May 7, 2005
CNN providing curricula for teachers
I had no idea that CNN did this. Check this out. CNN creates a program for teachers to show in classrooms about: "Infidelity is a growing problem in the United States."
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:11 PM | Comments (1)
May 1, 2005
BBC News website expands RSS license terms to allow commercial use
The BBC announced today that it plans to expand the license terms on its numerous RSS feeds to allow other websites to reuse its content. The license currently proscribes that the feeds are only for "personal use," according to BBC editor Peter Clifton. According to Clifton's statement, "in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines." The announcement did not specify whether the new license would allow the use of entire articles, or just the headlines.
The BBC currently has 18 feeds, ranging in topic from Business and Technology to Health and Entertainment. They also provide feeds with regional news, focusing on, for example, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In its current setup, the BBC provides a headline plus a lead sentence in its feeds.
RSS, which stands for Really Simple Syndication, is a protocol that allows users to aggregate articles from many sources in a program called a "news reader" or "aggregator." A news reader works by reading simple files from user-targeted websites and parsing them into a presentable format.
Posted by rcwalsh at 11:30 PM | Comments (0)
April 25, 2005
Google gets to know you
Here we goooo! Just like in the mocumentary, Google is getting into our brains to serve us better: http://labs.google.com/personalized
There is a draggable personalize meter to filter out results based on a profile of interests that you create (and is saved by your physical IP address on the internet, just like the new Custom GoogleNews).
Posted by rcwalsh at 6:41 PM | Comments (0)
April 23, 2005
New Pope Has Different Style With Media
VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI showed off his language skills in a meeting with journalists Saturday but made clear he was not a carbon copy of his media-minded predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
The new pope, reading prepared remarks in four languages, thanked journalists for their coverage of the ``historically important'' events during the papal transition, urged them to remember their ethical responsibilities and said he hoped to continue his predecessor's tradition of openness with the media.
Posted by rcwalsh at 6:04 PM | Comments (0)
April 22, 2005
Stem-Cell Research Debate
Issues that are controversial in a certain society tend to have news stories written about them that are heavily "framed." As the WHO "Basic Principles of Media Advocacy" says, a frame must tell the audience what is at stake, prove that the issue requires the audience's attention, convince the audience that it already knows the solution of the problem, and remind the audience that the solution is political and can use the audience's support. In 2005 in the United States, one of the primary examples of framing that comes to mind is that of the stem-cell research debate.
When discussing complicated bioethics, often many different elements are "at stake." Various groups argue for different definitions of words such as "life" and "human" and "conception" and "respectable" and "valuable." If ever one particular viewpoint were to prevail, it might lead to a transformation of society as we know it. [Attitudes and policies about these topics affect science experiments (like the creation of chimeras for testing), birth control, right to life, etc.] Instead, what remains usually seems to be the arguments themselves with no agreed-upon solution. Although journalists frequently engage these life-changing possibilities, they usually do so as a method of handling the main inquiry, which can be pulled from the surrounding debate: "Is any type of stem-cell research harmful to anything that is respectable?" Even though many readers may not have the opportunity to see the question spelled out for them without having the "answers" also immediately thrown in their faces, they can extract this question from the whirlwind of a media frame that is trying to get them to feel and act in favor or opposition of certain policies.
It is quite easy for reporters (and politicians, for that matter) to notify the public about why this topic requires their attention. On the one hand, the decision to accept embryonic stem-cell research as morally sound (for example) would lead to untold discoveries and possibilities of cures that would help countless people (as many journalists say). Likewise, labeling said research as morally revolting (or even as questionable) will prevent any of these advancements from taking place. Simultaneously, one has to remember the concerns on the other hand: if I define something as "respectable life," then I (by my own definition) should respect it, even though I miss out on all the benefits of the research that I could have chosen to support. Abortion and "right to life" are also interconnected issues that much of the audience will see as relevant (especially when the media helps them to see those issues as relevant, which I will address later).
This issue is entirely political, and every reader or TV viewer definitely knows that tax dollars are at stake, as is future legislation. Whenever the public has an opportunity to vote on the issue, reporters certainly spread the word. With this topic, in fact, it would be quite difficult to dramatize and personalize it to the point where viewers did not think that a collective decision was involved. For example, a viewer probably never interprets a story as simply an inside look at one particular lab in which a particular scientist decided to do ethically-questionable experiments. The broader context is almost inescapable.
Of the four aforementioned elements of thematic framing, the three that I just detailed are easier to satisfy (with this issue) than the next: it is not so often the case that a news story can convince the audience that the audience already knows the solution in the stem-cell debate. Just as many people do not know their own views regarding abortion or doctor-assisted suicide, many do not know what they feel about stem-cell research. Since "people reason metaphorically" with "conceptual models," a person without a strong stance on such a related issue will lack the foothold with which to build a position in the stem-cell debate (whereas journalists often appeal to ardent pro-lifers in a way that translates their values to the stem-cell research debate). Therefore, with the previous three framing elements already taken care of, any journalist with an agenda (which is potentially all of them) focuses quite a lot of her energies on the proof that the solution is already known.
In addition to the message itself, journalists can use the organization/placement of certain quotes or facts to affect how the audience feels about the topic. What the journalist omits or fails to comment on is just as crucial.
Journalists who favor embryonic stem-cell research want to convince audiences that nobody can escape the possibility of being in the position where he would benefit from results of the research. That is to say, journalists tend to highlight trends, such as the increasing numbers of diabetes patients, and remind everyone that stem-cell research might work like miracles on this ever-increasing population of patients. (Each person in the audience feels that she is part of the population that would be affected, could become part of that population, or might know and care about someone in that population.) They employ words such as "important" and "hope" and phrases such as "cannot afford to wait," and "enhancement of the quality of life."
Journalists who oppose embryonic stem-cell research often discuss "sanctity of life" and frequently involve religion in the debate. They refer to somatic nuclear transfer as "destroying" the embryos (while proponents simply calling it "using" the embryos). They try very hard to downplay the expectations of the stem-cell research supporters, saying that proponents spout off "false promises" that irrationally "raise false hopes" of people with diseases. They use the words "unrealistic" when describing dreams and "unfortunate" when discussing the "destruction of embryos." Sometimes (in rarer cases), a journalist will refer to embryonic stem-cell research as killing human children. Most of the public's definition or concept of a human child is far different from (and does not include) new human embryos, and the emotional attachments that most people have toward children are being used to elicit revulsion to stem-cell research.
Further, opponents contest the existing results of the initial experiments and the subsequent economic analyses that suggest that the future experiments are economically feasible (which does not consider morality at all, obviously). While there are plenty of studies that show that embryonic stem-cell research might be a shot in the dark (and a costly one), it is still challenging for these opponents to quiet the excitement that the supporting side has already encouraged regarding the "miraculous" possible futureâ€"the predicted astounding success of research). When opponents do take this route and use economics to argue against embryonic stem-cell research (although their main qualms with the research might be moral), they have a significant team in their favor: Wall Street. Private investors shy away from embryonic stem-cell research because its promises have failed them in the past and because none of the science seems reliable yet (to the private investors). So, Wall Street money tends to support adult stem-cell research, which involves almost no moral quandaries and which embryonic stem-cell research opponents are often likely to support. As strategy, embryonic stem-cell research opponents highlight this tendency, just in case their moral arguments fail.
All in all, the stem-cell research debate is manifestly political, its ramifications are evident, the consequences of those ramifications are clearly monumental, and there are slants available for various journalists to support either side in a way that makes readers think that they already know how to solve the problem.
Posted by rcwalsh at 10:26 PM | Comments (0)
April 18, 2005
Edutainment: Music Videos That Teach or Preach
In class, we heard about "edutainment" in South Africa where music videos and other programs attempt to attract certain crowds through entertainment... yet also include a message.
It reminds me of this music video: [tba]
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:18 PM | Comments (0)
April 12, 2005
Prince Article About News Story Selection
Today I read in the Daily Prince an interesting article about which stories the media choose to cover. The Daily Prince's website is not working, but when it does, I will continue this post.
The day's website is here, but I don't think they posted the article yet: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/04/12
Posted by rcwalsh at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)
April 11, 2005
Reporting News Before It Happens
Tom's news story involved an event that has yet to happen. Online, I came across a publication that chronicles planned events as if they were already news: NewsAhead
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:06 PM | Comments (1)
Google VideoBlogging
According to the BBC and Advanced_IP_Pipeline, Google co-founder Larry Page said on 2005 Apr 04 (at the panel discussion at the National Cable & Telecommunications Show in San Francisco) that Google will soon allow users to upload personal videos to Google servers.
Google owns and operates Blogger.com, arguably the most famous free blog site. Blogger's definition:
A blog is a personal diary. A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world.Your blog is whatever you want it to be. There are millions of them, in all shapes and sizes, and there are no real rules.
In simple terms, a blog is a web site, where you write stuff on an ongoing basis. New stuff shows up at the top, so your visitors can read what's new. Then they comment on it or link to it or email you. Or not.
Online blog services are basically just sites that make it convenient for someone to run a journal-like website. So, it is therefore quite easy to make a blog into any type of site one wants, including a site with videos, if one has access to a server that will store videos. Now that Google is allowing people to store videos on its servers, millions of people can easily engage in VideoBlogging (which, of course, already exists as a technology, and it is also known as "vlogging").
There is already at least one popular video blogging site. VidBlogs calls itself "the ultimate public voyeur experiment," and it says:
"A video blog is the new hot way for people to stick their personal lives on the internet! Not just simple words, static pictures, or grainy audio. They invite you to join them where-ever they go; meet their friends, their family, go on vacation, fall in love, and all vicariously from the comfort of your home computer. See some people's lives, and consider joining in on the fun here at vidblogs.com."
Rival search engine Yahoo already has their own video search as well; it is not vlogging but rather a simple video search very similar to GoogleVideo, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
Vlogs are often promoted and broadcast (so to speak) in nontraditional ways. Wikipedia says that "Vloggers, most of whom refer to themselves as Videobloggers, use RSS feeds with enclosures to bypass the traditional distribution systems of mainstream media, delivering video content to various news aggregators and websites. These practices are once again revolutionizing online communication."
Still, however, the method of video transfer is not the only concern. As we talked about in class, the recent tsunami in Asia caused people to use various methods of communication that were not the norm (and the Wall Street Journal also mentions it here). Cell phone companies donated airtime and free SMS messaging, people blogged if they still had an internet connection, and there was actually a significant amount of vlogging as well. But the client-side is not the only side; servers have to handle the videos somehow. In fact, the Tsunami Video Hosting Initiative was started as a sort of public service so that bandwidth and server storage space would not be concerns.
At the aforementioned Telecommunications Show, Larry Page said, "Google, which already offers the Picasa service for storing and sharing digital photos and the Blogger service for blogs, wants to learn how to better sort and search video to improve the user interface for finding video data." John Chambers of Cisco added that "video's data needs will require new kinds of network thinking, since 'one half hour of video [traffic] is equal to a half a year of email.'"
As Google now owns and operates numerous complicated websites including GMail, which recently increased storage space to 2GB of email per user, and KeyHole, which is an attempt to collect satellite and/or aerial photos of every inch of the globe, the company needs vast amounts of server storage space.
Forbes wrote an article about how Google attacks this business problem:
"Google saves tens of millions of dollars by using cheap consumer-class servers--more than 100,000 of them, actually--to power its search algorithm. Early in its life Google reasoned that consumer-priced technology was as good as business-priced technology if you configured it right. That's why Google continues to pour its resources into hiring bright people, not into buying the fastest boxes. Advantages, Google believes, are to be found in clever use, not in the hardware itself. Google saves so much on hardware costs that it sports an annual cash-flow run rate of around $400 million, exceeding that of older Web superstars with greater annual sales, such as Ebay and Yahoo."
As long as video and the internet have existed, there has probably been someone who wanted to share videos online. Google, as the personable yet professional company that it is, has the power to change the world by offering a service that allows almost anybody to post digital videos to an online server that is viewable by almost everyone. The implications of this technology are enormous. Wikipedia and Wikinews, for example, will be transformed. [Note: Wikinews actually already uses Blogger for part of its operation.] I imagine that people who witness news-worthy events and videotape the action will be eager to share the perspective in the using the 4-dimension media of video.
Posted by rcwalsh at 1:40 PM | Comments (0)
April 4, 2005
Frame Game: The Spin Process Explained
I searched Google for Slate's Frame Game, and this is what I found, and I'm not sure if it's what we're talking about in class right now.
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:57 PM | Comments (1)
Classified Ads in Newspapers
Meg Whitman, a famous Princeton graduate of the class of 1977, is now the CEO of eBay. She wrote her senior thesis on "The Marketing of American Consumer Products in Western Europe."
As we read recently in class (I forget where), classified ads used to be the primary source of income for newspapers. I had never thought of that before. If I ever had a need to sell something, there are local neighborhood newsletters at my disposal, and the second thing I think of (if I am willing to sell nationally or internationally) is eBay. Printed classified ads in newspapers have taken a huge hit due to eBay's success.
TITLE: The Marketing of American Consumer Products in Western Europe (83 pages).
AUTHOR: Margaret Cushing Whitman (1977), Economics Department
ADVISOR: Not available
LOCATED AT: Mudd Library.
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:33 PM | Comments (0)
April 2, 2005
Titles of Stories
I wonder if there is a study of how to write great news story titles. It's really an art and a science. Some can be really bad and misleading, and others are funny. Check out this one (the subtitle in the center) about our friends (in the 2005 Mar 28 TIME Magazine):
Posted by rcwalsh at 1:28 PM | Comments (1)
News Director of NY1
NY1 is a 24-hour television news channel* that focuses on New York City. I had the opportunity to speak with News Director Peter Landis about the future of news.
He says that there will be plenty more "intimate gear in the field" such as "satellite phones" that allow reporters to do more work (and more efficiently). These technologies will also improve, and the tools themselves will continue to decrease in physical size.
Mr. Landis is "a traditional guy," so he is not happy to report that the future of news will involve "less filtering." Largely, news will be hard and cheaply-gathered, not polished. There will be "more 'noise', and less firm/good reporting."
When asked about the conflict between giving the public what they NEED to know or what they WANT to see, Mr. Landis quickly responded "Oh I give them what they need to know." But he soon clarified that he does not mean 100% of the time: a news agency must give the public lots of things "to make them well rounded" (weather, movie reviews, entertainment news, etc.). In this era of "channel-changing," you cannot assume that you will keep your audience's attention for a set amount of time, so you have to at least satisfy their interests minimally. So you keep your viewers by feeding them a little bit of what they think they want, and ultimately you can make sure they get a lot of what they need. And is possible that this strategy will--in the long run--increase brand trustworthiness. (This idea is similar if not identical to what Aaron Brown told us, with his analogy of "Feed them brussel sprouts and then some dessert.")
Mr. Landis is "not opposed to journalists being live-shot anchors," because stations need to have someone consistent and reliable to be reporting the news that is coming in, and there are plenty of other capable journalists in the field doing the news gathering that never get seen by the camera.
Blogs are unprofessional and dangerous to public knowledge, Mr. Landis seems to suggest, as he strongly feels that "reporters need to analyze and not editorialize." When blog-like online media claim to be objective news when they are actually reports that are injected with opinions, they become nearly worthless for the consumer who seeks reliable, professional, objective news.
When asked about the financial viability of news organizations in the short and long term future, Mr. Landis said that NY1 is a 24-hr newschannel for NYC and therefore has its own little niche. It will "be around for a while," though nobody can say how long. He says that the important question is, "How much of an audience do you need... to maintain your profits?"
Journalists need to be given a set, pre-determined budget, and they need to have the power to choose what is important and what stories they should cover, and how many people to deploy. One-person teams should not attempt to handle significant events. For the times (like 9/11) when there is a huge, unexpected event, the "pencil pushers" need to open up some reserve money for the journalists so that the organization can adequately report the important news events to its consumers. "In the long term, an organization would be hurt if it didn't do this," Mr. Landis says.
Personally, Mr. Landis is happy that he is in his mid-50s and therefore isn't TOO worried about the details of "what the heck will happen with news in the future."
* some extra information:
NY1 News is Time Warner's 24-hour newschannel in New York City. Available exclusively on Time Warner Cable, NY1 covers the city's five boroughs with more than 25 full-time reporters.
New York 1 signed on in the fall of 1992 from its newsroom on Manhattan's West 42nd Street. As it approached its tenth anniversary, the station moved into a new state-of-the-art facility in the historic Chelsea Market building in January of 2002. With an integrated, all-digital production system and more than 600 hours of computer-based video storage, the facility represents one of the most advanced newsgathering operations in the world.
New York 1 expanded into New York City's Latino community by launching the city's first 24-hour Spanish-language newschannel, NY1 Noticias in June 2003. The channel is available on Time Warner Cable's DTV channel 801.
Posted by rcwalsh at 12:36 PM | Comments (1)
March 31, 2005
Editing Wikinews is Easy
Today I saw that the headlining article of Wikinews was about Terri Schiavo.
I noticed that some of the facts to the story were wrong. I had been to a lecture by Terri's brother, and he had made some claims that the Wikinews article did not mention.
I clicked on the Edit button, I changed and added text, and then I saved the changes.
The fresh, newly updated article was instantly available for the entire world to see. It was that easy! So, hopefully the system works well enough so that people couldn't change an important news story by adding INCORRECT facts without responsible Wiki readers quickly fixing the mistakes (and maybe reporting the abuse?).
Posted by rcwalsh at 11:56 PM | Comments (1)
March 28, 2005
recent Princeton grad is Newsweek reporter talking about grade inflation
Andrew Romano '04 reports about Princeton grade inflation being combated: "Grade Grubbing: Bursting the Bubble". According to our classmate Tom, Romano was a summer intern for Newsweek before getting the full-time job.
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:36 PM | Comments (0)
March 27, 2005
Harvard's Berkman Center blog group develops blogging tutorials
From Wikinews, the free news source
Posted by rcwalsh at 5:59 PM | Comments (0)
March 26, 2005
Interesting thought about trust
We just read about the state of journalism in 2005, and the report mentioned that the people who distrust the news media the most are actually the biggest consumers of it.
What does this mean? How does it relate to the statistic that we saw earlier (I think it was in one of our books), which said that the most-trusted news sources are only trusted by consumers 30% of the time?
Posted by rcwalsh at 7:45 PM | Comments (2)
March 21, 2005
George Carlin on Wikipedia
I was interested to find some more information about this comedian that (of course) enjoys making a living by pushing the boundaries of the FCC.
"I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." - George Carlin
I read the Wikipedia article about him, and I chose some of the interesting sections of the article to paste here:
George Carlin grew up on West 121st St. in the Morningside Heights neighborhood of Manhattan. He was raised by his mother; she left his father when he was two years old. At age 17, Carlin dropped out of high school and joined the United States Air Force, training as a radar technician. He was stationed in Shreveport, Louisiana, where he began working as a disc jockey on a local radio station. He did not complete his Air Force enlistment.
At the age of 18, he and Jack Burns, a new announcer at the station, assembled a comedy routine and began booking nightclubs. Soon the act broke up. Carlin continued to work as a stand-up comic.
As a staunch atheist, Carlin has often denounced the idea of a god in interviews and performances. In mockery he invented a fake religion called "Frisbeetarianism" for a newspaper contest. He defined it as the belief that when one dies "his soul gets flung onto a roof, and just stays there," and can't be retrieved.
Carlin has also said he might worship the Sun (he can see it) but pray to Joe Pesci because "he looks like a guy who can get things done!"
Carlin was also arrested in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and charged with violating obscenity laws. He was the first-ever host of NBC's Saturday Night Live, debuting on October 11, 1975. He also hosted SNL on November 10, 1984.
In 1999, Carlin returned with an appearance in Kevin Smith's film Dogma. He worked with Smith again with a cameo appearance in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and a larger role in Jersey Girl.
In 2004, Carlin was voted #2 of the "Greatest Standup Comedians of All Time (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/100greatest/)" by Comedy Central behind Richard Pryor.
In December 2004, Carlin announced that he would be voluntarily entering a drug rehabilitation facility to receive treatment for his dependency on alcohol and painkillers.
Carlin performs regularly as a headliner in Las Vegas.
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:03 PM | Comments (0)
GoogleVideo
"Search recent TV programs online."
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:32 PM | Comments (0)
Want to see another blog about Google?
This one (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gleemie/94676.html) is actually promoted by Google itself: http://www.google.com/googleblog/.
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:26 PM | Comments (0)
March 20, 2005
Article about TV censorship
This TIME article talks about monitoring swear words in TV shows. This relates to any of our discussions about "what the public wants vs what the public should get" and also First Amendment.
The Decency Police
A year after Janet Jackson, activists and Congress are revving up their drive to clean up the airwaves. Now cable may be next. Has TV gone too far�or have its critics?
The Parents Television Council believes that too much prime-time TV is indecent. So indecent that it never misses a show. In the group's Alexandria, Va., offices, five analysts sit at desks with a VCR, a TV and a computer. They tape every hour of prime-time network TV, and a lot of cable. CSI. The Apprentice. God help them, even Reba. And they watch. Every filthy second.
This afternoon, PTC analyst Kristine Looney is sitting in her cubicle, whose bookshelf holds volumes by Ann Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy. Headphones over her ears, hand on the remote, she is watching the March 13 episode of Crossing Jordan. Suddenly, she hits the pause button. Why? "'Damn,'" she says. "And also they were talking about drugs." Looney, 25, transcribes the quote—"Damn. The sec- ond suitcase is still out there"—and it goes into the Entertainment Tracking System (ETS), the PTC's database on more than 100,000 hours of programming. "We track even those minor swears," says Looney's supervisor, Melissa Caldwell, "because it's a way of tracking trends." The ETS, in the words of PTC executive director Tim Winter, logs "every incident of sexual content, violence, profanity, disrespect for authority and other negative content." The ETS analysts don't monitor premium channels, which is just as well, because an episode of Deadwood would presumably crash the system. The ETS is thoroughly indexed by theme—"Threesome," "Masturbation," "Obscene Gesture." With it, the group can detect patterns of sleaze and curses and spotlight advertisers who buy on naughty shows. It is a meticulously compiled, cross-referenced, multimegabyte Alexandria Library of smut.
The Entertainment Tracking System. . .
To get immediate access to this complete story,
you must be a TIME Magazine subscriber.
Please log in or subscribe below
Posted by rcwalsh at 1:29 PM | Comments (0)
March 19, 2005
Similar to the Mocumentary
Copyright infringement case brought against Google by AFP
Google Inc is in the line of fire for the second time in few months for alleged copyright infringement. This time it is Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the world's major global news agencies, which is seeking damages worth $17.5 million.
AFP alleges that Google's news service, Google news, which had been given a facelift recently by adding new personalization features, includes AFP's photos, stories and news headlines, which are copywritten materials. These were used by Google without getting the permission of AFP prior to its publishing.
In the mocumentary, Google is sued. It is surprising to me that in real life Google would rip something from real news agencies (who spend money trying to gather news and then sell it) without any permission, basically taking the stance (I assume) that, if the news is available to be read by anyone for free, then Google can read and cache it as well.
The logic here is flawed though; "free" is a tricky word. I'm sure that AFP has advertising, and viewers are "paying," in essence, by even being subjected to any advertising. That's how advertising works. Advertising companies simply charge for exposure. Google, similarly, earns money by placing ads alongside content, and in this case, other companies are the owners (or at least the creators) of the content. If I have the facts straight, Google should lose most related court cases. In fact, I used to run a website (the predecessor to Point.Princeton.edu, which I run now as well) that ripped news stories from GoogleNews. Then, Google got upset and prevented the ripping (caching). They are definitely not practicing what they preach.
Posted by rcwalsh at 8:50 PM | Comments (1)
March 15, 2005
Best of the Blogs
"Blogs in the annual Bloggies are chosen and voted for by the public."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4350041.stm
Posted by rcwalsh at 3:16 PM | Comments (0)
March 12, 2005
New Category of News
I just now noticed a new category of news on Reuters.com. We're all used to seeing "Top Stories," "World News," "U.S. News," "Business," "Technology," and even "Oddly Enough."
Now available for popular consumption: "World Crises."
Posted by rcwalsh at 7:12 PM | Comments (0)
Customizable GoogleNews
The extremely popular GoogleNews now offers customization of the layout of its news stories. GoogleNews still does not offer RSS/XML/RDF syndication of its stories like other news sites do (CNN, Reuters, BBC, etc).
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:19 PM | Comments (0)
March 9, 2005
Harvard Business School rejects 119 supposed "hackers"
I'm not sure that is is appropriate for our "Media" blog in particular except that the only way I heard about this was through our own blogroll. (See Ed Felten.)
Supposedly some Harvard Business School applicants found out how to construct a website URL so that they could see if they had been admitted to HBS or not. Once Harvard discovered this security leak, it blanket-rejected all the 119 students who had simply been eager to see their admission status and had used the website for that purpose.
Check out Princeton prof Ed Felten's opinion here.
I think that's pretty big, significant news, and I can't believe that I hadn't heard of it except through this "blogosphere!"
Posted by rcwalsh at 10:14 PM | Comments (0)
March 8, 2005
Princeton students' main source of news
I took a poll of Princeton students' main sources of news. Obviously the poll answerers are only people who visit the Point website (which are mostly freshman), but the data might be worth something anyway.
Posted by rcwalsh at 9:55 PM | Comments (0)
February 20, 2005
report about TIME Inc
TIME Magazine has a USA circulation of 4 million. It reaches more than 21 million Americans weekly, which is more than any other news source. TIME is the "undisputed leader" of newsmagazines, comprising of 46% of those sold.
TIME's average subscription price is about $40, which is more than 30% more than other newsmagazines. [Their website asks, "If you could charge more for your product and still outsell the competitionâ€"wouldn't you do it? And if you did, what would that say about the power of your brand?"]
Ad prices range from $52,000 to $234,000 (depending on factors such as size and color) for an appearance in just one issue.
There are also international editions that reach more than 130 countries (more than 6 million readers per week). Advertisers often choose to target certain countries or continents.
TIME covers the news in different sections: Nation and world news, Arts and entertainment, Technology, Health, Business, Education, and Science and society. To see an article about TIME's influence on US-China relations in the 1940s, click here.
Then, on select weeks, there are special inserts (depending on which subscription a customer buys), with these "targeted editorial" sections available as options: Business/Inside business, Global business, Women/connections, Gold/generations, and Style & design.
TIME was the first newsmagazine to publish online (1993-1994 launch of TIME.com). It has the most trafficked newsmag site (3 million people per month) according to Nielsen NetRatings.
Its usual online audience is 40 years old / $70,000 salary / 59% college graduates / 52% male.
Online Advertising options include: Content sponsorships, In-between page ads and overlay ads, "Creative ad units," Rich media and road blocking, Video units, Customized programming, and Weekly email newsletters.
TIME Inc in New York does not actually have a newsroom. There are offices around the perimeter of a building with elevators and cubicles in the center.
Mondays, usually people work at home. There is a noon conference call in which senior editors talk with field correspondents.
Tuesday they come up with the list of stories for the week. The photo editors / designers start planning.
Wednesday or Thursday, new news might appear that causes a scramble; then they have to pull together a piece.
Thursday, some stories (like Business) close. The team looks at layouts. The Art Director works, people talk to field correspondents to "get it just right," and charts/boxes/ quick visuals are created so that readers can understand a story quickly without necessarily reading.
Fridays are very busy in the newsmagazines because they are on deadline. They finish the layout and produce.
Saturdays, a skeleton crew comes in and "does any cleanup."
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:41 PM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2005
(Not) Reading from multiple sources
As a Princeton student concentrating in Politics, and one who is taking a seminar on Mass Media, I feel that there is a good chance that I am close to the end of the spectrum labeled "news junkies." Yet, unlike what we mentioned in our 2nd class, I almost never read the same news story from 2 competing sources.
I'd prefer not to use myself as a standard, but I can't help but think that if even I don't double-check the news that I soak in like a sponge, probably very few people do. So, when talking about trusting news organizations or particular reporters or stories, it's unrealistic even to mention/suggest "oh... well, consumers will know not to trust a certain source based on the previous disparities it has had with other more trusted sources."
Then, how does one trust or distrust any particular source? What builds a company's reputation?
Maybe nothing. Maybe the more important question is whether any of us really trust any particular organization at all, for any justifiable reason.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, "I feel that there are enough profit-driven news companies in existence to ensure that I am being watched over. If one isn't doing an adequate job of telling me relevant stories in the world and my local area, I'm sure others will."
What I meant was not that I would read every source and compare notes, but that enough people (who, combined, read all available sources) would hear about a conflict in news stories, and word-of-mouth (with help of the new blogosphere) would set everyone straight.
I think that each person's choice of favorite source(s) of news probably has more to do with style than reputation and trust. I, for one, would favor a source that reported on a greater number of positive stories.
Posted by rcwalsh at 9:36 PM | Comments (2)
Happy News, desired over time
"Happy News" organizations may have failed, but it's likely that mainstream news conglomerates could profit by reporting more positive stories than they do.
The news media need to know and respond to consumer preferences, or they will not generate enough revenue to survive. It is often obvious that many "consumers" of news love to hear/see stories that are sensational... or induce fear... or create gossip, etc. The biggest news companies certainly feed that addiction; whenever I turn on the TV (which is rarely), I see news flashes about celebs' marriage problems, terror attacks, and "stay tuned to see how your washing machine might be slowly killing your family."
But I think it is also true that the consumer's long-run utility (happiness/satisfaction) matters and is significantly affected by the overall mood that is created by the enormous amount of news consumed by regular viewers/readers.
This observation probably explains the "fluffy" stories we sometimes see about cats (or people) being rescued unharmed, or about someone being a hero.
There have been news organizations that reported only positive news (I cannot remember any of those organizations' names), and the trials failed economically. The demand was not there.
However, when looking at the status quo of mainstream news, I feel that [an organization] could adjust so that it adds some more positive stories at the expense of the sensational ones and actually increase profit.
Indeed, this profit would not be evident immediately (or even soon), but I think it would materialize eventually. My hypothesis is that the pleasure that many consumers gain from sensational news doesn't last, and that pleasure from being a tad happier every day that one watches a particular news organization (though the correlation need not be realized explicitly) would be more significant in keeping customers.
Before CNN and Reuters and GoogleNews and all our other favorites start providing a greater amount of happy news for our long-term benefit, you can check out these fun sites:
http://www.GreatNewsNetwork.org/
Posted by rcwalsh at 9:10 PM | Comments (1)
Point.Princeton.edu blog possibility
Point.Princeton.edu is an extremely popular homepage for Princeton students. (It has received more than 500,000 hits since November.)
Matt Stack '04 (the creator of a predecessor portal site) suggests that one feature that should be added to a university's student portal is a nearly censor-free blog.
I become Point's new webmaster this week, and I wanted the people of this Mass Media seminar to comment (on this post) to tell me what they think about a campus blog, and if that would make Point even more popular. What kinds of things would be said in such a widely-read outlet?
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:47 PM | Comments (1)
February 7, 2005
Terrorists photograph action figure
I'm sure some of you have already seen this interesting story.
(CNN) -- A photograph posted on an Islamist Web site appears to be that of an action figure and not a U.S. soldier being held hostage.
Liam Cusack, the marketing coordinator for Dragon Models USA, said the figure pictured on the Web site is believed to be "Special Ops Cody," a military action figure the company manufactured in late 2003.
"It pretty much looks exactly like the same person," he said.
source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.hostage/
Posted by rcwalsh at 4:29 PM | Comments (1)
February 6, 2005
Mainly the internet, mainly as a distraction
I use the internet almost exclusively. It is convenient (and sometimes serves as a simple distraction). Real time news almost never matters to me because it is almost always about people to whom I cannot relate. I prefer to read about things going on in my own life and the lives of most of the people I know.
I watch almost zero TV while at Princeton. And when I am home in GA, I only watch a couple shows like Law and Order or Whose Line. So my news nearly never comes from TV. But it is interesting to note that (like our "Overview" reading said), I do tend to follow the crowds to TVs during crises when the news stations really dedicate a lot of resources and airtime to something very significant happening in the world, like a disaster or relevant war.
I started to hate the radio in high school partially because my parents listened to this one jazz station that played only about 20 songs on loop. But another good reason that I stopped listening to the radio (and bought a portable CD player to plug into my car tape deck) was the proliferation of annoying radio commercials and the terrible DJ personalities on the stations. Now, I only listen to the radio as an alarm clock on the mornings when I need to be woken up. So, at 7:30AM or so, I will either hear some classical music, or I'll hear a DJ giving me the news, basically in the form of her simply reading a newspaper that someone else was responsible for producing. And I do find myself intensely interested in the morning news sometimes, but I do think that most of the interest is a result of a significant desire not to get out of bed so early. Especially considering the fact that I usually can't remember the news stories later.
I read the campus newspaper (Daily Princetonian) in the morning if/when I see it by my doorstep or on the couch, because I truly am interested in what is happening at this school. My internet homepage, though, also gives me the Daily Prince headlines, so sometimes I actually read the Prince quicker online than getting to my doorstep. At breakfast, if nobody else is around, often I'll find a USA Today or a New York Times or a Wall Street Journal, and I'll look for something interesting to read. But I am not really intrigued by the horrible news about ongoing wars. I like looking for happy stories or helpful information. For some reason, though, the weather almost never matters to me. I don't really do anything that depends on the weather. If I am walking outside and see that it's raining, I'll get my umbrella, or I'll get wet. There is no huge importance there for me, so the weather sections are almost always pointless for me to read.
Almost all of my news comes from the internet. Point.princeton.edu (which I helped push for and develop) is my homepage, and it rips headlines from NYT and BBC, etc. So I see major stories there. I am also a fan of Reuters.com, News.Google.com, and GreatNewsNetwork.org.
I must admit, however, that I am often a very stressed-out individual, and many of my visits to news sites happen simply because my mind is racing and doesn't want to stay focused on my work. I'll click on Google News without even realizing it sometimes, and I'll look for anything worthwhile to read. I do NOT usually bother looking at the sensational stories about celebrities or gossip or refrigerators eating children, because it doesn't affect my life. And I agree with what someone in class said about reading the news simply to be able to talk about it in conversation; this motivation is a very small part of why I'd ever look for news, but I have to acknowledge that it is there.
Mainly I like reading about new technology and how it affects society. It's neat to see feature stories about the new Airbus airplane, and what iPods mean to the world, and stuff like that. That DOES affect my life. I feel that most of the "news flash" type stories are of little importance to me. They are important to SOMEBODY, but usually not to me. I guess there is actually a continuum of importance. The DC sniper stories and the recent tsunami DID matter, but they (quite obviously) matter less to people who are not in the areas and do not have loved ones in the area.
Actually, I find it difficult to pinpoint exactly what types of news are important to me. Yet, thinking about what news I would like to hear, I feel that I should note a sense of security I have: I feel that there are enough profit-driven news companies in existence to ensure that I am being watched over. If one isn't doing an adequate job of telling me relevant stories in the world and my local area, I'm sure others will. For this reason, I am surprised to realize that this backup system did not work in instances like the Iraqi statue-toppling staging. I subconsciously figured that rival newsgroups would eagerly gather so much information about other agencies' stories that the truth would be approached. But sometimes it's evident that no group gets the story right.
Posted by rcwalsh at 10:06 PM | Comments (1)