Tag: new media

A better Boston.com

The Boston Globe’s Web site, Boston.com, has unveiled a sparkling new design. Evaluating what’s there and what isn’t will have to wait, but my first impression is that this is much easier on the eyes.

The Globe’s own home page hasn’t changed, though I suspect it will. Choose any story, though, and you’ll see a huge improvement.

My biggest question — and one I’ll try to answer over the next day or so — is whether Dave Beard and company have managed to integrate Boston.com and the online version of the Globe better than they have in the past.

At first glance I’d say “not much.” But Beard, in his letter to readers, promises, “The changes won’t stop there.”

New media conference at BU

I should have mentioned this earlier, but I’ll be spending the day at “New Media and the Marketplace of Ideas,” a conference at Boston University sponsored by BU’s College of Communication and School of Law, WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) and the law firm of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye.

The keynote speaker will be the Daily Kos‘ Markos Moulitsas Zúniga.

Here is the schedule for the day. I’m hosting a breakout session on blogging at 3:45 p.m.

Young people and the news

My latest for CommonWealth Magazine takes a look at the disconnect between young people and the news. Among the folks I interviewed was veteran television journalist Judy Woodruff, now with PBS. Earlier this year Woodruff hosted an hour-long report called “Generation Next,” which examined the lives of people between the ages of 16 and 25. Here’s part of what she told me:

Much of the news young people see is not presented in a way that’s relevant to them. It’s presented in a way that makes sense to people who are older, who know what Medicaid Part B is, or who know what the Kyoto Accord is, or McCain-Feingold. There’s a lot of jargon in the news, and there’s an adult framing of the news, if you will….

I think we need to put ourselves in their shoes. I’m not at all saying we should dumb stories down, because young people today are smart. They’re better educated than any generation that preceded them. But we need to find out what they’re interested in and address the news to them. They’re young. They’re not at a stage in their lives where they own property and are home by 6 or 6:30 at night.

My bottom line: News organizations need to move more quickly in embracing technologies such as interactivity, sharing and social networking. But young people have an obligation to start paying attention to the world around them, too.

If you read the article, you’ll come across a note on how difficult it is to measure the number of people who visit a Web site. The specific example I cite is BostonHerald.com, whose internal numbers show more than three times as many visitors as those counted by Nielsen/NetRatings — a disparity that is not at all unusual.

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an article that explains all, sort of. The most startling assertion, given how important the Web is to the future of the faltering news business, is this: “[T]he growth of online advertising is being stunted, industry executives say, because nobody can get the basic visitor counts straight.” Wow.

Got their mojos working

Pardon the link to a press release, but this bears watching. Reuters journalists have been trying out a Nokia smartphone that lets them write stories, shoot video and still photos, and record audio, and then edit everything and upload it right from the field. I first took note of this trend last December, when it was written up in the Online Journalism Review. Now it’s becoming a reality.

Reuters has put together a site showing off the work of their “mojos,” or mobile journalists. Check out “Robots R Us,” and note the high-quality video and sound. It’s easy to imagine watching this on your own smartphone.

The mojo tool of choice at Reuters is the Nokia N95. With a list price of $699, it’s not cheap — unless the alternative is to outfit a journalist with a laptop and a video/still camera. Compared to that, it’s ridiculously inexpensive.

The press release says that the N95 “provides everything journalists need to file and publish stories from even the most remote regions of the world.” Well, OK. But I suspect such tools are mainly going to be a boon for community journalism, as both professionals and amateurs seek to add more multimedia to their sites.

This just in: No sooner had I posted this than a blog item from the Guardian showed up in my inbox. The writer, Jemima Kiss, goes into quite a bit more detail than the press release does.

Nostalgia won’t pay the bills

Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute is creating a buzz by arguing that we all have a duty to buy the print editions of newspapers. He writes:

Until we create some new business models in support of the journalism profession, we’ve got to support what we have, even as we create and perfect online versions that may one day attract the advertising dollars and other revenues we need to do what we do well.

Needless to say, it’s not going to happen. Nor do I think it should. If newspaper executives have decided to give away their product online in the hopes that advertising will pay the bills, then we should take that at face value. By all means, get the print edition if you think it’s a better experience. But don’t be guilt-tripped into it.

I’m old-fashioned enough to want to read a good newspaper in a fairly comprehensive way and not get sucked into the search-engine approach to news. But when a newspaper Web site is well designed, I’m perfectly happy to read it on the Web rather than in print.

Besides, really good newspaper Web sites, such as the New York Times’, are better than print. Earlier this afternoon I watched Anthony Tommasini as he explained 12-tone music and played examples on his piano. It was pretty interesting stuff, but I still have no interest in reading the story.

Recently, as we all know, the Times dropped its paid online service, TimesSelect, on the theory that it can make more money through Web advertising.

I understand what Clark is saying. But no business ever succeeded by persuading people to pay for something they can get for free. We need to get to the point at which online newspapers are making enough money to support journalism. Embracing a dying model does nothing to move us closer to that day.

The corporate Internet

I have an essay up on ThePhoenix.com on how the democratic, grassroots, participatory media that the Internet has enabled is threatened by efforts by giant telecommunications companies to control the next-generation Net for their own, profit-driven purposes. An excerpt:

The Internet is the single greatest threat to corporate dominance of the media since the industrial model was established a century and a half ago. It would be naïve to think that these corporations wouldn’t fight back. In so doing, they are embracing (as Neil Postman predicted they would) not the strategy of Orwell’s 1984, but of Huxley’s Brave New World. By ensuring that all the latest, richest, coolest content is on the new, high-speed, corporate-controlled Net, they’ll deprive the independent sites of the oxygen they need to survive. And we’ll be so overloaded with entertainment that we won’t care.

Obama’s cell-phone problem

Is technology costing Barack Obama points in the polls? National Public Radio yesterday broadcast a fascinating report on the looming meltdown of polling as we know it.

Officials with the Obama campaign believe their guy is receiving disproportionate support from young, black and Hispanic voters. All three of these groups are more likely than the rest of the population to have ditched their land lines in favor of a cell-phone-only lifestyle. And pollsters rarely call cell phones, for obvious reasons. (How would you like to receive a cell-phone call from a pollster?)

According to the NPR story, polling experts believe the cell-phone conundrum isn’t out of hand yet, and that the sampling population can be adjusted by weighting it differently. Clearly, though, technology is changing the face of polling. If Obama does better than his polling numbers in New Hampshire, we’ll know one of the reasons why.

“Little People” is now online

Today I have an exciting announcement to make (exciting to me, anyway). The full text of “Little People,” my 2003 book on the culture of dwarfism, is now online. You will find it here.

Why did I do this? About a year ago, my publisher, Rodale, took “Little People” off the market and sold its inventory to remainder houses. Despite a flurry of favorable reviews and national attention, sales had never really taken off. Given that the book is now officially out of print, the rights have reverted to me, and I decided to make it available for anyone who’s interested.

You’ll find everything online that’s in the hardcover edition — even a Flickr slide show of photos from the book. (I did have to make some substitutions to deal with copyright issues. But the result, I think, is a better selection.) I’ve changed the subtitle; it’s now “A Father Reflects on His Daughter’s Dwarfism — and What It Means to Be Different,” which is a mouthful, but which more accurately describes the contents. There’s also a new, online-only introduction.

Finally, I’ve issued “Little People” under a Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to make copies or even adaptations, as long as it’s for non-commercial use and (ahem) I get the credit.

I actually posted “Little People” over the summer, but, like Andy Card, I believe you shouldn’t introduce new products in August, whether it’s a war or an e-book. Now feels like the right time.

My hope is that some enterprising publisher will take new interest in “Little People” and contact me about bringing out a paperback edition. (E-mail me!) I also hope this helps me sell a few hardcover copies out of my basement. (New condition! Signed by the author!)

Even if that doesn’t happen, though, this means that “Little People” is still in circulation. And, ultimately, that’s what every author wants.