On Journalism Entrepreneurship

Hmm..journalism as a business. A lot of issues with journalism since I chose it as a profession has been the process of accepting the fact that journalism is a business. It’s not one of those do good professions. It is, but it needs its business side to sustain in order to truly flourish. So the goal then was to understand how the two can be combined and mastered; Jarvis’ piece definitely provides some direction.

It’s about time that journalists learn to be entrepreneurs-to sell the information they gather. It might just be the best to get their voice heard even if it doesn’t reacha huge audience. Jarvis set up a class where in he asked students to pitch a business plan for a journalistic endeavor to a jury. The panel would then decide where the $50,000 gift  would go. Students came up with ideas that included websites for athletes to sell themselves, a blog for personal finance help, and a magazine for Muslim women that actually is doing well. But, the most useful part of his piece was the feedback he got from the jurors on the mistakes the students made: from too long pitches to a lack of marketing strategy/analysis and an inability to incorporate as many aspects of the mediascape as is possible.

I considered his points, especially for the pending class assignment, but I couldn’t help but focus my thoughts on the “what happens now” question as one of the comment posters asked Jarvis. Jarvis said that him and the jury would continue to guide his students and  “[would] continue to give advice and the seed money [would] get them just to the next step — in most cases, proving the concept — so they [could] seek more money elsewhere.”

Alright, that is helpful but how long would that service last? Jarvis hints on the need for an “incubator” to be able to provide student with “ongoing advice and nurture.” There needs to be a system in place that would support such entrepreneurships, if not for anything but for the benefit of the journalism industry in the context of new media.

Maybe that’s another class topic…?

On Rich Lowry

Went to a Q&A session with Lowry last week and was pleasantly surprised by his well-articulated thoughts and strong-held beliefs on new media and the case of the Republican party. But, what really struck was his take on Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin- hot tickets of the Conservative party, if I may. When asked what he thought of the two figures, he not only dodged fully answering the question, but did so in a cunning way. Without quite commenting on either he stressed how the both of them strongly contributed to the “marketplace of ideas”. The brought a diversity to our talking points and allowed for various to be discussed, like frogs being boiled or Palin stressing about a so called sexist cover of her on Newsweek, in our society today.

While I wish he elaborated more on his thoughts on the two as a conservative intellectual, I need to  commend his artful dodging of the issue.

On PBS again: being fair

This FAIR study highlights the various discrepancies in PBS’s guestlist when it comes to representing diverse perspectives. In fact, the study confirmed a pevious studies finding that PBS showcased less diversity than ABC nightline. This is not just diversity of race and ethnicity as is usally presumed; this diversity includes gender, part affiliations, and opinion on political decisions.

This study plays in well with Starr’s claim that PBS marginalizes alternative perspectives on its shows. Firstly, I was unaware that the Jim Lehrer show was two thirds owned by At&T while other corporations and companies sponsor the rest of the show. And now about the lack of alternative perspectives. Starr points to an example of 197 when PBS refused to briadcast a documentary “Out at Work” when it realized that $65,000 was provided by a lesbian action foundation and labor unions. So it refused to air the film.

Point: when there was a conflict with the source of the money for a featured program, PBS refused to air the film because they did not want to put forth the ‘”perception” that shows are being “created to advance the aims of [a] group” is “as important as the fact.”‘

Now what about the funding from the huge corporations? Isn’t that an issue? If the PBS board thought it fair to call out a documentary based on its funding, should it not consider the conflicts of interests that come with funding a public broadcasting system with the corporations?

I understand that in order to get the big bucks, PBS probably needs the aid of corporations. But, FAIR’s study/Starr’s article  clearly shows how that might negatively affect its programming. Shouldn’t it then reconsider its funding sources?

On PBS: its funding

PBS  has long been hauled as an independent news source: a tiny fish in a huge pond filled with other MSN giants. Starr’s proposition of setting up a trust fund for PBS is intriging at the least. He points out the various faults of the network: the covert advertising, a lack of diverse and intellectual programming, and its constant struggle to get some money to sustain. He says PBS “needs to be reborn as an independently funded public trust.”

I also believe that PBS needs to revamp its funding system, but I’m not sure if a public trust is the answer. Honestly, I don’t know what is. Either way, when money is involved, some donor does end up getting the bigger hand in the programming of the channel, right? That’s how the MSN works at least. GE owns FOX, so news reports about GE’s errors never reach FOX viewer through FOX. So if someone provides a huge chunk to the trust, that person has the envious position of essentially making the calls. Maybe an independently funded public trust filled with anonymous donors would be the answer? Then you don’t know who donated how much and thus obligations are subsided.

Actually, there might not be an ideal and practical option that can be established to fund a presumably independent news source like PBS. Where there is money there usually is an agenda. So I guess the goal then is to perfect walking on the fine line between being independent and satisfying those that help maintain that independence (the donors).

Make sense?

On Paul Carr and Fort Hood

In Digi-J a couple weeks ago, we discussed an article by Paul Carr that pointed out a few of the most common issues with citizen journalism: a lack of sensitivity when reporting and a lack of truthfulness in the reporting. While his examples of  Tearah Moore’s, a soldier at Fort Hood, reporting definitely lends itself to a discussion of such issues (a pic of a soldier at the hospital, who was apparently shot in the balls was tweeted and she tweeted about Hassan dying, which was untrue). Carr’s claims felt slightly empty because  what he claimed were the issues with citizen journalism are also relevant problems with the MSN.

For instance he talks about how the filiming of Nada’s killing in Iran did no good to the political situation in Iran.

For all of our talk about “the world watching”, what good did social media actually do for the people of Iran? Did the footage out of the country actually change the outcome of the elections? No. Despite a slew of YouTube videos and a couple of thousand foreign Twitter users turning their avatar green and pretending to be in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still in power.

But didn’t the MSN media use that very footage and plaster it all over their broadcasts? Did that do anything to the structure of the Iranian regime?

Moore  incorrectly tweeted the information on Hassan’s death. That’s a problem. But, how about the numerous times the MSN has gotten information wrong- apparently even the identity of the cop that shot Hassan was misreported.

My point is that citizen journalists make similar mistakes to “real” journalists. Why chide an upcoming breed of reporters for mistakes that have also been made by the established group?

More important, with citizen journalists in town, the audience gets its information directly from the source. If we considered the example that Carr brings up:

A professional journalist is assigned story. He/she comes across Moore and uses Moore as a source. Moore gives the reported information that she knows to be true, which as we know now, might not have been exactly true. The reporter publishes the story. Eventually he/she finds out Moore gave her incorrect info- hopefully, the reporter then fixes the error.

The possibility of false reportage and sensationalism can happen with a citizen journalist or a professional one. We need to give citizen journalism a chance to flourish before bogging down the very concept.

But, there is a difference between a citizen journalist and “real” one, as Marcus points out. Not quite a difference, but more of a relationship: a symbiotic one. From Marcus himself:

The best of citizen journalism is when we know the truth right away, but citizen journalist don’t always know the truth. The best of professional journalism is our ability to give context, edit, and raise the standard of information through fact-checking. Therefore, we need each other.

Point noted.

On Mayhill Flower

Obama’s comment on the gun trotting residents of Pennsylvania could’ve potentiall ended his run, had it not been for the excellent abilities of his team. Mayhill Flower broke that story. As she heard Obama make the comment, she recorded it and posted it online. She was an accreddited member of the press. She did not have a press pass. She was simply a woman with a taperecorder- a citizen journalist.

And she used that power to the absolute max.

From breaking stories on Obama to uploading Bill Clinton’s rant on a Vanity Fair reporter, who was a “scumbag”, she reported it all. She clearly illustrates the the golden age of journalism that Huffington highlighted in her IC speech. She is a clear example of why journalism is being redefined and strengthened today. Flower did exactly what Huffington asked us to do: look in the mirror and see the leader in ourselves.

So no matter the future of Flower, her foray into the journalism profession needs to be admired and remembered.

On looking in the mirror

When I first heard of Radiohead asking their fans to price their In Rainbows album online, I was amused. Really. Why would a huge band like them not take advantage of their fan base and make more moeny off of an excellent album. When the news came out, I didn’t think much of it. I didn’t think much of the incrdible significance of Radiohead’s choice to not give in to greed. Now, I see it better. What they did was path breaking and incredibly monumental.

They took matters in their own hands.

They looked in the mirror and saw the change they could make.

Now, Radiohead did have 10 years worth of fame and money to lean back on if this plan hadn’t worked out. But, they still took a risk and for that they need to be commended. But what do you do when you do not have 10 years of fame and money to look to for resources? What do you do when you plan to start your career outside of the mainstream…outside of the norm. Where do you get the funds and the backing? Infact, intoday’s times when money is so tight, can you even afford to dream of success when pursuing a path outside the norm?

Ideally, yes. But, realistically…. ?

On the Polk awards

The George Polk awards are quite the honor. They honor and legitimize the work of an excellent journalist. So when Josh Marshall and his TPM team we given the George Polk award, it was quite the sweet moment for indy media and other bloggers. While Marshall’s work and his award win is incredibly commendable, what is most significant about this award is its legitimizing and acknowledgment of bloggers as journalists. Reputed journalists. I think indy media should not really exist separate from the mainstream. The mainstream media should be the indy media. The mainstream media should follow the rules of journalism that indy media upholds. When the George Polk award is handed to TPM and when Huff Post receives a million hits a day, the indy media gets one step closer to becoming mainstream. It gets one step closer to affecting the lives of more people. It gets one step closer to spreading the message of a truth seeking profession.But, there’s always more work to do.

Maybe one day, with enough work and Josh Marshalls and Arianna Huffingtons, the indy mediascape will be the MSN.

On Arianna Huffington

I’m not a huge fan of the Huffington Post. Yes, I visit the site at least once a week, but I go to other websites for my news. Huff Post is way too cluttered for me, and I would rather not suffer from sensory overload. But, I am a fan of Arianna Huffington. A huge fan.

I admire the woman for all she’s done and accomplished. Mostly because she has almost led the movement to make indy media mainstream. She made blogging popular. Along with TPM and Glenn Greenwald and others, she made blogging count as journalism. She is an absolute pioneer in the fireld of journalism and indy media, and I appreciate that.

In her talk she said journalism is in its golden age today- the statement stands far apart from what we usually hear about the sad nature of the journalism profession. She focused on the bright future of journalism through the lens of online media and citizen participation. Journalism today is most definitely suffering with the decline of newspapers and the lack of typically journalistic jobs. But, Huffington said, individual citizens can take advantage of current technology and produce news whenever they want. Journalism is now in the hands of the audience. At the the end of her speech, she asked us all to look in the mirror and see the leader in ourselves. She’s right. There no better time to take matters into our own hands- when technology is with us we should take advantage of its power and spread the word of change.

k. ready. go.

 

Speaking of new media…

A page on Halloween Costume ideas from the LA Times had this as a suggestion:

Pajama-clad blogger

If you’ve got a pair of pajamas, you’ve got a costume. Simply dress down, don’t bother washing your hair, and shuffle into a party looking like you haven’t left the house yet. When onlookers try to guess your intention, just look somewhat irritated and tell them you’re a blogger. This outfit is made even more effective if you are Twittering from your cellphone while answering the question and administer a snarky jab about the inquirer’s Balloon Boy costume being totally played out.

i laughed.