| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Journalism From Inside a Car |
Topic: Journalism From Inside a Car
| Author | Message |
| Dorian Benkoil, Editorial Director | Posted – 1/11/2007 10:58:37 AM | show profile | email poster Chuck Myron tells us what it's like being a new breed of "mobile journalist," or "MoJo," here. Does the idea of being a mobile journalist appeal to you? Would you want the job? Is the idea of someone being able to post directly to a newspaper's website, without editing, dangerous? Should that kind of thing be allowed? Is Chuck right that journalists who don't adopt the new ways are in danger of becoming irrelevant? ------ mediabistro.com 212/929-2588 email: lettertoeditor AT mediabistro DOT com |
| kkirschner | Posted – 1/11/2007 11:07:38 AM | show profile | email poster MOJOS The question that I would ask is, who cares....is this really going to do that much to change the fortunes of the local newspaper? Are we to believe that news up to the minute on a website is the panacea that young, aloof audiences are going to respond to? It is not about real time, it is about real relevance. Check out the highest rated Google searches from last year: precious few have anything to do with what would be considered news. We're a consumer culture and most of what people are looking for in the way of information goes back to their life as a consumer. Where do newspapers fit in? It's hard to say, but we almost have to shove the pill of journalism into the raw hamburger meat of consumer driven information so that audiences will digest it. So, while it is good to mobilize journalists and bring them first to web and then to print, it certainly isn't the answer. The real solution is making the local newspaper home page the resource for everything local in a community and that must be consumer centric first and foremost. Want to save a newspaper? Hire a marketer as the publisher! |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/11/2007 11:56:17 AM | show profile The notion of writing your copy from the field and not stepping into the office isn't exactly new. Sportswriters do it all the time, for instance. The only difference here, as I can see, is the writer isn't being edited. I don't see why the writer couldn't simply email the story to an editor, who would edit it, and then post it. That wouldn't take much more time. Maybe they're just trying to save money on at editor, and don't mind the extra errors and typos that will inevitably result. As far as "mobile journalists" being a "new breed," that just feels like a bunch of hype. I mean, I take my laptop to Starbucks and sometimes do telephone interviews from there on my cellphone. That makes me as much of a "mobile journalists" as this guy. Really, the interesting part of the article wasn't that he writes articles in the field on his laptop and emails them in -- big nothing that -- but that his pieces aren't being edited at all, and the rationale for that isn't explained. I'd grade that article a D minus. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/11/2007 11:56:30 AM | show profile The notion of writing your copy from the field and not stepping into the office isn't exactly new. Sportswriters do it all the time, for instance. The only difference here, as I can see, is the writer isn't being edited. I don't see why the writer couldn't simply email the story to an editor, who would edit it, and then post it. That wouldn't take much more time. Maybe they're just trying to save money on at editor, and don't mind the extra errors and typos that will inevitably result. As far as "mobile journalists" being a "new breed," that just feels like a bunch of hype. I mean, I take my laptop to Starbucks and sometimes do telephone interviews from there on my cellphone. That makes me as much of a "mobile journalists" as this guy. Really, the interesting part of the article wasn't that he writes articles in the field on his laptop and emails them in -- big nothing that -- but that his pieces aren't being edited at all, and the rationale for that isn't explained. I'd grade that article a D minus. |
| Becky4 | Posted – 1/11/2007 11:58:21 AM | show profile | email poster Mobile Journalism For the last ten years, people have been predicting the extinction of print journalism. Well, Chicken Little, death is not imminent, and the sky hasn't fallen. There was a recent survey that found that readership of traditional media has actually gone UP in recent years. I am of a generation (okay, I'm 40) that has one foot in traditional, old school journalism and one in new media. I read lots of news online but there's still nothing like sitting blissfully down with a pile of newspapers. Having worked as both a freelance journalist and an editor, I don't think it's a great idea to let articles be posted willy-nilly, according to the whim of the writer. ALL articles need editing and someone should still get to be the "decider" (thank you George Bush!) about what is relevant and fit for print, whether it's online or on paper. That doesn't mean, of course, that journalists and editors should shy away from using technology or new forms of media. But instead of all this rushing to get things published or posted, I think it's time to for someone to go back to serious, solid investigative journalism. It is so rare these days and I think we are all the poorer(real word!) for it. |
| vaudreyvil | Posted – 1/11/2007 12:07:11 PM | show profile | email poster I will simply reply to two of Dorian Benkoil's questions ... Does the idea of being a mobile journalist appeal to you? Would you want the job? Yes and yes. Is the idea of someone being able to post directly to a newspaper's website, without editing, dangerous? Should that kind of thing be allowed? Yes and no. |
| Dorian Benkoil, Editorial Director | Posted – 1/11/2007 3:49:20 PM | show profile It's the Wave of the Future Rick Pullen, editor in chief of Leader's Edge Magazine writes in: "I agree [with the article]. I think mobile journalism is the wave of the future. However, I am troubled by the lack of editing before you go online. People read "real" journalism for a reason: it is filtered so they don?t feel they are wasting their time and it is well written, which adds credibility in many minds. The first filter is the reporter. The second is the editor." |
| dewdoxx | Posted – 1/11/2007 4:51:47 PM | show profile I only read print newspapers or magazines because I don't care if a cat got stuck in a tree. I want my news filtered. Cut off the fat and give me some meat! I figure if they can squeeze an article in, then it must be worth mentioning. I believe in editing. I would never let an article go on the first go 'round. Then I would have someone else look at it. I think his method does a disservice to journalists and writers alike. |
| mdnsports | Posted – 1/11/2007 5:06:00 PM | show profile MoJo I can't believe everyone is clamoring for 'filtered' news. LEMMINGS! Edited is one thing, and i's sure is imcumbant on the reporter to copyedit their stuff closely. I don't want the news filtered. What seperates this from random people blogging meaningless stuff to waste your time is that the blogger has been filtered. The filtration process takes place when the MoJo is being hired. |
| lbezzina | Posted – 1/11/2007 5:40:56 PM | show profile wandering scribe Chuck?s technique is passé, it?s so 2006. It has been done and against greater odds. Did anybody hear the exploits of ?Wondering Scribe?? Take one homeless person, a car, add a sprinkling of broadband and hey presto ? a book deal! Keep at it Chuck, soon you could be watching the royalties rather than road! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5029984.stm http://wanderingscribe.blogspot.com/2006/05/standing-back.html |
| Lizzy B | Posted – 1/11/2007 7:11:51 PM | show profile Chuck: You and the News-Press are doing a great service for all print journalists by experimenting with this kind of reporting from the field. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, maybe it'll work but with modifications. We'll never know until someone gives it a shot and figures out if readers appreciate and value news delivered this way. So kudos to you for being pioneers and doing this exploration on all our behalfs. |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 1/11/2007 7:35:10 PM | show profile I'm all for any kind of job that doesn't require face time at an office. I work so much more efficiently at home than I do at the office (any office--newspaper or other field) because there are fewer interruptions and fewer distractions (such as people who whistle or play music). Best of all, you have less exposure to office politics. I'm hardly anti-social, but workplaces seem to bring out the worst in many people. An editor is supposed to assign stories, not just decide what stays in. A good editor should help give the newspaper or magazine some cogency in what's being printed. At many local papers, there are lots of wire stories about things that happen in other states that don't have any bearing on people's lives in the town it is supposed to report on. This is true not only in the news section, but in the health, food, and home sections. For example, if a paper runs a story about Pilates as being therapeutic, not just a way to tone muscles, it shouldn't be a wire story about something that's available five states away. At least have a sidebar that it's being practiced by local Pilates instructors So and So and Such and Such in This Town. The danger of becoming irrelevant is something that editors and publishers should be concerned about. Journalists often have higher aspirations. They want to be better paid and more highly recognized writers. Other journalists have secret lives. They write plays and novels and hope to get the attention of a producer or publisher. Newspapers are often a stepping stone. |
| mailbag | Posted – 1/11/2007 8:25:12 PM | show profile | email poster Matter of style This concept is not new...he essentially is blogging news. Is it the way of the future? Yes, agree with him on that for the most part in the context of 'breaking news.' I think journalists should be thinking of alternative methods in which to tell a story (electronic, text/video, and print.) What he didn't say is he 24x7? Is he a journalist on call 365 days a year? (Or is this what we are leading up to? If so time to bail now.) If I was his editor/manager - he'd be wearing a shirt and tie, mobile or not. He represent the business (the newspaper) and should present himself in a professional manner. Probably can't make someone trim up the dooo and shave. Not all news is breaking though. There will be a need for feature writers -- which takes a different set of skills imo more than "Fire broke out in the apartment structure and three were burned to death,... more in 20 seconds." HIT REFRESH IN 5..4..3..2..NOW Analysis of a story takes time. Sometimes a detailed bg description leading up to that event's moment is what makes a story worth reading and waiting for. (Really depends on the topic and what leg work can be done beforehand.) |
| CiciCole | Posted – 1/12/2007 12:06:25 AM | show profile | email poster I think it's neat... ...and to take it one step further, forget about text and photos, especially unedited or only seen by its creator. I want a traveling video blog of real news accessible locally in my area anytime I want to log on. I want to see the journalist interviewing people, uncut, with all of the sound bites and conversation intact. I mean, we're talking about filtering here--isn't journalism the ultimate filtering of the "5 Ws" anyway? We rely on someone's observations and interviews to tell us what the story is. You want to give me real, raw news--give me the entire story. Essentially, the B roll becomes the A roll. Give me your nut graf as you go so I know why your story's important. Don't edit it--at all; stream live. Now, THAT would be groundbreaking. |
| spacegirlg | Posted – 1/12/2007 12:36:38 AM | show profile Hey, Chuck, does the paper pay for your gas? And what do you do when your car breaks down? 'Cause that would happen to me.... |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/12/2007 1:29:38 AM | show profile Well, if you want "unfiltered" news, you can find a gadzillion boring, poorly written blogs that go completely unsupervised ... and mostly unread. But seriously, "editing" isn't "filtering." On a newspaper level, editing is mostly about correcting grammatical errors and making copy read more smoothly. That is what people are recommending, not a check against ideas. Really, all this strikes me as much ado about nothing. Is it a good idea to let reporters file from the field and post material quickly on the web? Sure, why not. Is it necessary to have material posted directly to the web without letting a copyeditor fix grammatical errors and spelling mistakes? Not really. --I can't believe everyone is clamoring for 'filtered' news. LEMMINGS! Edited is one thing, and i's sure is imcumbant on the reporter to copyedit their stuff closely. I don't want the news filtered. What seperates this from random people blogging meaningless stuff to waste your time is that the blogger has been filtered. The filtration process takes place when the MoJo is being hired.-- |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/12/2007 1:29:42 AM | show profile Well, if you want "unfiltered" news, you can find a gadzillion boring, poorly written blogs that go completely unsupervised ... and mostly unread. But seriously, "editing" isn't "filtering." On a newspaper level, editing is mostly about correcting grammatical errors and making copy read more smoothly. That is what people are recommending, not a check against ideas. Really, all this strikes me as much ado about nothing. Is it a good idea to let reporters file from the field and post material quickly on the web? Sure, why not. Is it necessary to have material posted directly to the web without letting a copyeditor fix grammatical errors and spelling mistakes? Not really. --I can't believe everyone is clamoring for 'filtered' news. LEMMINGS! Edited is one thing, and i's sure is imcumbant on the reporter to copyedit their stuff closely. I don't want the news filtered. What seperates this from random people blogging meaningless stuff to waste your time is that the blogger has been filtered. The filtration process takes place when the MoJo is being hired.-- |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 1/12/2007 9:07:04 AM | show profile Good points, mailbag. I can see a place for blogs, but they are not replacements for good news reporting. I also like your comment about dressing appropriately. It's important to keep the news media up to standards that are high. Unfortunately, there's too much of anything goes and the quality is diluted as the media tries to make higher profits. You can't have quality in news if everyone with a computer qualifies as a writer. That's like saying that anyone with a pick-up truck and shovel is a landscape designer. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 1/12/2007 11:39:39 AM | show profile >The first filter is the reporter. The second is the editor.> The reporter also carries multiple filters in the way s/he sees, hears and prioritizes data, including race, class, education, political views, etc. The professional news demand for objectivity and fairness doesn't always over-ride how we, or our editors, think. All of which influence -- beyond the most basic 5 Ws -- whatever they/we gather and call "news" and what, no matter how quickly one can dump their notes into the Net, they deem essential--interesting--irrelevant. Read four versions of the same story, certainly when it comes to non-breaking news, and you can see some of the reporter's, editors' and publication's filters more clearly. This also assumes there's only one editor reading your story, even on breaking news, which in my experience is extremely rare. I think an editor's eye is crucial to catch errors, question your assumptions when necessary, suggest holes that need filling and, with less-experienced reporters, perhaps how to fill them. Some of us here have dictated stories to a rewrite desk (old-fashioned but worked just fine as the editor could, and often would, ask questions as we emptied our heads and notebooks) and know what it's like to work at breakneck speed. While I love cicicole's idea of watching a journo at work (would readers actually care?), I'm wary of putting raw copy out there with only the most hurried of re-reads and edits done by the same journo feeling enormous pressure to HURRY rather than do a great job. |
| A~ | Posted – 1/12/2007 1:35:56 PM | show profile This was already probably mentioned, but other than using Dreamweaver and WiFi to upload your own stories to the web without an editor (and the part about testing the technology), this sounds pretty much like what reporters are supposed to do. Reporters don't find news at their desks -- it's discerning that this professional reporter (who, to be frank and probably unfairly judgmental, look in his photo like an Utne Reader intern) is how he perceives the job of reporting. Good reporters don't do what he describes as being a distinguishing element of his job. Mobile Reporting? Sounds like that Al Franken skit from when Saturday Night Live was funny. And, yeah, reporting directly to the Web without any pre-conceived input -- sounds very "Lone Wolf" to me, and perhaps even risky putting in one pair of hands the ability to post something that could cost the newspaper millions if it's libelous. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of all this hype about New Media journalism. When did Rachel Skylar become the media rep for progressives? She's a friggin' blogger from nowhere and she's debating Pat Buchanan whose been in politics longer than I've been alive? Sheesh, no wonder why the Dems are in a mess. But now I am very much digressing ... kind of. |
| Brakingnews | Posted – 1/12/2007 6:52:41 PM | show profile re: Nothing new Reporters can come back from a night meeting and say "nothing went on," and the paper is plugged with wire instead. On the other hand, mojos might be required to file to meet a Web update quota. Do they have to make something out of nothing? ------ Brakingnews |
| cmyron | Posted – 1/15/2007 7:25:00 PM | show profile I, too, have had my concerns about the lack of editing for my stories. But you know what? The Web is not a newspaper. The Internet is its own animal with its own standards. You can go back and change what you've written online, while whatever goes in print might as well be set in stone. It's the same principle that applies to television and radio. Countless hours of live news content goes out over the air everyday, and the only filter between the journalists and the listener/viewer is the occasional five-second delay. Flubs happen all the time on TV and radio, and despite the best efforts of countless editors, in newspapers. If a journalist notices he or she spelled the mayor's name wrong in a newspaper, it's an embarrassing correction in the next day's editions. If TV/radio reporters screw up the name, they clear their throats and restate it correctly. If a Web journalist makes the error, it's fixed in seconds. Can online journalists make heinous errors? Sure. Newspapers have libeled people, TV and radio stations have libeled people and Web sites have libeled people. Even the most careful journalist could be libeling someone at this very moment. It's possible. But is it likely? I use discretion, and if there's a story that carries a little more gravity than usual or raises a red flag for me, I have the option of sending it to an editor before I post. As mdnsports points out, I was hired as a professional journalist, not randomly picked out of a crowd. That's what separates us from bloggers, and that's how newspaper companies can use their expertise to outgun the competition online. And yes, spacegirlg, they do pay for my gas. Thirty cents a mile, pittance that it is. And thankfully my car hasn't broken down ... yet! |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/15/2007 7:47:34 PM | show profile I don't think the comparison really holds. On live TV, the broadcast is actually going out live. That's not the case with your Internet reporting. You are writing an article up and posting it. All the lack of editing does is allow the writing to be posted a few minutes quicker at the cost of more potential errors. I also think it's a copout to say the Internet is more forgiving of errors. That's the case in informal newsgroup postings like this, but if I go to a professional venue I hold it to a higher standard. Saying "we can easily correct our errors so it's OK to make errors" is a slippery slope that promotes shoddiness. But again this whole notion of "the mobile journalist" strikes me as a lot of hype. To me, the real benefit to the Internet isn't the ability to post articles a little faster, but to use multimedia components to provide greater illumination and more insight into stories. The problem with the whole "Journalism From a Car" approach, as it was presented, is that it uses the traditional newspaper approach and values rather than trying to understand how the Internet is unique. --I, too, have had my concerns about the lack of editing for my stories. But you know what? The Web is not a newspaper. The Internet is its own animal with its own standards. You can go back and change what you've written online, while whatever goes in print might as well be set in stone. It's the same principle that applies to television and radio. Countless hours of live news content goes out over the air everyday, and the only filter between the journalists and the listener/viewer is the occasional five-second delay. Flubs happen all the time on TV and radio, and despite the best efforts of countless editors, in newspapers. If a journalist notices he or she spelled the mayor's name wrong in a newspaper, it's an embarrassing correction in the next day's editions. If TV/radio reporters screw up the name, they clear their throats and restate it correctly. If a Web journalist makes the error, it's fixed in seconds. Can online journalists make heinous errors? Sure. Newspapers have libeled people, TV and radio stations have libeled people and Web sites have libeled people. Even the most careful journalist could be libeling someone at this very moment. It's possible. But is it likely? I use discretion, and if there's a story that carries a little more gravity than usual or raises a red flag for me, I have the option of sending it to an editor before I post. As mdnsports points out, I was hired as a professional journalist, not randomly picked out of a crowd. That's what separates us from bloggers, and that's how newspaper companies can use their expertise to outgun the competition online. -- |
| Dorian Benkoil | Posted – 1/18/2007 4:31:54 PM | show profile | email poster We've Added Part II: Tools of the Mobile Journalist All: We've added a second installment of Chuck Myron's piece, Titled "Tools of the Mobile Journalist." You can see it here. Keep the comments coming — we'll get Chuck to take a look. ------ Editorial Director, mediabistro.com |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 1/19/2007 1:50:38 AM | show profile Part 2 was pretty lame, to be honest. The "tools of the mobile journalist" could have been boiled down to a couple of sentences about Sprint wireless cards. Other than that, he didn't mention any tools. --We've Added Part II: Tools of the Mobile Journalist All: We've added a second installment of Chuck Myron's piece, Titled "Tools of the Mobile Journalist." You can see it here. Keep the comments coming ? we'll get Chuck to take a look.-- |
