian’s PaidContent has some screen shots and detail here on how it may work, based on a project by Journalism Online.

But: at least one industry veteran is very pessimistic about the prospects. 

Newspapers lost their last chance to hang together when it became clear yesterday that the wheels seemingly have come off Journalism Online, the ambitious, global pay-wall initiative launched last year by serial entrepreneur Steven Brill,” writes Alan Mutter, the venerable Newsosaur.

“After a year of trying to persuade publishers worldwide to join the universal content-vending system that he envisioned, Brill told the New York Times the only committed client he could identify was a Lilliputian daily in Lancaster, PA. Brill said more affiliates are on the way for a service he christened Press+.”


Wikileaks goes under?

February 2, 2010

Wikileaks, a site that encourages whistleblowers and leakers, has run out of money and may close. “To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations, but will be back soon,” the site says. Wired has the background here.

“We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release. You can change that and by doing so, change the world. Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands and $1000, a million.

“We have raised just over $130,000 for this year but can not meaningfully continue operations until costs are covered. These amount to just under $200,000 PA. If staff are paid, our yearly budget is $600,000.

The site enables users to upload leaked material and have it published anonymously. It has broken some big stories, including one about an alleged Kroll report on Kenya. One can argue that simply uncritically posting leaked documents can be irresponsible, but in my experience the site’s owners were reasonable people to deal with, and maintained controls on what would and wouldn’t be published. And their mission seemed to me interesting and useful. It has said that its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.”

I support the site and hope others will too. Donate here: