Sunday, May 27, 2007

Do blogs inform? Do U.S. Senators? Yikes. I just realized that I've neglected to post this survey information for a couple of colleagues in the journalism-meets-Web business... In particular, they want to know how much information about the Iraq War readers have been getting from blogs and other online media. Barbara Kaye (University of Tennessee) and Tom Johnson (Texas Tech)  are inviting blog users to complete a survey about blogging and the Iraq War.  The survey should take about 20 minutes, and more information about it is available by e-mailing jemsurveys@utk.edu The investigators are also encouraging a "snowball" approach to getting more readers to take the survey. More info and the survey itself are here: http://survey.utk.edu/mrIWeb/mrIWeb.dll?I.Project=BLOGS Meanwhile, over at the Society for Professional Journalists, another online information-collecting project is underway -- to find out who at the United States Senate is blocking an open government bill. Quoting the SPJ site: "The bill would strengthen the federal Freedom of Information Act, which is one of the most powerful tools Americans have to supervise the inner workings of government. More than 100 organizations support the bill, which would reduce delays in releasing government records and hold public officials accountable when they break the law. "The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar measure in March [~] but that bill was blocked from reaching the Senate floor for a May 24 vote because an unknown senator placed a secret hold on the bill." SPJ is trying "crowdsourcing" to get the information, inviting readers nationwide to call their own senators' offices and report back whether they are responsible for the "secret hold" on the bill. You can keep track of the investigation's progress by watching a checkoff list on the SPJ page. The technique sounded familiar to me. Why? Porkbusters.com (including UT's Glenn Reynolds) has used a similar approach on an earlier "Secret Hold" in the Senate. 4:38:54 PM    comment [] Interviews, e-mails and blogs: Getting the real story Back before radio programs got into downloadable and podcast-subscribable audio files in such a big way, On The Media's John Solomon did a very special 10-minute item about the surprising extent to which public radio programs are edited. "Pulling Back the Curtain" was rebroadcast, podcast and posted this weekend. (The programmers also promise to have a transcript online by Monday, but I'll forgive them if the Monday reference was generic and didn't take the holiday into account.) I remember the original broadcast, because I recorded it at the time and have played it for students. The skill with which NPR editors slice out pauses, stuttering, repeated words repetition and occasional drifts into verbosity is impressive, but might even be troubling to naive listeners who believe that all public radio broadcasters and guests were really that articulate. It will be great to have a permanent link to use with classroom discussions of NPR style, broadcast news, digital audio editing, or editing in general. The segment on almost-invisible editing matched up nicely with a fresh On The Media item about "transparency" and interviewing -- in the form of a Brooke Gladstone conversation with blogging entrepreneur Jason Calcanis. He's one of several high-profile bloggers who prefer e-mail or telling their stories on their own blogs to talking to journalists, as Calcanis explains in this item about a Wired magazine interview request. The dozens of comments on that item are a pretty good discussion of the pros and cons. So is the On The Media interview itself. The program promises a transcript of its segment and says Calcanis will offer a transcript of the full interview, which might be another useful classroom resource for journalism professors talking about interviewing. (But I'm in no hurry to see the transcripts... Having transcribed hours of interviews myself, I can tell you it's a pain... although these days it's easier than ever to pay someone else to do it.) Bloggers and journalists have been debating the past, present and the future of the "news source interview" for several weeks, including issues of transparency, accuracy, spontaneity, "gotcha" questions, evasive answers and more... more than I've had time to read. Among them: Dave Winer, who has had bad experiences with reporters writing about him and his contributions to Web communications, and who now often prefers to write his responses to questions as public postings on his own Scripting News blog, explained his position there last month. More than 60 blogs have pointed to a column on the same subject by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. NYU's Jay Rosen, recounts his own frustrations with a New York Times reporter and a PBS interview. Jeff Jarvis in BuzzMachine also attracted more than 60 readers' comments. Mark Glaser, PBS Media Shift blogger, neatly summarized the pros, cons, and possible improvements to various interview formats. Finally, because I want to quote a couple of paragraphs, here's Scott Rosenberg at Salon offering an unvarnished summary of traditional reporters' reasons for liking telephone interviews: "Partly it's because the phone is fast, and most senior-level reporters today learned their craft when the phone was really the only channel available. Also, it's because a good reporter can capture an extra bit of color by listening to an interviewee's voice and tone. But mostly, it's because reporters hope to use the conversational environment as a space in which to prod, wheedle, cajole and possibly trip up their interviewee. "Any reporter who doesn't admit this is lying, either to his listener or to himself. Phone conversations have the additional advantage of (usually) leaving no record, giving journalism's more malicious practitioners a chance to distort without exposure, and its lazier representatives an opportunity to goof without fear." Personally, I'd expand "lazier" to include "rushed, tired, over-pressured, under-prepared and under-paid." And I'd strike the "without fear," because I like to think the fear of getting things wrong (and the guilt pangs when they do) is always present -- even among the lazy, tired, rushed etc. Even though I'm late catching up on this discussion (after final exams, and more), I didn't want to forget to save this batch of links for future semesters' classes. It's a healthy debate in one other way: It may help teachers convince journalism students of the value of closing the cellphone, logging off the computer, setting aside the carefully-crafted press releases (or e-mail interviews), and going out to do more interviews face-to-face. In most of their other classes, students learn to revere words-on-paper and the reliability of cross-referenced sources, bibliographies and footnotes. Similarly, public records, documentary evidence and official statements are essential to many news stories... But reporters also must get into the habit of meeting strangers, shaking hands and asking questions... Being there in person demonstrates a commitment to getting the story right and appreciating insiders' knowledge and points of view, not just dashing off a few e-mails, visiting some blogs, or making some phone calls to "get a couple of quotes." Reporters should count it as a blessing that these days people they interview are able to respond in online comments, write rebuttals and clarifications in their own blogs, and generally turn more stories into informative conversations... for the few readers with the time and patience to read more than a headline, a summary paragraph and a 500-word story. That should help assure the larger audience that the facts and quotes among those 500 words stand a better chance of being accurate. 2:02:24 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Bob Stepno. Last update: 7/19/08; 1:21:44 PM.