Here come the lawyers
Monday, February 28th, 2005Steve Yelvington over at Poynter has a few thoughts this morning that bear repeating. Now that RSS has entered the mainstream, what are the rules about using an RSS feed? Are they only for personal use, or can you republish them on a Website?
As more media companies hop on the RSS bandwagon, we’re going to have to confront some legal questions: Who owns the feeds, and what can be done with them? Ownership is easy — it’s just copyright. But licensing is complicated.
This is the beginning, folks, of the rules of law entering into a space heretofore occupied by gunslingers and Postmoderns. It will be interesting to see how people respond, because licensing and restricting are tools of a top-down culture, and sooner or later, we’re going to be talking about fees for such. I think trying to lasso the Internet in such a fashion is like trying to hang onto an octypus in a sea of slime. Stay tuned.
MSM generalizations
Monday, February 28th, 2005Doc Searls is upset that critics and other mainstream media writers use generalizations to make their points about the evils of the blogosphere, and I agree with him. He’s also weary of the argument that blogs aren’t journalism.
Look. Blogs are personal journals, written by millions of people, on zillions of topics. Whether or not those journals practice “journalism” is a useless question at this point. Besides, it’s been done to death.Generalizing about bloggers is about the same as generalizing about telephone callers or photographers or baseball players. You don’t say all phone callers are rude, all photographers take nasty pictures or all baseball players spit. So stop saying all bloggers (that third person plural “They”) are … anything. Because it just ain’t true. There’s too damn many of them. All individuals. With nobody in charge.
The real challenge isn’t for bloggers to bootstrap themselves into Serious Journalism, but for Serious Journals to take advantage of a growing population of self-starting stringers. Who happen to already have their own journals.
Dissatisfaction in the newsroom
Saturday, February 26th, 2005The Poynter Institute published a significant study this week that reveals high levels of dissatisfaction among journalists over their inability to balance work and life concerns. The report (written by old friend Jill Geisler) speaks of “long hours, pressure to do more, missed vacations, staff cutbacks, and as a result, a significant number of journalists who are considering leaving the field.”
The risk of losing journalists due to work-life balance issues is especially troubling because they also report a high level of satisfaction with the work of journalism. It is the working conditions that are at issue.Key issues
- Always work more than 40 hours a week: 65.1 percent of respondents
- Did not take all the vacation they had coming in the past year: 46.2 percent
- Organizations cut staff in the past two years: 67.2 percent
- Staff shortages negatively affect their work-life balance “consistently” or “frequently”: 50.9 percent
- Have seriously considered leaving journalism: 47.2 percent
10 Questions for M.D. Smith IV
Friday, February 25th, 2005M.D. Smith IV was a lifetime broadcaster and one of the last local TV owners and operators in the country. He sold his station, WAAY-TV in Hunstville, Alabama, in 1999 and is in semi-retirement. He was an innovator in many ways and a pioneer in others. In this conversation, he offers his views of the challenges confronting broadcasters today, the internet, and what life was like when “TV was art.”
He talks about the days when the station had only 17 employees, and staff members had to handle many different tasks.
“Perhaps, we will come full circle in the coming years,” he notes, “with 17 people running a TV station and with computerized tools (similar to many radio stations of today) able to still attract an audience, sell commercials and make a profit.”
10 Questions for M.D. Smith IV
I hope you enjoy the interview as much as I have in putting it together.
What’s this? AP goes RSS
Thursday, February 24th, 2005If you haven’t heard that the Associated Press is providing RSS feeds, you need to pay attention. Consultant/blogger Susan Mernit broke the story yesterday.
The Associated Press has quietly added RSS feeds to their corporate site. This is the first time AP stories are available directly on the web in RSS (as opposed to running through Yahoo News.
I’m wondering whether that’s going to cause a burp. When the AP started its online news service, it went to incredible pains to make sure you could get to it only through members’ sites. I wonder whether Reuters’ plans to build an online brand of its own is causing a little competitive indigestion.
What are they thinking?
Many TV station blogs aren’t
Thursday, February 24th, 2005In today’s NewsBlues, (Subscription required) my friend Mike James writes of a blogging war of words between two meteorologists in Lexington, Kentucky. WLEX-18-NBC’s Bill Meck said some nasty things about WKYT’s radar “putting lives at risk,” and WKYT-27-CBS’s Chris Bailey responded by saying he wouldn’t stoop to Meck’s level. The story is pretty funny and fairly typical of the unbridled passion found in certain strident meteorologist camps, but that’s not why I’m writing about it.
This battle is taking place inside the stations’ WorldNow Websites on pages defined as “blogs.” They are not blogs, and I wish these stations — and many others that do likewise — could see the foolishness of creating journals buried inside the walls of their one-size-fits-all Websites. TV stations who do this fool themselves into thinking they’re into the new media world when all they’re really doing is producing columns in a closed environment. It is shortsighted and self-destructive, because it refuses to recognize reality.
A blog without comments and permanent entry links is an imposter. Moreover, it belies an ignorance about the citizens media phenomenon that is visible for all to see. Blogging is about a conversation, not a lecture, a column or a commentary. Call it a journal page. Call it a column. Call it whatever you wish, but don’t call it a blog.
In world where marketers can control the message, journals inside WorldNow (or other) platforms give stations the opportunity to tout their presence in the blogosphere. (”Hey look, we’re blogging!”) This may work with those unfamiliar with blogs and blogging, but it’s a turn-off to those who make up the bulk of citizens media. It’s an attempt by traditional media forms to assimilate blogs, and it won’t work. In fact, I believe it’ll backfire.
UPDATE: If you want to see a real blog within a media Website, look at John Robinson’s Editor’s Log from the Greensboro News & Record.
Heed the warning
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005Steve Outing’s at his usual best with this post about difficult times for the newspaper classifieds industry. Steve quotes an email to subscribers from Peter Zollman, publisher of Classified Intelligence Report, from the recent Southern Classified Advertising Managers Association meeting. The gist? The managers were told “to reinvent their businesses — now — or see them forever disappear.”
There are a couple of chilling quotes from speakers, what Steve calls “harsh words for harsh times in the newspaper classifieds business.”
Time is our enemy, folks, and I’m talking to my broadcasting friends and colleagues. We have none of it to waste, for our day is coming all too quickly.
Dr. Gene Scott R.I.P.
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005
Dr. Gene Scott, the eccentric televangelist who smoked cigars, wore odd headgear and used profanity, has died in California at age 75 after suffering a stroke. Scott was the anti-televangelist, and I have many fond memories of watching him in the wee hours of the morning while taking care of my daughter Brittany during the mid 80s. The son of a former leader of the Assemblies of God denomination, he was a rising star in the Charismatic Christian firmament until an affair allegedly got the best of him. He retreated to a place of television, religion, aliens, pyramids and Atlantis. He was a hoot on-the-air and could talk for hours.
He had a band that was constantly being asked by his cult following to play an original version of Amazing Grace. He was a brilliant manipulator and would hold off playing the tune until a certain number of people called and pledged money. But you never knew what was going to happen with Gene. He’d deliberately and slowly take a drag off a cigar while directing the camera to zoom in for a close-up. He’d inhale, exhale and then look directly in the camera and say, “Don’t you Christians wish you could do that?”
His brand of religion was, to say the least, unusual. May he rest in peace.
Here’s a backgrounder. Here’s his Website.
Bloggers need legal protection too
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005Charles Smith has something to say that we all need to hear. We don’t own the copyright of blog comments, and it could bite us in the butt several ways. One, if someone asks that their comment be removed — regardless of how pertinent it is to the discussion — we have to remove it. Two, if we sell advertising, we could have to pay a share to commenters. Three, we might be vulnerable if we copy and do anything with the comments.
Smith is a lawyer and runs a blog called Reasonable Man — “Business and Legal Analysis of the RSS + Weblog Industry.” He recommends bloggers use Terms of Service and Privacy Policies to protect themselves from the types of things mentioned above and much more. He has both a Terms of Service and Privacy Policy on his Website and encourages fellow bloggers to “borrow” from the language in creating their own. Here’s what he told me in an email:
Feel free to use whatever you want from the TOS or privacy policy. Let me know if I can be of further assistance or if there are other blog law topics that you are interested in learning more about.
Thanks, Charles. I’ll be posting my own TOS and Privacy Policy right away. Good stuff.
Update: Charles adds in the comments: “Basic site agreements (Terms of Service and Privacy Policies) are ubiquitous on professional ‘websites’ — but are rare among blogs. This needs to change — especially for those who blog professionally or for a company. There are many complex issues to consider — and you should consult your legal counsel to address your specific needs.”
Chernin’s Rules for Survival
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005Forrester has published an insightful analysis (Warning: PDF file) of News Corp. President Peter Chernin’s “10 Rules for Survival in the Digital Age,” and it’s an important read on a lot of levels. Chernin’s a high grade TV exec who seems to actually get it, and that alone should inspire reading. I like all of his rules, but where I think he really nails it is in his understanding of how this is being driven by people, not technology. (Thanks to PaidContent)
The Devaluation of Information
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005Here is the latest in my series of essays, TV News in a Postmodern World. This is the first time I’ve seriously examined the complex issue of paid versus free content for online news publishers, and it will likely not be the last. After all, we ARE in business to make money.
The first question I’m often asked in discussing these matters with broadcast executives is, “Where’s the money?” Unless there’s an immediate payoff, many television people are simply unwilling to talk further, and it’s a difficult position to argue against. My point is always that the money is there — it’s just that we can’t always see it with old eyes and old ways of doing business. Moreover, the Web is still a new phenomenon, and we’re all still figuring out how it works.
What we must always remember is that the architecture of the Web is without command and control functionality. It’s what makes it such a wonder, but it’s also what causes status quo business methods to sometimes fail. Here’s the essay:
The Devaluation of Information
NOTE: My last essay, Searching for the Bottom, brought the response once again that I’m withholding solutions to the problems and issues I raise, and that a simple example would help the discussion. I can’t argue with that, but remember that I, too, am in business to make money.
And so it goes…
Jay Rosen on the long tail and permanent links
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005I’ve recommended many of Jay’s articles to my readers, but this one goes to the top of the list. It’s his thoughts about an important aspect of the New York Times purchase of About.com — namely the latter’s knowledge and success with search engine optimization (SEO). It’s an important read, because it exposes the notion that we’re all just learning about this stuff, and it’s fun to watch Jay’s mind think.
First name basis with The Times
Monday, February 21st, 2005Jeff Jarvis posts a wonderful email exchange with Bill Keller, editor of the New York Times, and ends up with, well, a sweet l’il ol’ love fest. Bill and Jeff are now addressing each other by their first names. How nice. The emails are worth reading, but Keller makes a couple of notes that are worth repeating:
While we probably have our differences on the role of the MSM (btw, I personally favor “elite media,” at least as it pertains to the NYT) I would like to make clear that I consider blogs relevant and important. I do not hold them in disdain, as you imply. I won’t risk embarrassing my favorite bloggers by identifying them (except to say that buzzmachine is bookmarked in my office and at home) but I find the best of them to be a source of provocative insights, first-hand witness, original analysis, rollicking argument and occasional revelation. As I’m sure you will agree, you can also find bloggers who are paranoid, propagandistic, unreliable, hate-filled, self-indulgent, self-important and humorless.
We need to reinvent ourselves
Monday, February 21st, 2005Two insightful articles from the Washington Post echo concerns I’ve been expressing for years that the news media in this country is in deep trouble. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes, but we need to reinvent ourselves or it will be done for us.
As I noted in my most recent essay [Searching for the Bottom], revenue isn’t the problem. The problem is audience. Solve the problem and the revenue will be there.
Frank Ahrens writes that the venerable newspaper is in trouble and that the industry is struggling to remake itself.
Papers are conducting exhaustive surveys to find out what readers want. They are launching new sections, beefing up Web sites and spinning off free community papers and commuter giveaways in hopes of widening their audience. They even are trying to change the very language of the industry, asking advertisers and investors to dwell less on “circulation” — how many papers are sold — and more on “readership,” or the number of people exposed to a paper’s journalism wherever it appears, in print, on the Web or over the air.
In just two years, the fabrications of Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley have led to the ouster of the top editors of the New York Times and USA Today; CBS News melted down in using apparently bogus documents for a story on President Bush; major outlets published mea culpas on their flawed reporting about the White House’s march to war in Iraq; columnist Robert Novak revealed the name of a CIA operative, sparking a probe that could send two other reporters to jail; more journalists were fired for plagiarism; Sinclair Broadcast Group planned to air an anti-John Kerry film close to Election Day before backing off; Fox’s chief political reporter ridiculed Kerry as a metrosexual, and Armstrong Williams and two other columnists acknowledged taking money from the Bush administration. Not to mention the usual array of biases and blunders (remember that New York Post cover on Kerry picking running mate Dick Gephardt?).
An on-target moment of clarity from Peggy Noonan
Friday, February 18th, 2005The blogosphere is abuzz over Peggy’s wonderful essay on blogging. I just read it this morning and want to add my voice to those who are saying this is a must-read. The whole thing is great, but here’s my favorite paragraph:
Someone is going to address the “bloggers are untrained journalists” question by looking at exactly what “training,” what education in the art/science/craft/profression of journalism, the reporters and editors of the MSM have had in the past 60 years or so. It has seemed to me the best of them never went to J-school but bumped into journalism along the way–walked into a radio station or newspaper one day and found their calling. Bloggers signify a welcome return to that old style. In journalism you learn by doing, which is what a lot of bloggers are doing.
New York Times blog strategy?
Friday, February 18th, 2005In extended coverage of the New York Times acquisition of About.com in today’s Paid Content, Rafat Ali makes an interesting observation:
It will be very interesting to see how they execute on the integration of NYTimes.com and About.com. The phrase “adding an alternate model of content creation and aggregation” is a peculiar way to put it, but it denotes blogs and the whole blog media world, so to speak. In short, this is NYT’s blog strategy, on the editorial side. Whether they want to characterize it as such, that I doubt…
Searching for the Bottom
Thursday, February 17th, 2005Here is the latest in my series of essays, TV News in a Postmodern World. This one looks at the business of TV News and offers some lessons learned by Eastman Kodak in their attempts to recover from disruptive innovations that were killing their business. I believe the TV industry in a place similar to where they were a couple of years ago, and they can teach us much.
Pajamas at the gate
Thursday, February 17th, 2005That’s the title of the latest cartoon from that “touched” pair, Cox and Forkum. Do yourself a favor and visit their site. It’s one of the best blogs around, and it’s right here in Music City.
Blog humor
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005
Here’s a cartoon by a friend of a friend, Sam Torode. Sam’s a talented guy (and he apparently gets the blog thing). Here’s his website.
It’s funny how outsiders view us sometimes, and we always need to be open to laughing at our peculiarities.
Indecent indecency legislation
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005The blogosphere’s all atwitter over the inevitable passage by the House of legislation that would dramatically increase FCC fines for violations of its dangerously obscure indecency rules. Jeff Jarvis calls it “a dark day for the First Amendment” and rails at the religious right for wanting even more.
Witch hunts, meet 2005.
I predict this will backfire on my evangelical friends for two reasons. One, movement dynamics are such that the “scent” of victory is enough to destroy the movement. That’s inevitable here, because the only way such a movement can continue is to institutionalize it. When that happens, the energy dies, and the pendulum swings the other way. Secondly, the incessant demands for more reveal the extreme nature of the movement, and that will also impact the pendulum. Even if the membership of one of these witch hunt groups is satisfied with a victory, the group itself cannot be. Why? Because the leaders have become addicted to the power and money involved in fighting the fight. This becomes a weight around the shoulders of the movement, and it cannot continue.
I’m not suggesting everybody just sit back and watch as this unfolds. On the contrary. This is THE time to let your voice be heard. To those opposed to the witch hunts, it’s time to consider again the words of German Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote:
‘First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.’
Do you really want the responsibility for turning the culture over to people won’t stop at anything? You need to ask that question, because it’s a very real matter.
In the end, I always trust the people to get it right, assuming they have the wherewithal to decide. And in the final analysis, isn’t culture the real issue here anyway? What we should be asking is what is it about the culture that fosters an environment conducive to decadence? That is the problem, not the visible targets that the right is chasing.
The answer cuts a little too close to home, methinks, and that’s why we live in this “us against them” world.