Online Advertising

When I first heard that we needed to add a video or photo to our blog assignment, I went straight to the news Web site where I knew there are always great videos: CNN.

As much as I love print journalism, some stories beg to be shown, not just told. As much as journalists aim to show the news to the reader through their vast knowledge of the English language, there is nothing quite like seeing an event take place with your own eyes. One such story that begged to be shown I first read about in the AJC. The story was on the Obamas' visit to meet with the Queen of England. As much as I enjoyed reading, I very much wanted to see President Obama giving the Queen an iPod, as the story talks about.

So I went onto CNN's Web site to look for videos of the trip and immediately saw a link to the much-televised video of the Queen putting her arm around First Lady Michelle Obama. I'm not really sure why the fact that they touched got so much press, but what struck me about the video wasn't that they were touching, it was the fact that a video advertisement preceded the news video. 

Now, before we can watch the Queen and the First Lady share an intimate moment, we have to hear from IBM about how we can build a better planet. 

Is video advertising taking over news sites like it has online television? Will we be forced to watch these ads because we don't have DVRs on our computers? What is the future of online advertising for news media?

I can tell you that as far as advertising goes, I would much rather see ads in a paper that I can skim over than be forced to watch ads online. 

Statistics as a Photo Story

This is a piece by Mona Reeder from the Dallas Morning News that won several awards and sparked interest in an issue that had been partially covered in pieces, but she was the first to compile it. In a nutshell, Ms. Reeder put together an investigative photo story after seeing the embarrassing statistics that the state of Texas held in relation to the rest of the country in areas such as poverty and environmental awareness.

'The Bottom Line' shows grim, intimate images of families dealing with impoverished living conditions, failing health, imprisonment, death...and yet, Texas is home to the most Fortune 500 companies in the country. Not to mention its oil industry.

I was fortunate enough to hear Ms. Reeder speak at the Atlanta Photojournalism seminar last year and this story—and its images—have stood out in my memory ever since. Ms. Reeder had pitched this story to her editors for years and got turned down over and over again until finally, they gave her the go-ahead.

I have no idea how much time she spent on this piece, but it was published in eight sections by category. After it was completed, Ms. Reeder sent copies of it to every elected official in Texas—and several in the nation—to highlight the issues and as of December 2008 had not received a single response.

Ms. Reeder spent a lot of time earning the trust of every family she worked with. She captured uncomfortably intimate situations as a result and created a collection of haunting photos and quick statistics that are impossible to ignore.

As I was trying to refresh my memory about the story behind the story, I stumbled upon an interview with Ms. Reeder on Poynter’s Web site and came upon a great quote of hers which I feel perfectly summarizes the importance of captivating images , as well as good design, in today’s struggling newspaper industry:

“To me, "The Bottom Line" project embodies what our managers have been saying the last several years as newspapers experience shrinking readership and news holes. This project represented a well-researched, in-depth piece about serious issues affecting the entire state of Texas, and it was presented in an innovative manner that even the busiest person could get through and absorb in a relatively short amount of time.
Photo essays are the bread and butter of major news magazines, and our world is increasingly focused on visual mediums. It seems to follow that newspapers would gravitate to cleaner designs utilizing compelling, in-depth photo stories to attract and keep readers.”

Just another example of how a statistics story can be made interesting… A really, REALLY good example.

(The slideshow above is awesome, but here are some of the photos with captions, which make them all the more depressing.)

Blog 4: The best news is fake news, or, the blog where I get angry

I blame FOX News. For what? Well, everything I can, really, but mostly for what has happened to television news networks over the past few years. The trend toward sensationalist reporting, a focus on talking-head personalities over actual reporters - a focus on entertainment over news. Certainly, this was always part of the field - CNN's (thankfully) deceased Crossfire was one of the first "news" shows to put the focus on empty arguments and emotional appeal rather than things like, y'know, facts and reason - but it was FOX, with their stable of fatuous non-journalists like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity (not to mention the bubble-headed cheerleaders they hire as female correspondants) that seems to have started the trend. Still, no matter whose fault it is (hint: it's FOX's), that style of "reporting" has, tragically, become the standard for the 24-hour news networks. CNN now has Lou Dobbs (ugh) and Nancy Grace (ugh). They had Glenn Beck (UGH), but he's now at FOX, where he fits right in with O'Reilly and Hannity and Geraldo Rivera and every other one of the network's "journalists" (with the exception of the surprisingly principled Shep Smith). They have become the model. And not to beat up on FOX too much (oh, who am I kidding? That's not possible), but their talking heads consistently, arrogantly proclaim their distance from the oh-so-hateful "mainstream media," apparently ignoring the fact that FOX's ratings are consistently the highest of the news networks. So you could say those claims don't really make a lot of sense. You could also say they're cynical, self-aggrandizing BS, but that would just be rude.

So thank God for Jon Stewart. It was Stewart's legendary appearance on Crossfire (transcript here, video here; I still get chills watching it) that arguably led to the show's cancellation. And I think The Daily Show's greatest strength has always been not how skillfully Stewart skewers politicians for their hypocricy but how he, moreso than any television news personality, holds the 24-hour news networks to the standards they apparently lack the integrity to hold themselves to. As in this clip from The Daily Show, where Stewart takes on CNBC:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
CNBC Financial Advice
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

If you're looking for real, in-depth, honest reporting, it seems like, increasingly, ironically, the best place to turn is the "fake" news show. What does that say about the rest of television news?

Spaghetti Harvest?

In the spirit of April Fool's Day, I decided to use a link I found from The Daily Beast on their Video Cheat Sheet section concerning an April Fool's prank played across the pond by the good people of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Fifty two years ago, BBC aired a fake news feature on April Fool's Day about a spaghetti harvest in Switzerland.
To add legitimacy to this broadcast, BBC convinced reputable broadcaster Richard Dimbleby to narrate the story and featured a family gathering what appeared to be an extremely bountiful spaghetti crop from the trees.
Audience responses ranged from outrage to inquires concerning how to purchase these amazing spaghetti plants. Apparently, spaghetti is considered a "delicacy" in Great Britain, which may somewhat account for the confusion on behalf of the BBC audience.
The question this broadcast raised in my mind on part of editing decision making was how this hoax would affect the network's credibility. We all know that the Brits have an interesting sense of humor, to put it mildly. However, all of the audience members who were reportedly "outraged" probably lost a small degree of respect for BBC. While this may seem ridiculous to some, one thing has been ingrained in my mind over my years in Grady: your reputation as a credible news source means everything. While I am all for having a sense of humor, perhaps it would have been prudent to use this material on another section of BBC's programming other than a serious news show. It would be best to separate legitimate news stories from comedy unless the spoof is explicitly dubbed as a farce of current events a la Jon Stewart.

Overindulgence

The first time the Red&Black used a teaser in its masthead - it caught my attention.  That is, after all, what it's supposed to do.  The second, third, fourth, and twentieth time, however, it began to get off-putting.

Teasers can be particularly effective at getting someone to pick up a newspaper - get some interesting image high up on the front page that makes a passerby stop and say, "why are there Mardi Gras masks around the Red&Black's name?" and they're pretty likely to pick it up and flip through to the story that inspired it.  

A masthead teaser can be a fun way to recognize the holidays or pay tribute to a particularly compelling event as well as lead the reader further into the paper.  The day after it snowed here for example - the Red&Black displayed a relatively tasteful use of icicles across the nameplate.

However, when something as visually dominating as a masthead teaser is used every single day - it gets old.  Not only does it stop grabbing readers' attention, depending on the quality of the imagery used, it can drastically cheapen the overall look of a paper.  The Red&Black's logo is a very well-designed one.  Because of it, the paper as whole appears to be very professional and well-crafted.  But stick a couple clipart pictures on either side of it, and the effect is ruined. 

This newspaper's teasers, at least, are nicely done:

The Red&Black's problem is simply one of over-indulgence.  Google is guilty of the same thing.  

Google went from changing up their name in recognition of holidays, to changing it for every vaguely interesting anniversary almost every other day.   It can be very informative (clicking the logo will take you directly to a list of searches for the theme of their logo that day), but it does get old - the surprise wears off.  

Teasers can be useful and entertaining for both the creators of media and the readers of it, just don't overdo it, keep it fresh, or keep it out of the nameplate.

Britney Spears sued for libel??

About a month ago -- February 4, to be exact -- I ran across a frustratingly brief article in the UK's The Daily Telegraph pertaining to, wouldn't you know it, Britney Spears. Surprisingly, the article's content wasn't entirely about her music career.

You can love or hate Britney, and lately she has been a polarizing figure in pop culture. After the regrettable "K-Fed era" where she got really f-ed up, flashed a bunch of paparazzi, and lost custody of her kids and -- oh yeah -- her sexual appeal, she has more recently started to show a bizarre career parallel with the late Anna Nicole Smith. That is to say, "hot - gross - hot again." It's a smart career move, to be sure. Kirstie Alley has kind of done the same thing recently with the whole Jenny Craig thing. Premeditated or not, I'm sure Ms. Spears was hoping deep down that if she ever happened to lose her clout, gaining it back would make her an even bigger sensation than before.

But now she's "under pressure"... whatever that might mean. The Telegraph implies it has to do with the prospect of enduring another performance flop, but the remainder of the short article suggests (weakly) that some of this pressure may stem from a troubling lawsuit against her and her family for libel and defamation, issued by her former manager, Osama "Sam" Lutfi.

The problem is that writer Ben Leach's description of the lawsuit and its details is horribly vague and even a little redundant. He states the circumstances of the suit and nothing more, leaving the reader with no real idea of why Lutfi is suing Spears or even what the matter at hand is. Other than being owed "unpaid management fees," the ensuing accusations of "libel," "defamation," "battery," and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" are unfounded as far as I can tell. Rather than shed light on the subject, Leach really just opens up more doors for questions, explaining Spears filed a restraining order on Lutfi and her boyfriend before the lawsuit came about. OK, this piece of information may help explain a few of these charges, but it also begs the question: why did she file a restraining order in the first place?

Additionally, since none of the circumstances were really addressed in the article, there is no evidence of whether this libelous claim against Spears will hold up in court. Since we know none of the details of the story from reading it, we can't determine how Lutfi's reputation has been harmed, how truthful the matter is, or if the charge was a fair comment on any matter of public interest. This article is cursory and doesn't offer much at all for the reader to draw upon.

To-may-toe Toh-mah-toe, it matters.

I always get worried when I read anything related sex, STIs or rape cases in the Red and Black because it's usually shameless, uninformative, and gender-role affirming. The article in today's Red and Black about Spring Break and avoiding STDs was surprisingly informative and relevant.

Although I am all for keeping the reader interested and laughing, I think the number of puns should be limited or simply kept at the lede paragraph of the article. Comments like ," It's a touchy subject, literally", or "Just be careful who you invite into your bubble because there's a good chance you'll be sharing more than blissful ignorance" are all cute and funny, but I think we get it, it's an awkward subject for some people and you're using humor to disarm them.

The article definitely came at a useful time and was pretty engaging but my biggest problem with the article is that it misuses the term STDs when the correct term is STIs. Brown's University's Health Center web site explains the difference between terminologies of both STDs v. STIs.

In short, the site explains that the " term 'infection' more accurately describes conditions where sexual partners may not have symptoms and may not be aware that they have an infection, and because many of these infections are actually curable. The term 'infection' carries less of a social stigma than the term 'disease.' The term STI is also being used by leading sexual health organizations such as Planned Parenthood." The term "STI" more closely relates to the issues she addresses in her article and should have been used instead of "STD".

On The Red and Black's web site, someone leaves a comment pointing out that the writer had made the mistake in terminology but the writer responded by saying that she avoided using the term because she went to a seminar in which most of the girls were confused when the term "STI" was used instead of "STD" but as a writer, I think we shouldn't really cater to our reader in terms of using phrases and words that we know are politically incorrect.

As editors, if we know the direction of change in our language, we shouldn't really re-affirm the old terms if they are incorrect. If that was the case, we would still be using terms like "colored" or "retard."