06
Jun 12

Mitch Albom & The Demise of the Newspaper

Back in 1994, during the Major League Baseball strike, the Detroit Free Press ran a series of fictional articles about real Major League baseball players who were assembling at a mystery location to play a series of baseball games.

The articles, which were penned by Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom, became the highlight of my suddenly baseball-less summer.  I ran to the kitchen table every morning to grab the sports page before my Dad did so that I could read, with my strawberry frosted Pop-Tart in hand, the next installment.

If my memory serves me, readers could try to guess where the series was being held. If you guessed correctly, you won a prize. Probably a badge, or something. But you still won.

I distinctly remember a poorly edited image of a pitcher (maybe Jim Abbott?) standing in front of a volcano, which totally gave away the location.

[Editor's note: If anybody can find a link to these articles, please share with me. I can't find them for anything. Makes me wonder if I'm going senile.]

But it was still the coolest thing I had ever read in newsprint.

It was original.

It took some guts.

And it got me, a 14-year-old and potential future newspaper subscriber, excited about reading a newspaper.

***
In 2005, Mitch Albom wrote an article for the Detroit Free Press for an NCAA Tournament game in which he described former Michigan State Spartans Jason Richardson and Mateen Cleeves being in attendance.

In fact, they were not.

The story goes that he spoke to both NBA stars before he wrote his column, and both said they were planning to attend the game.

Unfortunately for Albom, their plans changed. But the article had already been sent to the printers.

So while readers read about two former stars in attendance at a game watching their alma mater, neither were in St. Louis.

Albom was rightfully suspended for his error, and his reputation was, in the eyes of some, forever tarnished.

And, by association, so was the paper’s.

***

At this stage in his career, Albom enjoys a bit of carte blanche when deciding what to write about.

And why he wouldn’t he? He’s the best thing the Free Press has going for them right now.

He seems to have broken the shackles of newsworthiness that are bound to most other newspapers reporters and columnists, and has been known to fill column inches with rants that more closely resemble the furious key-pounding of bloggers than respected journalists.

And never was that more evident than last week when he penned an article for the Detroit Free Press that would’ve made the Unabomber proud.

It was an unabashed diatribe against technology that, in my opinion, has no place in a daily newspaper.

In the piece, Albom wrote “the very devices that are keeping us from communicating with each other now suggest you get verbally cozy with them.”

Dude. It’s 2012.

I mean, I get his argument. (Who would rather talk to a robot than a human being?) But that’s really not the point here.

For a writer who once captivated me on a daily basis with his inventive work, this article left me imagining him as an old man who has grown afraid of change; afraid of what the world is coming to. That man in your neighborhood who sits on the front porch and yells at passing cars to slow down.

I admire him for branching out of newsprint to his other ventures, like authoring books and writing plays. Anybody who can parlay a skill into a lucrative career is okay in my book.

But when it comes to the newspaper, Mitch Albom is the perfect personification of the struggle the daily has to endure on a daily basis.

The business isn’t suddenly going to reverse its fortunes and return to the  booming times of its heyday. At a certain point, they just have to accept that change is accelerating to the point where they can’t keep up.

The world has advanced to a point where waiting overnight for news is considered wasting time.

That’s just how it is.

And no amount of ranting or raving is going to change that.


02
May 12

Do Android Reporters Dream of Electric PR People?

I used to have a recurring nightmare that every human being was actually a robot covered in human skin.

Thoughts about my mental state at the time aside, it was a terrifying dream; one of those dreams that stick with you long after you’ve shaken away the cobwebs of slumber.

I bring this up because that nightmare seems to be closer to becoming a reality.

Two words: Android. Reporters.

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

You heard me. I’m talking about machines that write the news.

Oh, sure, right now they just provide Little League parents with memories for their kid’s scrapbook. And in a recent article in Wired, Kristian Hammond, the CEO of Narrative Science (the company behind the robot apocalypse) asks: Have you ever seen a reporter at a little league game?

Well, no.

BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT.

Even though the purpose of this endeavor is not to replace human reporters, they say out of the other side of their mouth that they expect a computer program to win a Pulitzer Prize within five years.

And you know what? I believe them.

So if we’re to assume robots will soon churn out content at a pace that even the most prolific human reporter could ever dream of, and eventually get good enough to compete for the top prize in all of journalism, what does that mean for the PR industry?

Will PR firms build proprietary software that gets client mentions in robot-written coverage?

Will news outlets plug into a database of information leased by PR firms, allowing the sentient reporters to pull the information they need?

Will PR professionals even have a place in this futuristic world?

According to an article on Forbes.com, textile artisans in the 19th century protested the Industrial Revolution because they rightly believed mechanized looms would replace them.

Will this shift in media signal similar doom for the PR professional?

Probably not.

At the very least, it will make good coffee machine fodder in the morning while your monitoring software pulls yesterday’s coverage.

Oh, shit…


30
Mar 12

The Future of Journalism Is Bright (With the Right Technology)

One of my cousins is graduating from high school this June. She’s going to major in journalism in college.

Her father, who is an engineer, is, understandably, a bit concerned by this decision.

Can you blame him?

As far as job security goes, a future in journalism is about as secure as a Best Buy manager.

In my humble opinion, however, there is real opportunity in this field if you are enterprising, are prepared to work hard, and realize you’ll have to do everything.

The infographic below claims that iPhone users have replaced the traditional photojournalist, but I look at it a little different.

If journalists are armed with the right tools — and I agree that the iPhone has to be one of them — and have the proper training, they can do great things for society.

Between social media, blogs and traditional news outlets, the vehicles for getting out the news are vast. The successful journalist will fill the shoes of the now-defunct photojournalist (and then some.)

I don’t want to live in a world where regular citizens are the ones who “break” the important stories; I want to get it from individuals who are properly trained.

With the right technology, the future of journalism looks a bit brighter.

What do you think? Does it matter to you who breaks the story?

iphone journalism

Source: http://frugaldad.com

 


22
Nov 11

There’s No ‘Me’ in Journalism

I am not a journalist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night take a few journalism classes in college.

And if there’s one thing I learned (besides don’t bury the lead) it was that the journalist should never become the story. It ruins credibility and undermines the publication.

Even though we have entered an era where celebrity is within everyone’s reach, I still believe that journalists have to abide by this rule. Otherwise, it can be difficult to view them as impartial observers.

A few days ago, Mashable, a popular site for social media news, fired their editor-in-chief Ben Parr, so Parr took to his own site to write his swan song to his fans, expressing his deep gratitude to Mashable for allowing him to write for their site. Complete with the obligatory Steve Jobs reference, Parr wrote that he will take his talents to a spot that is still to be determined, but he has been inspired beyond belief.

That’s all well and good for Mr. Parr, and I do hope he lands on his feet, but he is a journalist, first and foremost. And to take time to write a piece on the heels of some controversy surrounding the timing of his firing, plants him firmly in the story, not on the outside, as journalistic ethics require. Rather than letting it blow over, he purposely addressed it, knowing full well that it would become a hot topic in the social mediasphere.

What Ben Parr had was a job, and some people lose those jobs, whether it’s because they weren’t the right fit, or they got caught sleeping with the boss’s wife.

But it happens.

Reporters lose and switch jobs all the time, but they don’t announce their departures in grand fashion. One day, their byline shows up under a new banner, and you think to yourself Huh, I didn’t know Andrea Johnson now writes for Daily Cabinetry and you move on. Bringing attention to yourself merely embroils you in the story.

Like I mentioned above, we live in a society where most of us will experience some level of our 15 minutes of fame, whether we like it or not. Some for good reasons. Some for sketchy reasons. It’s how we handle the fame that shows who we are.

As a journalist, your level of fame should be decided by others, while  you sit back and let them judge. To push the needle one way or another is bad form.

Just like the stories you write about others, let us judge for ourselves how to digest the information.

When you try to become the story, you lose credibility.

Image courtesy of spotreporting.


12
Sep 11

Four Ways 9/11 Changed How We Get Our News

Not only did the tragic events of September 11 change our outlook on the world, it changed how we get the viewpoints that shape our perspectives.

Before the attacks, news was delivered at a slower pace, which reflected our demand for news.  But the rapid-fire coverage of 9/11 brought with it an unexpected shift in how we get our news. Certain tools became necessary to give us our fill of up-to-the-second updates, and these tools were used so often in the days and weeks after, that they never went away.  Now, when you turn on the news or open a newspaper, you’re seeing the artifacts of those tools.

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 still fresh in our minds, let’s take a look at four ways the attack changed how we get our news.

The News Ticker – Even though it debuted on TV in the 1950′s, the news ticker didn’t gain popularity until the public had a real need to know information as it happened. September 11 was that trigger. In the days following the attacks, those tickers were the perfect way to relay the current homeland security threat. Now you can’t turn on the news (or ESPN) without seeing it. It’s impossible to remember a time when it wasn’t crawling across the bottom of your screen.

Transparency – If a newspaper would have reported in the days leading up to 9/11 that terrorists were going to fly airplanes into buildings, I think most of us would’ve scoffed at that absurd notion and admonished the paper for running the story. But now, airlines detaining passengers and bomb threats make it into print because outlets (especially newspapers) can ill-afford to miss something. Of course, it’s a double-edged sword: there are some who call fear-mongering for posting these stories. I’m not sure there’s a happy medium.

Breaking News Alerts – Obviously, the ultimate breaking news alert was the attacks of September 11. [Editor's note: I watched the "9/11: As It Happened" special on MSNBC two nights ago, and I was amazed at how remarkably composed Matt Lauer & Co. were on The Today Show. Of course, we now have the benefit of hindsight, but there was no freaking out. They were a calming influence on a chaotic day.]

Anyway, I know I’m not the only one who gets a little anxious when The Office is interrupted by a special report. Thanks to Twitter, we usually learn about the breaking news before it breaks on television, but it’s still a bit unnerving when the national news cuts in, especially at an odd time. It seems we’ve been programmed to pay full attention when out-of-the-blue news hits, because we just don’t know. The media knows now what gets our attention.

Crowdsourcing – On a day when information was shared among sources so fast that nobody new what was real and what was fiction, many of the news outlets carrying the story relied on eyewitness interviews from people in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa. to tell them what really happened. At one point during the MSNBC special, there was a report of a car bomb going off at the State Department, but one of their correspondents, who was at the State Department, nixed that rumor. This was the first time I can remember where the news relied on citizens to help report the news.

I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting (and I would love it if you pointed them out in the comments) but these four really stand out as being solid examples of how tactics that were used to report details of this tragedy were adopted for future use.

There’s a saying that says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In this case, I think it’s applicable.