Is New Media Ready for Old Media?

By | November 22, 2011

image

I’m very excited by the fact that newspapers are beginning to carry content from the top five or so Web 2.0/tech sites. These blogs (the word no longer seems apt for what they do; Vindu Goel calls them ‘news sources’) have really evolved in the past three years and the quality of their coverage, particularly that of ReadWrite Web, has grown in leaps and bounds. Now it’s being carried by the New York Times.

A couple of nagging questions remain, however.

1) Is this old media eating new media, or new media eating the old? On the surface this is a big coup for folk like ReadWriteWeb—which didn’t really exist three years ago—but look more closely, and I suspect we may consider this kind of thing as the beginning of the acknowledgement by old media that they have ceded some important ground that they used to dominate. This, in short, marks the recognition of traditional media that theses news sources are, to all intents and purposes, news agencies that operate on a par with, and have the same values as, their own institutions.

2) Is new media ready for old media? I have a lot of respect for ReadWriteWeb, and most of the other tech sites included in this new direction. But they all need to recognise that by participating with old media they need to follow the same rules. There’s no room for conflicts of interest here: Even the NYT has reported on potential conflicts of interest for Om Malik and Michael Arrington (here’s a great piece from The Inquistr about the issue, via Steve Rubel’s shared Google Reader feed.)

The thing with conflicts of interest is that they’re tough. It’s hard to escape them. And it’s not enough to disclose them. You have, as a writer (let’s not say journalist here, it’s too loaded a word, like blogger), a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Your commitment as a writer has to be to your reader. If your reader doesn’t believe that you’re writing free of prejudice or favor, then you’re a hack. And I don’t mean that in a nice way.

Which means you have to avoid not only all conflicts of interest, but appearances of conflict of interest. Your duty is not just to disclose conflicts of interest, and potential conflicts of interest, but to avoid them. If that means making less money, then tough.

So, for these ‘news sources’, the issue is going to become a more central one. Of course, the question will grow larger as these outfits move mainstream. But it may become more pressing for the carrier of the news, not for the provider: Who, say, accepts responsibility for errors and conflicts of interest? NYT and The Washington Post, or the carriers of the news? I’m sure there will be lots of caveats in the small print, but if material is on the NYT website, I think a reader would assume it reflects that paper’s ethical standards. If you’re in doubt, think of the recent United Airlines case.

That story’s reappearance started on Google News, and then was picked up by Income Securities Advisors, a financial information company, which was then picked up by Bloomberg. The technical error was Google’s, in finding it on a newspaper website and miscategorising it  as new, but the human error was in the ‘news source’, which saw it and then fired it off to their service, which is distributed via Bloomberg. Who is to blame for that mess? Well, the focus is all on Google, but to me the human element is the problem here, namely the reporter/writer who failed to double check the source/date etc of the piece itself.

The bottom line? It’s great that old media are recognising the quality of new media. What I want to see is this rising tide lifting all boats. Old media needs to not only grab at these news sources out of desperation but learn from their ingenuity, easy writing style and quality, and these outfits need—or at least some of them need—to take a cue from old media, take a look long and hard at themselves and ask themselves whether they could serve their readers better by shedding all conflicts—real, potential, or perceived—of interest.

links for 2008-09-21

By | November 22, 2011

The Secret of Being Well-Read

By | September 17, 2008

By Jeremy Wagstaff

If you’ve been following this column closely, you’ll know I’m a huge fan of Really Simple Syndication, or RSS. I reckon it’s the single greatest thing to come out of the last few years on the Web. Well, that and Facebook. And Skype. And blogging. And disposable socks.

(For those of you not sure what I’m talking about, think of RSS like this: lots of interesting people, sending you news and thoughts in a way that suits you, not them. For more, dig around my site tenmov.es which explains how to get up to speed on RSS.)

The problem is that RSS has been too successful. Everyone now offers their data in RSS form—newspapers offer dozens of RSS feeds, as they’re called, diced according to topic (sports, cookery, foreign news, corruption and skullduggery in high places; whatever the main issues are).

They’re not alone. Government departments are doing it; every blog does it; you can subscribe, as it’s called, to feeds of people’s bookmarks, their Facebook updates, their Flickr photos. It’s great stuff—it makes it possible to stay on top of all sorts of things, from big international stuff to what your kid’s doing at school—but it creates its own chaos.

The tendency, for us end-users, is to add feeds when we come across them. Visit an interesting blog and you want to take the feed so you can stay on top of what that person is saying, or see the photographs they’re sharing. Which is good; much better to grab it before you forget.

But this quickly gets out of hand. Before long you’ve acquired dozens of feeds and you’re now drowning in information. You have no time in the day to read it and now it feels like you’ve traded one bulging in-tray for another.

If this is what’s happened to you, here’s how to fix RSS excess:

The first point I’d make is to make a clear distinction between your email in box and your RSS. Email is for action: other people sending you stuff that you need to act upon, or for you to create emails and send them to other people.

RSS, by contrast, is for reflection: A chance for you to grab a cup of coffee and “read yourself up to date.” And don’t be shy about including in this stuff that which is personal—your football team, say—as well as professional. RSS is flexible enough to deal with this (as should be your boss.)

OK, a check list:

  • A feed reader that lets you create folders (Google Reader, for example).
  • An easy way to add feeds that doesn’t eat into your day (once again, check out tenmov.es for the simplest way to do this.)
  • An idea of what feeds you want, or you have already.

Now you’re ready to go.

First off, create folders that describe your interests, professional and personal: football, art, productivity, currencies, geraniums, etc.

When you grab a new feed, make sure you put it into the appropriate folder. Don’t leave it lying around for other people to trip over, or so you never find it again.

Get into the habit of checking your RSS feeds on a regular basis. Don’t let them pile up.

When you start to feel you’re getting more feeds than you can possibly read, you need to move to the next stage: creating super folders.

Create a couple of folders called ‘want to read’ and ‘must read’ (or something similar; I’m not necessarily going to come round and check you’ve done this exactly as I say.)

Move the feeds that you really need to stay on top of into the second folder. In the first put the feeds that you’d hate to miss, but upon which your job doesn’t depend. (Google Reader lets you put a feed in more than one folder, so you can keep these feeds in their original folders as well.)

If you put an “+” in front of the folder’s name you’ll find it usually sits at the top of your folder list, which makes it easier to find: Mine’s called +brainfood. Go figure.

The rule of thumb here is that you should have had time to read all the feeds in those folders by the end of the day. There’s nothing more demoralizing than coming in to work and finding a bunch of feeds piling up from the previous day. (OK, I suppose more demoralizing is coming into work and finding your company has gone bankrupt, but it’s all relative.)

If you find your new super folders are still bursting at the seams, start weeding. One way to do this is to remove those feeds from these folders that you can’t manage until you reach a comfortable level.

What I do is create another folder called “brainfood+” which contains stuff I really, really must read. I move the vital stuff from “brainfood” into this new folder until I’ve reached that sweet spot where I can manage reading the folder without breaking a sweat.

(The advantage of this, apart from it qualifying me as Grade–A Nerd, is that you’ve still got a backup folder of stuff you’d like to read if you had time. The old folder becomes a sort of wish-list of stuff you should read, whereas the + folder becomes the stuff you really have to read if you want to keep your job/spouse/house. Follow?)

Now keep pruning as you go, since the balance is likely to shift. I avoid subscribing to feeds where lots of stuff is coming in: I really, really like bloggers and writers who just write when they need to—sometimes only once a month. The beauty of RSS is that I’ll catch that rare post of distinction without having to do anything—and it doesn’t clog up my folder needlessly.

I hope this helps a bit. I’d love to hear from you if you’ve got your own solutions for dealing with RSS excess.

Jeremy Wagstaff is a commentator on technology and appears regularly on the BBC World Service. He can be found online at jeremywagstaff.com or via email at jeremy@loose-wire.com.