January 12, 2012
Hi and welcome back! It’s been awhile. Admittedly, the care and feeding of this blog fell off last semester (sometimes life takes over) but now I’m back to reviving my little plant.
So, of course, where to start? As more than a few folks noted on Twitter the past several days, it’s been a rough week for newspaper ombudsmen. Arthur S. Brisbane, the public editor for The New York Times, drew much attention with his column which posed this question: “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?“
The lede is poster-child verbiage for those wondering whether there are still out-of-touch editors roaming around in the mainstream media: “I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”
My head hurts.
The backlash on Twitter and on the comments board for the article was predictable. Christian Moerk of Brooklyn captured the feelings of many: “As a former Times freelancer, and ’92 graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism, I’ll keep it short and to the point: Mr. Brisbane, even posing the question as you did reveals an appalling ignorance of what journalists are supposed to do for a living. You wouldn’t have lasted in a J-school ethics class for five minutes, let alone a newsroom.”
This old-school print mentality of he said/he said journalism still dominates too many mainstream newsrooms. It’s one of the many reasons why journalists get a bad reputation. Too many readers views journalists as nothing more than glorified stenographers. NYU’s Jay Rosen calls it the “View From Nowhere.” The Times should really know better (remember the assertions about the “weapons of mass destruction?)
Brisbane’s question on how to tell the truth while being “objective and fair” came on the heels of a column by Washington Post ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton, where he asked: “Is The Post innovating too fast?“
June 4, 2011
Blogging, In the News, innovation, Multimedia, Nancy Cohen, radio, Springfield Tornado, UMass Springfield Tornado, Web journalism innovation, Journalism Department, Multimedia, Nancy Cohen, radio, Springfield Tornado, UMass Springfield Tornado Leave a comment
Adjunct instructor Nancy Eve Cohen teaches Reporting and Writing for Radio and Podcasting at UMass.
Nancy is also the environmental reporter for WNPR, Connecticut Public Radio and the Managing Editor of the Northeast Environmental Hub, a collaboration of 20 public radio stations.
She’s been covering the aftermath of the Springfield tornado, producing several pieces including:
* This report on tornado survivors for WBUR
I recently caught up with her to get her thoughts on covering the tornado and its aftermath.
1. Where were you when the tornado hit Springfield? What did you do?
I drove into Springfield the night of the tornado, a few hours later. There was a torrential rainstorm… every exit off the highway to Springfield was blocked so i wasn’t able to see much, but it prepared me for the next morning. I knew it might be difficult to get where I needed to be when daylight came…
2. Were you surprised by the amount of devastation in Springfield?
Shocked. I’ve been working in this business for a long time…even worked in a war zone… Sarajevo in 1992, but to see my own community ripped apart stunned me. The sheer force of the tornado was humbling
3. Describe what you did during coverage on Wednesday and Thursday?
I managed to be in the right place at the right time on Thursday. Some of that was planning, some was assertiveness, some was dumb luck.
I got to one of the Red Cross shelters at 5:00 AM and snagged the last legal parking place. You couldn’t drive anywhere so it was key to stage oneself as close as possible.
When I walked into the shelter people were sleeping. I heard snoring, a few people were crying quietly. A baby was whimpering. A few people walked around wrapped in blankets, smoking.
One young woman said she had just paid her landlord before the tornado hit. Now she had no money and no place to live. A man in a wheelchair described waking up that morning in the shelter and realizing where he was and what had happened. His building was destroyed and he was worried his apartment would be looted. But he had no way to get there and little hope of finding another accessible apartment.
Many of the people had little to begin with and now they had even less.
After interviewing several of the survivors I went outside and walked south until I hit a police block. I talked to the police and they pointed out a man getting out of the car who turned out to be Senator Scott Brown. I had the chance to talk with him for a while. Then Governor Deval Patrick showed up along with Senator Kerry and the mayors of Springfield and Westfield. I interviewed each of them and then, along with a gaggle of press, followed the politicians as they surveyed the damage on foot.
After the officials left a photographer friend and I talked our way past the police to some of the worst hit places.
I got some incredible interviews with two people who lived through the tornado…one took shelter in a closet inside, but the wind was blowing so hard the door almost blew away. Another saw a roof flying through the air “like the Wizard of Oz” A building inspector examining the damage said it was a miracle not more people were killed “God Looked over the city and protected the people.”
Today, Friday I went to a new shelter that had been set up. I spoke with a family who were from Somalia. They had come to Springfield a year ago after spending 12 years in a refugee camp. The 25 year old mother of four told me her new situation– homeless after the tornado— reminded her of being in the camp. “It’s like when we fled from our country … We feeling like refugee all over again. We don’t have nothing now.”
One woman told me she had broke down crying the night before. ” I finally realized. like this is serious. I can’t go back to my home. Like this is it for us.”
I left the shelter and drove to a suburban neighborhood that was also hit. There was an army of utility trucks installing new telephone poles that had been snapped in half. There were damaged trees everywhere. Big ones. One house had several huge trees broken and splayed across the roof.
4. Describe the role of social media in your reporting.
None. This was old fashioned, on foot, on-the-ground from early morning until my deadline loomed.
5. What has surprised you most about the coverage of the tornadoes?
I haven’t had time to see a lot of other people’s work yet. I haven’t really stopped, but I’m about to.
April 27, 2011
Blogging, Business of Journalism, Future of Journalism, Journalism Major, Teaching Blogs, Business of Journalism, Future of Journalism, innovation, Journalism Department, Multimedia, training, video Leave a comment
“Have grown real tired of professors who say that technology shouldn’t be taught in media schools because ‘it’s always changing’. Would professors at medical or business schools ever say something that willfully ignorant?”
– Vin Crosbie, Syracuse University
April 24, 2011
“When looking, it is important to be conscious of what one is seeing and what else of equal importance isn’t in view at the same moment.”
– Courtesy of Tom Kennedy, Professor of Multimedia, Photo at Syracuse University
April 10, 2011
Blogging, Business of Journalism, Future of Journalism, Jackie Hai, media reform, NCMR, Web journalism Blogs, Business of Journalism, Future of Journalism, innovation, Jackie Hai, Multimedia, Steve Fox Leave a comment
Somewhere during the run-up to the 2000 election, I remember legendary Washington Post columnist David Broder writing about the increasing split within the country along the Blue (liberal) – Red (conservative) divide. I guess what I saw this weekend at the National Conference on Media Reform is a reaffirmation that the divide is alive.
This was a conference for the like-minded where bashing the media was second only to booing conservatives.
There was no denying the political undercurrent that was present throughout most of the conference. Which I guess was to be expected. But the underlying message — at both panels and on the conference Twitter feed — was that big media was failing and that somehow that failure allows the conservative message to gain more traction. The irony is, conservatives say the same thing.
So, when we talk about “media reform,” what exactly are we talking about? In the end, it really comes down to two things: What the media is covering and how they are covering it.
Yet, for all the talk about reform this weekend, I’m not sure many attendees at this weekend’s conference understand the power that they have. The focus seemed to be more on the failure of major print and television news organizations rather than the possibilities available to all through online journalism (or new media if you prefer.)
At several sessions Saturday attendees heard some optimism — and some key phrases. Here’s a key-word rundown and what they could mean for true media reform:
* No barriers to entry. ASU’s Dan Gillmor started the day talking about how the barriers to entry into journalism are gone. David Cohn ended the day at his panel talking about how the barriers to entry into journalism are gone. In simplest terms, that means if you think there is not enough coverage on a particular issue, then you can provide it. Pick your issue, start your blog, shoot video to put on the blog and start engaging with your audience about the issue. There was much passion at this conference. Take all that passion and apply in to a blog. Make the passion work for you! It’s better and more productive than whining endlessly about the state of the media.
* Collaboration. The old models are disappearing. It’s no longer a one-way conversation. If you approach a news organization and say you want to write a blog for them, or provide photos or other content, chances are they will say yes. The same goes for journalism schools — more and more journalism schools are searching for issues to have their students report on.
* Curation. For me, the best session today was listening to NPR’s Andy Carvin and others talk about the power of Twitter. If you aren’t following @acarvin on Twitter, you should. Since the uprising in Egypt, Carvin, along with Nick Kristoff of the New York Times have been transforming real-time reporting before our very eyes. Carvin sees himself as a real-time Twitter news anchor, sifting through eyewitness report to determine what is accurate and what is rumor. The future lies with online journalism and revolutionaries like Carvin. If you’re looking for media reform, watch what Carvin is doing.
* The Next Generation. Finally, the last panel of the day Saturday featured David Cohn and Jackie Hai in a panel titled “Journalism Next” focusing on what these young entrepreneurs are doing. Jackie is a UMass Journalism alumnae who took my first Multimedia Journalism class at UMass and I’ve known David for more than four years, since we worked together on newassignment.net. They are each involved in exciting projects and see nothing but hope for the future. Follow their work. Both are deeply immersed in the online journalism space and are part of the group of great innovators reforming media.