Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
NowPublic in the News: Ryerson Review of Journalism
Share:
by ScienceDave | April 7, 2008 at 07:27 am
910 views | 29 Recommendations | 20 comments
Photos
Michael Tippet (NP co-founder), Rachel Nixon (NP Global News Director), Alfred Hermida (UBC Journalism Professor), and myself (user, or citizen, or participant, or whatever you want to call me) are interviewed about NowPublic. Here's a snippet:
But wiping out the mainstream media isn’t NowPublic’s goal. “It’s making traditional news outlets aware that theirs isn’t the only perspective on the news,” says Nixon. “It’s about challenging mainstream outlets to integrate citizen journalism into their own content.” Tippett sees NowPublic as complementary to mainstream media. “I think in the end we’ll be partnered with traditional news outlets,” says Tippett. “We think that everyone has something to say and we want to keep the doors as wide open as we can.”
Unfortunately, the part of my phone intereview where I praised the virtues of citizen journalism (i.e. among other things, the incalculable value of including one's own history and knowledge base with local stories) was not included.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (20)
at 08:26 on April 7th, 2008
ScienceDave, I like this story. It's good stuff. Excellent news to hear and read Dave
at 08:45 on April 7th, 2008
ScienceDave, I like this story. It's good stuff. I think the review minimized the value of NP. concider why they would use your criticisms without your praises. So now you have achieved fame in CJ. Good job.
at 08:55 on April 7th, 2008
That was my feeling too politisite - it seems from the get-go that the author wasn't keen on highlighting the potential value of CJ.
Ah well.
at 09:09 on April 7th, 2008
One can only assume CJ is not as respected as a PAID Journalist required to pump out stories, even on a slow newsday, but then CJ offers everyone to comment, versus mainstream media which pick and choose what they wish to feature from readers comments.
at 09:33 on April 7th, 2008
ScienceDave,thanks for sharing this. It's too bad that more of your comments weren't used--then again, the rule is when being interviewed, don't say anything you wouldn't want to stand as your only comment or a 10-second sound byte!
The approach is a bit off-putting isn't it? It's almost like "so they got $10 million and haven't done much with it." Of course, I'd disagree.
Funny thing--I was asked to participate. I immediately contacted the reporter, as requested, with an email giving my home phone and my bio. Also called.
Got ignored. After reading the article, I'm guessing that a) the goal of the article was already set, maybe b) my bio put the reporter off a bit and c) maybe it was clear that I'm not only a traditional journalist,but one who transitioned in the 90's to the web and even more--am very enthusiastic about NP, from a knowledge base as well as a personal one. It's just too bad that I didn't get to say the good things I've found here!
Thanks to all of you who wandered into the often-lion's den of the interview. I've been on both sides of it, many many times, and it's hard work.
at 10:06 on April 7th, 2008
...the rule is when being interviewed, don't say anything you wouldn't want to stand as your only comment or a 10-second sound byte!
Okay. I didn't want to get into this, I didn't want to burn any bridges, I didn't want to potentially get anyone in trouble, and in the end I might just be naive about the world of journalism (in which case, it would be terribly disheartening to find out the following was common journalistic practice), but here goes.
Two things really bothered my about the interview process with the RRJ:
To be honest, after hearing (2), I felt like I was being entrapped - they refused to let me prepare sufficiently, after which they refused to repeat what I had said in the first place? I had the feeling the author had their story in mind, and (after throwing any notion of balance into the wind) proceeded to somehow fit my comments into the author's preconceived framework. Arguably, one could be convinced that this indeed occurred.
Am I ill-advised to feel somewhat betrayed, or at least taken advantage of? If so, this whole mess is dripping with delicious irony, given CJ generated content is often questioned by traditional journalists for its validity, verifiability, and generally adhering to the standard tenets of journalism ethics (including balanced reporting).
at 11:08 on April 7th, 2008
Dave, no, a reporter is under no obligation to provide you with a list of questions, to act as your secretary and read back your answers, or offer you the chance to read, review, or edit your comments. When they call back to fact check, they're checking facts as they ask about them--not providing you with a chance to review and comment on the author's quotes.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's how it works. An interview is a living thing--not a months-long academic peer review thing, as a comparison.
There's a knack to doing good interviews, and a knack to learning how to give good interviews. (I kinda chuckled when I read your earlier comment when you said that you believed that anyone can write. No, they can't--good writing is darned hard work and requires training and experience. )
You're going to feel how you feel, but no, I don't think you were betrayed, or taken advantage of. Here's how this really works: it's a mutual screwing (excuse me!) for mutual profit. The person doing the interview wants something; the person being interviewed wants something too.
The meat of it is how well each of them are prepared to handle not just the foreplay, but the swordplay. It really can be like a combination of a pas de duex and fencing.
In the lab, you can control the steps of an experiment. In the real-life, often rough-and-tumble world of journalism, you can only control what comes out of your mouth (or your pen if you're writing), but you can't control anything else.
I suspect you just learned something. :)
And I don't find anything unethical about the article. I wish it had come out differently, but then again, I didn't have all the material from the interviews, either. Her article, her way of doing it, her right.
at 11:15 on April 7th, 2008
p.s. and of course she had a list of questions. Any reporter worth being called a reporter approaches an interview with background, and with a list of core questions. From those, and the exchange, other questions/topics/avenues may develop.
Would you go into a lab without the proper tools and a checklist of the steps and procedures? Same thing. A journalist who shows up unprepared is one that is easily taken advantage of, and well deserves it if it happens, IMHO. On the interviewee's end of the deal, being told what the topic is, well, that's being given a chance for preparation.
at 11:34 on April 7th, 2008
In the lab, you can control the steps of an experiment. In the real-life, often rough-and-tumble world of journalism, you can only control what comes out of your mouth (or your pen if you're writing), but you can't control anything else.
The more I am exposed to traditional journalism, the less I like it. No doubt, this will sound naive and obvious to many here, but journalists really aren't interested in spreading information, but rather to pitch and sell what's hot, here and now.
Her article, her way of doing it, her right.
What about the journalist's duty to provide an unbiased, balanced, etc. report? Unless its an opinions piece, clearly marked, "it's his or her way" is irrelevant, is it not?
I think in these two respects, community-style journalism has traditional journalism beat hands down, since the individuals of a community can more readily engage with the news source (and demand unbiased, balanced, etc. reports).
at 12:00 on April 7th, 2008
What about the journalist's duty to provide an unbiased, balanced, etc. report? Unless its an opinions piece, clearly marked, "it's his or her way" is irrelevant, is it not?
Well, it's like making a stew: you select your ingredients, then decide how to put it together. My writing style is my own, and how I may put together a stew may taste a little different than my best friend's, but each is valid.
That's what I made by "her way." She has the right to combine her stew ingredients, prepare a roux the way she wants, and stir it up as she wants.
OK, so what would have made this report be judged by you as "unbiased, balanced"? What ingredients were missing? What ingredients were over-cooked?
How would you have written the article?
And no, I don't think you're naive at all. Quite the contrary. ;}
I've been in the position of being ambushed, of later saying "oh, he/she didn't get what I said" and also of being the reporter who was later attacked not because my facts were wrong, or my quotes (I've never been successfully accused of that), but because someone didn't like how the stew came out or how they thought they "sounded" or "looked."
It's a process involving those messy things, human beings. And if you're not the reporter, it's a process that you can sometimes guide, but you can't control. And it's the latter that drives some people NUTS.
There's one thing to be said about all this--you're not only getting experience, but this was, in effect, only a one-night stand vs. dealing with the same reporter long-term.
at 14:21 on April 7th, 2008
Like PEP , I have been in Public Relations as well as media. It is ashame that balance was not a concideration in this article. Not being balance gives you an idea of what they wanted to achieve. The market they serve is professional journalists. What do professional journalists want to hear? Maybe their jobs are not in jeaporady because of NP? You did a good job don't sweat it. if you get a chance see how I was pulled down the spin trail in my article called Spin Masters Spin the Spin Master Penn's Departure
.
at 10:08 on April 7th, 2008
On a related, more positive note, the ability to talk about the article makes this forum far superior to tradiational means of obtaining "news".
at 11:51 on April 7th, 2008
Well, this is indeed more fun than a letter to the editor, or a phone call from an irate someone!
I don't know if her company's policies allow this, or if she'd have the time, but at some point I'd really like to hear the reporter discuss her process. NOT in a defensive way, answering "why did you ask me this or not do that?" but the process.
at 11:59 on April 7th, 2008
I agree. It's great (and rare, I think) that this discussion about the interview is taking place in a public forum.
at 13:30 on April 7th, 2008
Dave, I like this story. It's good stuff.
I empathize with your sense of betrayal. When an interviewer asks questions, later shaping the piece they way they choose, the interviewee's original intent, even emphasis, may be a bit off or lost.
I have asked, when being interviewed in that manner, that I be allowed to make a statement of some sort at the outset and request that the statement be included.
I figure at least that part will accurately portray my full intent as I discussed the subject matter.
at 13:47 on April 7th, 2008
Just finished reading the parent article here. Would like to say I want to criticize, but to be fair I'd have to say I really just want to bitch. So allow me...
1) I worked briefly in small-time "journalism" but even brief is enough time to know that writers have their agendas, editors have theirs, publishers have theirs and, in this case, professors and advisors may well have theirs. What is often printed - and I say this as merely opinion and not with any hard data to prove it - is not "truth, justice and the American way." It is a profitable slant on news about a proposed TIF district which, if reported just so, stands to make someone close to the paper's powers that be a bit of doe, rei mi.
2) What is printed here is sometimes not news worthy. This is something that even very active members sometimes agree with. I have occasionally seen them complain about this concerning their own postings. Yes, there is a lot of opinion that gets posted here hand in hand with news. But there is some really remarkable stuff that gets posted by some members too. Uncultured has done some good original (writing and video) reporting from Bangladesh on poverty and disease in his country. There is another member from Pakistan - forgive me for not remembering his name - who gives original reports on presidential elections and terrorist activity in his country. Some of these things are incredibly newsworthy, but would be given no space in "real" news sources. Wait, let me change that – they are given no space in "real" news sources.
3) I have more points to bitch about than just three, but I'll stop with this one. The page length of today's paper is determined by how many ads are sold - ads are to take up between 66% and 75% of the paper. That means on a busy news day some important stories won't make the cut and on a slow day a lot of crap and dreck (re: Britney's latest breakdown in too much detail) are lobbed in to fill the bulk. At Now Public you can admittedly find crap but we members also have the opportunity and have often taken it to put some rare and good stuff up in front of our members and the world.
Freakin' arrogant, artificially-professionalized, college-educated idiots. Now if you'll pardon me, I am tired of being a cranky bastard in here. It is now time for me to be a cranky bastard in the real world.
at 13:52 on April 7th, 2008
GOOD STUFF:
Dave, I sometimes wonder how long main-stream journalism will last if they, the "professionals" really expect every citizen to express themselves according some corporate party line.
The day of an alternative published pespective on social issues has been above ground for a while, and long may it flourish.
peter.reardon
at 14:36 on April 7th, 2008
Peter,
I think you have got it right. NowPublics staff (us) has many viewpoints and we are not afraid to share them in a "no-flaming" atmosphere. So whats the agenda? To write articles based on our expertise and frame of referance. Many folks comment on my work that don't agree we me. I welcome it. The idea that many folks from differing backgrounds are going to check my work and comment with their take on the subject is what NP is about. NP is making me a better writer and keeps my eyes open to other views.
We also have something, "they" don't have. Folks in 5000 cities available at a moments notice to go to a breaking story, take photos, talk to people, and upload our story via cell phone or computer, without waiting for approval from some biased news manager. NP members have full editorial control over their work.
at 14:45 on April 7th, 2008
I enjoy the opportunity Now Public give me to express Opinions on stories that rarely get two sides.
The majority of my Opinions are based on my experiences, the other minor ones maybe rants, or social news that is relevant in today's society, with the rest some Humour in which we all really, really need today, but are lacking.
As for Old Bastards rants, the only thing I agree with are too many nonsensical "What did Britney eat today" Fluff garners Good Stuff Flags, Praise and increased Readship here on Now Public, that should be more of a Enquirer or News of the World piece. But in Now Public defence Old Bastard, Now Public cannot dictate to readers what they can read or not, they go with the flow, and if a story, no matter how inane to you, has merit when Britney readership outshine Serious World Events by a thousand hits. That is just the way it is, whatever the Newsday.
at 10:30 on April 8th, 2008
Good stuff. And now you even have a reporter from Finland.