You can see more diverse journalists of color — of all ages — in this spreadsheet: http://diversify.journalismwith.me/. You can read about how this came about here: Crowdsourcing ‘web journalism rockstars of color’
NOTE: Originally published on Nieman Journalism Lab: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/12/robert-hernandez-for-journalisms-future-the-killer-app-is-credibility/
Granted, this will make for a weak lede, but allow me to start this piece with a disclosure: I, like many of you, am not a fan of prediction posts.
QR codes will finally die
The world will realize we already have an existing infrastructure and start using traditional barcodes.
Augmented Reality will dive into mainstream
I’m talking mobile GPS + Camera + Internet technology. It will be baked into our mobile devices, bypassing the need to install multiple apps or plug-ins. (Remember, by predictions I really mean wishes.)
Groupon will cease to exist
Come on? Do you actually even doubt this? How can they survive with all the competitors? More than likely they will be acquired for cheap… by MySpace.
MySpace will attempt to bring the sexy back
But fail.
More people will join Social Geolocation networks
Either by force through Facebook or by general exposure. People who are hesitant to explore this social space, claiming ‘who cares,’ ‘what’s in it for me,’ ‘it’s useless,’ ‘only narcissists join this,’ will realize those were the same concerns/claims about Twitter and Facebook. Oh, also the same arguments about blogs.
A social, geo-location check-in will make news
Some politician or celebrity will check into a strip club or brothel… and earn an ‘idiot’ badge.
Androids will expand their dominance in the mobile marketplace
But no one will care because the iPhone 5 will come out. Oh my gosh, did Apple release it in white too?! My precious… my precious!!
Clouds will become our main media managers
No need to have the DVDs or Blu Rays on our shelves. No need to have MP3s take up space on our computers or phones. All media will be accessible via the Cloud. Yes, you will have to re-purchase your movie collection again.
George Lucas will release another enhanced version of Star Wars for the Cloud
He will change it back to Han shooting first, but instead of Gritto it will be Jar Jar. Nerds have wishes too.
List articles will be the top five story formats on the Web
Journalism is saved! Here’s proof: http://bit.ly/journalismsaved
Typically, they aren’t based on anything real and are often used to make grand statements we all roll our eyes at… and don’t get me started on how often they’re wrong.
That aside, here’s another piece to roll your eyes at.
But here’s a tweak, this is not really a prediction… this is, to be honest, more of a hopeful wish.
Okay, ready? Here goes.
We know that Content is King. There is no doubting this concept. If you don’t have ‘it,’ no one is going to engage with you.
We know that Distribution is Queen. In this modern age, what’s the point of having ‘it’ if no one will find it?
My prediction is that this ruling monarchy will be augmented by… a prince. Perhaps a duke? Whatever. And it’s called Credibility.
In the age that we live in, content is relatively cheap. Anyone can create it. If not through their computer, everyone’s phone can basically do live shots, record newsworthy sound clips and file stories. Some can do interactive 360 videos or augmented reality presentations. Really cool stuff.
And everyone can distribute their content in 140 characters, their own livestream network or their blog (how traditional).
With technology empowering everyone with the ability to create and to distribute, I predict — and wish — that in 2012 the new dominating factor will be Credibility. Actually, earned Credibility.
What will stand out from the sea of content will be the voices we turn to time and time again. Trusted sources of news and information will transcend their mastheads and company brands…and become their own brand. Brands that are solely based on being known for the quality and reliability of their work.
Just to make Gene Weingarten angry, brands brands brands brands brands. Look, that’s all marketing speak for the most important quality journalists have to offer: Credibility.
And, sure, some of us get a head start by being associated with the Washington Post, NPR, CNN, etc. But I predict — hope — that in the coming year, individual journalists will be valued more than their distribution companies. More than the media format of their story.
Judged by the content of their character. (Wait, that’s a different dream.)
Many news consumers are tired of the political left and the political right fighting, and making journalism — or I should actually say “journalism” — the fight’s platform. Hell, I’m tired of it, too.
We want people who will cut through the spin and tell us what’s going on, how it will affect us and what can we do about it. We want transparent news. We want news that, while it may not always achieve that goal, honestly strives to be objective.
We want to trust journalism. And to do so, we need to trust journalists.
And bypassing the blogger-vs-tweeter-vs-media company-vs-journalist debate, it is going to come down to one thing: Credibility.
Can I reliably trust you to tell me what is going on? If the answer is yes, then I don’t care if you work out of a newsroom or out of your garage.
Let’s see what the new year brings, but that is my predication…that is my wish.
Okay, roll your eyes. Or post a comment. Share your thoughts.
While it sooner than you think, the deadline to propose a UNITY 12 workshop is this Friday, November 18. All proposals are welcomed, but to help solicit strong submissions co-program chairs Paul Cheung and Robert Hernandez interviewed themselves to create a collaborative Q&A blog post.
Q: How is this Unity programming different from previous years?
RH: Well, for me, we’ve reached a point in journalism that feels like we’ve risen from the ashes and are hungry to push journalism forward. I think the programming needs to reflect that by being progressive and diverse in every respect.
What it will be: Our sessions will include a lot of hands-on skills training; some crowdsourced best practices; some controversial panels that make us uncomfortable; some discussions that lead to practical take aways.
What it won’t be: Routine discussions about the lack of diversity. Routine PowerPoint slideshows where the presenter talks and the audience only listens. Complaining and harping that the “good ol’ days” are behind us.
This is an exciting time for journalism and this conference will not only reflect that, but prepare you for it. I will admit, Paul and I were disappointed with the past programming. That’s why we signed up. UNITY 2012 is for me and all the like-minded journalists that want to advance journalism in this exciting digital age – together.
Q: Talk about your experiences running AAJA’s and NAHJ’s conferences. What do you hope to bring over to the UNITY 12 convention?
PC: It’s important to be think demos and not memos. Instead of speakers telling us how great their project are, we want them to show us HOW it was done. At the AAJA conventions, we look for experts from within and outside of our industry. In UNITY 12, you can expert us to raise the bar in presenters.
RH: For the last six years or so I’ve been running the New Media track for the NAHJ conference… if you’ve attended, you’ve seen how we’ve doubled hands-on sessions and really have pushed to prepare our attendees with some great skills – from intro to advanced. I’m proud to be on the Online News Association board, where I know they were “inspired” by my NAHJ workshops and brought those types of sessions to its conference. I organized and was proud of the pre-conference workshops offered at ONA11. Paul and I will bring these types of workshops front and center to the conference. That said, we want thought-provoking sessions as well, not just skills and tech… but these thought-provoking topics need to be framed and presented in a more engaging way. And, because we are UNITY, we want every panel to reflect diversity as much as possible. Side note: There will be the Geek Out session.
Q: What advice do you give someone who wants to submit a panel/workshop/session for UNITY 12?
PC:
RH: I agree with Paul. Also, like the modern news consumer, no one wants to be dictated to so make sure you factor in true engagement with the audience. Don’t re-hash old debates, but bring the topic and discussion forward. Offer practical take aways. Be passionate about the topic. Remember, this may be the only training a journalist gets in a year… make your session well worth it!
Q: Can you elaborate on the tracks (Current News/Hot topics, Multimedia, New Media, Platforms, Professional developments and Personal developments)? For example What’s the difference between new media and multimedia?
RH: Well, let’s try to answer the second half of the question first. We look at Multimedia as cross-platform storytelling. Something every journalist — regardless of whether they mainly work on print, broadcast, pixels, etc — needs to be able to do.
New Media, for me, is about technology and how it advances our journalism. Its applying the latest technology to our daily jobs.
PC: Platforms, for me, is about development and topics that is specific to the platform.
Examples: How to you transport your skills from print to broadcast, the art of one person anchor / TV producer
The other tracks I feel are somewhat self-explanatory. While these are somewhat ‘traditional’ tracks to help organize our conference, we expect and will be looking forward to those progressive sessions that truly advance the discussions and lessons.
Q: This a lot of work for just the two of you? Who is helping you organize and shape this conference?
We are not alone in this. The programming committee is comprised of a diverse group of journalists from AAJA, NAHJ, NAJA and NLGJA.
If you have specific questions, concerns suggestions… please join us for a Google+ Hangout Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 3:30PM PT / 6:30PM ET. Go here: http://bit.ly/unity12-hangout
To submit your proposal go to: http://bit.ly/unity12-proposals // The deadline for submissions is Friday, November 18, 2011
[Posting this late]
I played moderator for an impressive CEO panel during the inaugural Journalism Interactive Conference. It was a cool, informal conversation with Burt Herman CEO of Storify, founder of Hacks/Hackers; Edouard Lambelet CEO and Co-Founder of Paper.li; Evan Ratliff Co-founder, editor of The Atavist; Warren Webster President of Patch Media.
Here’s the video:
[Posting this late]
During ONA11, I was a guest on WBUR’s On Point show along with Derrick Ashong and Mandy Jenkins.
This was my first time on live air on a national show… um, and I had a cough.
The topic was Crowdsourcing And The Future Of News. Awkwardly, here it is:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Posting this late, and reset publishing date
I had the honor and privilege of getting interviewed by Internet Evolution Radio.
Inspired by the Lorum ipsum, which is a random collection of Latin words often used by designers as placeholder text, Nieman Lab created the Journo Ipsum generator.
In a few paragraphs, you get randomly selected journo-buzzwords mashed up with every refresh/page load. Thanks to the randomizer, you get things like:
hyperhyperlocal plagiarism trolls TBD 5%”
Patch stupid commenters”
Jeff Jarvis prostate do what you do best”
election-night hologram media bias”
the medium is the message if the news is that important”
Aron Pilhofer Android”
if the news is that important, it’ll find me dead trees”
layoffs put the paper to bed”
It’s useful for dummy text, but also as a good lesson on how taking words out of context and randomly mashing them together is unintentionally hilarious.
While I love it, is a generator potentially a bad idea?
My gut tells me, this was a good idea on paper… but not such a good idea in practice… especially because it’s connected to journalism.
These are real people, companies and brands that are being randomly paired with words they most likely want to avoid.
I guess I’m sounding like a wet blanket… I know. But there’s a reason why we use Lorum ipsum: It’s to avoid awkward phrasing and taking random words out of context!
If it were me, I’d unplug the word generator/randomizer portion and just display a dozen or so paragraphs of Journo Ipsum text … I’d even edit some awkward ones out. You’ll still offer the awesomeness of the concept, without having the, for the lack of a better word, liability.
But hey… that’s just me. What do you think?
Also, join the unintentional hilarity of the randomizer by tweeting out your finds, using the #JournoIpsum hashtag!
Well, what I can say for sure is that I’m glad I’m not a big enough name to be in that randomly mashed up mix!
It happens to all of us, and last week it happened to me.
I got punked… by a hoax.
That study that claimed IE6 users have a lower IQ, as much as we may still feel like it’s true, was a fake.
I’ve been punked by hoaxes in the past, I’m sure, but the difference with this one is that I retweeted it and helped spread the misinformation. And, in turn, my tweet was retweeted a half dozen times.
Now, I didn’t know it was a hoax at the time. I have to admit, though, I immediately bought into it. Old browsers are hated by Web Developers. But when I shared it I was thinking it was “proof” rather than trying to willing lie to people.
In other words, I don’t think I committed a journalistic sin because I didn’t know it was fake at the time. Retweeting a rumor and treating it as fact, that’s a journalism sin… this was more a case of journalistic laziness, because in my heart “I knew it to be true.”
Typically, I read the links before I share them with others – not endorsements, per say, but informed sharing. In this case, I didn’t even question it and re-shared. (NOTE: I still believe there is something wrong with you if you are using IE6.)
Tim Carmody, who wrote the piece exposing the hoax for Wired, said it perfectly:
While I didn’t commit a journalism sin, I did, knowing or not, participate in spreading this hoax. So, what is my responsibility now?
I went straight to the correction expert and asked Craig Silverman, of Regret the Error, for advice. His response:
My response:
While not a sin, I still felt dirty. So much so, that I also posted a correction on Google+ and wrote this piece.
I’m happy to report, moments after I asked those who retweeted me to spread the corrected info, nearly all did.
What are your thoughts? How would you have corrected this “error?” Do you consider it an error?
The moment I played with the Google+ Hangout function I, like many others, immediately had a ton of ideas: communal movie-watching experience, a new form of Web chat, a vodcast and more.
The first question, though, was how do you record a hangout to make a simple, informal vodcast? That was answered right away. (While not ideal, the answer is screen capture software, like Camtasia or screencast-o-matic.com.)
The next immediate question was, why stop there… while there is a ten-person limit in a Hangout, how can I broadcast this and make it a live talk show?
Today, I found the answer!
Some background: I’ve been experimenting with livestreaming at locations for a few years. At Seattletimes.com we experimented with a few setups that led to live shots from bars, outside Safeco Field and an MST3k-style commentary of a governor’s debate.
Oh the challenges we faced… but the setup has been pretty much perfected by the crew since I’ve left, but I recall the hacker tools like the “Wok-Fi.”
Justin.tv, Qik, UStream and Livestream have been the key players exploring the live streaming space, each one releasing something new and advancing the technology.
I flipped when UStream released their mobile app that allowed streaming directly from your phone over the 3G network. There are more apps that offer this now, including Twitcasting.
But today’s tech development goes to Livestream.com (formerly Mogulus) that has been owning the desktop/laptop broadcasting space. They have a downloadable application called Procaster.
The piece of software has a simple interface and is loaded with a ton of features, including the ability to broadcast your desktop. What’s also great is that you can zoom in/out to frame your shot, which makes it the ideal Google+ Hangout broadcasting tool.
Here is the video of my test with Kate Gardiner earlier today:
The first minutes of the video are of me setting everything up, but jump 7:30 minutes in to see the start of the finished product. The main need to tweak is to amplify your Hangout colleagues’ audio, but that’s an easy fix.
All you need is a free livestream account, a Web cam, strong audio speakers and people to join you in a Hangout.
Let me know how your experiments go!
NOTE: Republished on Online Journalism Review: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/webjournalist/201106/1987/
I hate hypocrites… especially when they’re journalists.
I’ve been a bit disappointed with how some journalists have been writing about Jose Antonio Vargas‘ recent announcement that he is an undocumented immigrant. Many are questioning Vargas’ journalistic credibility because he had to hide his immigration status.
As if journalists – including columnists and editors – have never lied before or broken any laws. (Just think about your college years.)
Like the communities we cover, newsrooms are filled with sinners and saints… perfectly flawed human beings.
But lies have different degrees, don’t they?
It wasn’t long ago that people had to hide, or lie about, being gay. They had to conceal a part of their true identities to avoid discrimination or to get a job, including one as a reporter.
While they felt forced to hide a part of themselves, something tells me they still made strong journalists and did not lie in their reporting.
If I recall correctly, when the gay marriage issue erupted in San Francisco, The Chronicle pulled a gay photographer off the story because editors assumed a conflict of interest. What Chronicle editors failed to note is that straight people also have opinions about gay marriage that may also pose a conflict of interest.
The bottom line is, as far as I know, Vargas never lied in his stories. And just because he had to hide about being part of a certain community, it doesn’t automatically nullify his journalistic credibility or achievements.
Being a part of a community does not disqualify him as a journalist.
Just like Diane Sawyer, for example, isn’t disqualified as a journalist because she worked in Republican Party politics before, during and after President Nixon’s administration and subsequent resignation. Same as George Stephanopoulos isn’t disqualified after working for President Clinton’s administration.
They are just two of many examples.
What has bothered me the most, really, is how journalists are treating Vargas as “other” … as if his reality is not a common one. As if undocumented immigrants, or illegal aliens or whatever label you use, aren’t part of our communities.
We are all made up of different communities, and these often are the same communities we attempt to cover through our journalism. Some communities we praise, others we tolerate and others go unacknowledged.
I, like many others, believe that a diverse newsroom – comprised of different communities – makes for stronger, more relevant journalism. But the sad reality is that not all communities are seen as equal – or as newsworthy.
Our job is to give voice to the voiceless… but what happens if we are part of the voiceless community?
That’s the position Vargas found himself in. And he, like others from different communities before him, decided to come out and remind people the “other” is really a part of “us.”
About a year ago, I actually wrote a post about this topic, but under advisement from my closest editor I deleted it.
The post was inspired by Harvey Milk‘s powerful message: “You must come out” to give a real face to a community that is under attack. This was around the time of Arizona’s SB1070 bill.
My editor thought my post could be taken out of context and hurt my career.
I don’t know how these words will be taken… and quite frankly, I’ve debated whether or not I should ever publish them… but I hope my editor is not right.
In light of Vargas’ story – one that took more courage to share than my story – I feel that I am obligated to share my experience.
Allow me, however, to frame the reason why I am sharing my story now:
I’m writing this because as journalists we can’t afford to forget that we are part of the “other” … that good journalism is truly inclusive.
I, like everyone else, am part of multiple communities: I am a father, a husband, a renter (former homeowner), college graduate, an educator, a Roman Catholic (but I often disagree with the church) and the son of immigrants from El Salvador.
While my mother entered the country by plane with the right papers, my father entered by crossing the border illegally in the 70s.
He quickly became a U.S. citizen.
But let’s be honest here, the act of an immigrant crossing the border without the right papers in pursuit of a better life often overshadows their accomplishments as legal citizens.
To clarify, I was born a U.S. citizen. But all my success as a person and as a journalist, I owe to my immigrant parents.
My father, like millions of other immigrants, reflects the story of America – whether we want to admit it or not. Coming to this land (by any means necessary) with nothing, working [expletive] hard and making a better life for himself and his family.
For the record, my father graduated at the top of his high school class in El Salvador, which earned him a scholarship to Germany. He worked there, but giving into the request from my mother’s family, he moved to the United States after marrying her.
My father ran several small businesses and was a homeowner for more than 40 years. He lost them in the bad economy, but had relaunched his auto repair shop early last year. He passed away in November and the outpouring of support from the local community was a true testament to his accomplishments. That man helped so many people… I had no idea.
My mother struggled and worked hard in her own immigrant story. She made a small living by cleaning houses and other service jobs, including working at the food court of Cal State University, Northridge. She joined my father as an entrepreneur until they separated.
I can tell you more about their story, but let me just say this: “Their” story is part of “my” story. And “my story” is part of “our” community. And all of that is part of journalism. To shun someone, even a journalist, for owning their story, their community, is bad journalism.
If you invalidate Vargas as a journalist for being an illegal immigrant, you are a journalist in denial thinking that he is not part of your community (the one you are trying to cover).
Again I ask: Our job is to give voice to the voiceless… but what if we are part of the voiceless community?
If you are part of a community that is being attacked or politicized, as a journalist it takes courage to step forward and speak up, not as an activist… but as someone who wants facts to prevail. Not talking points.
I applaud Vargas for his courage. He’s a reminder that the “other” is really within “us.”
