To save newspapers, "Buy One Anyway"

H/T to All Things D for posting this Slate gem:



"Just because I don't get my news from it, doesn't mean it's not useful"

Could Twitter save real journalism?

One of the most shocking sports stories from the last week included the shrouded news of Steve McNair, former quarterback of the Baltimore Ravens and Tennessee Titans as well as a breakthrough college star at Alcorn State. On Saturday July 4th, news started coming from a variety of sources that McNair had been found dead in his home; a true loss for the sport overall because of the level of play, commitment, and toughness that McNair showed.

The manner in which the story broke on the holiday led to several more examples of the Statusphere vs. Mainstream Media. There were some that were brutally scathing of MSM's coverage, such as Aaron Brazell's piece over at Technosailor:

WKRN, in Nashville, was the first with the news and it quickly disappeared off their page – a result of too much traffic or erroring on the side of caution, who is to really know.

NBC Affiliate WTVF, Channel 5, was the second to report it filling the gap where WKRN dropped off.

It was a long time (30 minutes or so) before national media picked it up. ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Sports by their own slogan, didn’t have it. No one did. We were left gasping for more. Is the rumor true? Can anyone confirm? Can police confirm?

Was any of us on Twitter making calls? Maybe. A few possibly. Not many.

There were a few other comments in and throughout Brazell's post, as well as follow-up from the readers questioning his rush to blame, but I think that he may have taken it too far to the end of the spectrum. When it comes to a story surrounded by so many circumstances, it is obviously in the best interest of the journalistic community to get the story right. 30 minutes to check the story is better than getting it wrong, correcting it, and making the error the story, not the event.

On the complete other end of the spectrum is an old media guy accusing Twitter of being too involved in the conversation about the former-MVPs passing. Tim Keown, a long-time writer at ESPN put together this piece in response to the reaction of another NFL QB's wife that was captured in the midst of the coverage. The same negativity Brazell had toward ESPN for failing to report the story, Keown has toward Twitter for pressuring MSM to respond:

The problem is, there is a widespread attempt in the media to bring validity to the enterprise. There's pressure to get stuff out there, to be connected to the story. CNN wants us to follow it on Twitter, when following it on CNN should be about all it demands of us. Viewers are invited to respond, and there's nothing quite like the awfulness of a guy reading a truncated, abbreviated, code-language message from someone with no expertise beyond opposable thumbs.

(And I'll say it before you do: There are exceptions, and the election protests in Iran are a big one. Without Twitter, the amount of useful information leaving that country would be minimal at best. This leaves aside the validity of the information being Twittered -- or whatever the heck you want to call it -- but that's secondary to the importance of the technology in spreading useful information.)

The bold in the above section is mine. Also, I wanted to include Keown's waiver to not completely throw him under the bus, but that shouldn't be a complete hand washing for the piece.

Twitter has broken stories, we know that. Folks in DC will recall when Twitter was in its mainstream infancy and news about Tim Russert spread, in addition to the reference Keown makes and the many other breaking outlets. Remember: that's not what Twitter's purpose is, to be a journalistic mainstay. It's for information sharing, not confirmation; we need to recognize the bridge between the two.

Sure, as a reporter, you have to move a little quicker now, but let that be an advantage, not a hurdle. Keown opined that this stuff will sink the media ship, but he places to high of a premium on what it means for journalism to be accompanied by "You heard it here first." That's ignorant, to me.

For journalists, the service should be used like a hiker uses a compass: it doesn't show you the trail, just points you in the right direction. We are telling you where to go, just don't get lost along the way and everyone stays happy.

Instant Reaction: Twitter Volleys to Mainstream Media

(cc) Flickr user Koltregaskes

Laptop open here in front of me, I'm absolutely engrossed in about the third hour I've watched in a row of this fantastic tennis match at Wimbledon's Centre Court.

The match literally just ended, and a heartbreaking five-set match (including a 30 game, 16-14 clincher for Roger) has been nothing short of amazing. The thing is: I know I wasn't alone in watching this historic match.

I started watching pretty early on this morning, around the third set when Roger was pulling together a tie-breaker win. The general chatter among friends and followers had little to do with tennis, or if they did, it was a small acknowledgment of that Twitter would keep them in the know.

I find it fascinating though that the normal, Sunday morning, light chatter on Twitter quickly turned into a "are you watching this?" as the fifth set kept plugging along. It was more a call of the community to get to their television and flick straight over to the epic set. It was a grueling match, completely entertaining - but the word of mouth power of Twitter drove the audience away from 140 characters to live television.

This is what I think is the most misunderstood power of Twitter. It isn't about keeping a contained conversation - it's about flagging things that need to be developed further. Whether it was something vain like the call to watch Chuck or something more breaking or revolutionary, the questions within these trending topics wasn't what was inside the twittersphere, it was why we needed to look beyond it.

Wimbledon was a tiny, ignorable case study for the most part. It wasn't self-contained to Twitter, I saw similar questions in my Facebook stream. It's probably another chink in the MSM armor, but, to me, it's fascinating that global events have a community that exists beyond ISPs, time zones, and borders.

Sports and media go hand in hand, especially major and live tournaments. The US Soccer run from the last weeks had similar legs online, but I don't know if we'll get a real test of the system any time soon. I'd argue that the Winter Olympics offer the opportunity, but given they are in North American time zones, the possibility for an overseas spoiler is slim because of the timing of events. Had this been around for Turino in 2006 - or if the medium still exists/operates like it does in the summer of 2012 for London - it presents a fascinating challenge for sports media. (Just like year's past, I'm assuming that ESPN will broadcast next summer's World Cup live, so we won't get to test this theory then).

NBC had the live broadcast this morning - it would have been useless to those who tracked it online if they didn't. This just may be the biggest change for which media will have to prepare. The twitter sphere demands live coverage (just check #CNNFAIL). Does this mean that it will be necessary to broadcast non-primetime, live coverage of overseas sporting events from now on? It's the only way media will be able to provide the access and coverage the audience wants - and the word of mouth among fans will have to be the TV guide we need to find the way.

One more fantastic Fourth of July video

I freakin' love the Muppets - catching this on BoingBoing this morning inspired me to track down this patriotic tribute. Only available on the American version (kidding).

Happy Fourth!

(cc) Flickr User Ryan Orr

Happy and safe Fourth to all. Going to get back on the writing horse this week. Enjoy some American music and have a great one:

YouTube Educating Citizen Journalists

A few interesting media-crossover stories today, but while thinking about the Wikipedia-David Rohde story (fascinating stuff, more on that later), I got distracted by a new project on YouTube via TechCrunch called the YouTube Reporters' Center.


The concept to me is fascinating. Provide basic education and instructions to encourage more journalistic type of videos for the hopeful cell-phone-camera-reporter. TC complimented it but hinted at the motives:

The idea is sound and some of the content is rather good, and I’m sure it will provide a helpful resource for citizen reporters across the globe. Of course, it serves YouTube’s interests as well when more and more people take up the habit of filming whatever happens in their neighborhood and upload the videos to the wildly popular sharing site afterwards.

I don't think there's any reason to look for some dastardly rationalization for the project - YouTube is not going anywhere, and providing basic education isn't going to help the franchise hit even more astronomical heights. This is just an interesting experiment, especially in the wake of how the service became a place for this type of content on its own during the Iran Election protests.

I think I'm most fascinated by how the media is playing along. Getting Couric, Woodward and others to participate (and many more journos to follow suit) is an endorsement of community media. This isn't MSM trying to build blogs and Web video in an attempt to mimic the format of successful social platforms. This is them actually saying, yes, there is something out there that we can't ignore any more. Instead of scoffing at low-quality video that delivers news that we can't otherwise provide, let's help folks get it right so that everyone wins.

This very well may be the most social Mainstream Media has ever been.


The Washington Post's Bob Woodward on conducting investigative journalism

Weekend Treat: Do Not Abandon Blowouts

I ended up following a lot of TV bloggers recently. Partially because of all that Chuck ranting, partially because of my pop culture dorkiness. Yes, there is enough irony of a digital guy who blogs a lot about the struggles of mainstream media to move with technology who is completely obsessed with iconic, traditional TV.

I'm really happy I started keeping up with Alan Sepinwall and his What's Alan Watching blog earlier this spring. To add to the levels of irony, please note that Sepinwall is also the TV critic for the NJ Star-Ledger. There's about nine crossovers of interconnected media here, but that's the purpose of the rant.

One of my favorite things that Alan has been doing this summer has been a TV rewind - with limited new programming worth focusing on, he's utilizing the power of DVD to "cover" TV shows as if they were still going on and around for the first time. Part of his focus this summer is the exceptional Aaron Sorkin behind-the-scenes, pre-West Wing piece, Sports Night.

The show was great and its worth catching up with Alan's coverage of it if you get a chance. This is one of my favorite moments, from the season one finale, when Jeremy (an assistant produce who has the dweeb setting up all the time, but in an endearing way), tries to convince his co-workers that all they need is a big rally. I could watch it over and over again.


This clip is property of Imagine Television in association with Touchstone Pictures.

Here's the full text of the speech:

Jeremy: Listen to me, everybody. Stop your work. A writer once wrote "As if it matters how a man falls down; when the fall is all that's left, it matters very much." What did he mean by that? He meant 'do not abandon blowouts'. Watching proud and accomplished athletes battle in the face of odds that are virtually hopeless is one of the more stirring sights in all of sports. The Phillies have been down 14 to 1 since the third inning. And I think it's the best game we've got. That is all.