Web Journalist Blog

[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:

I’ve written about experimenting with Google+ Hangouts before, and finally did a project inspired by Jon Favreau‘s Dinner for Five on IFC and Talking Funny on HBO: http://talk.journalismwith.me.

@talkJournalism or #tjwm hopes to be an entertaining and insightful look into the minds of some of the country’s leading journalism thinkers/doers. The informal ‘show’ is held through a Google+ Hangout and broadcasted out using UStream.

Here’s the first episode… you will notice it’s a work in progress… it did not pick up my audio for some reason.

There *will* be another episode. Trying to align the schedules of the next panel.

Please, feel free to send me feedback. Email: talk [at] journalismwith.me or tweet us by using the #tjwm hashtag.

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:
http://twitter.com/#!/tcarmody/status/98763883157794817

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:
http://twitter.com/#!/CraigSilverman/status/98765056753405952

My response:
http://twitter.com/#!/webjournalist/status/98765505191608321

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!

So, there really is no need to write this… but in the back of my head… there’s a tinge of worry.

Today, after reading some comments on Google+ about expecting the Internet to merge this historic photo of the deadly Osama mission and this just-released photo of the first family watching the Women’s World Cup Finals, I couldn’t help myself and mashed together within 10 minutes.

No harm was done… it’s just another obvious Internet meme. But I thought… perhaps over thought… what if some jackass attacks me and says this threatens my journalistic credibility. What if they say that if I “fabricated” this, could I have lied elsewhere?

It’s unreasonable, no? Actually… not really.

It seems like people are often looking for ways to undermine someone’s credibility. Taking quotes out of context, re-editing video, or Photoshoping an image is not uncommon.

But there is a significant difference.

One is to lie and the other… is just Internet humor. Perhaps no different from adding a poorly written caption atop a cute cat photo.

But still… while I shared it on Google+ — and fully knowing that by posting it online it would be shared – it felt weird to see someone share it. I got worried.

What if…

In journalism, it takes years and years of hard work to build up your credibility… and sometimes one mistake to wipe it all away.

That’s the time we live in at the moment. Not just for journalists, but newsmakers and civilians as well.

Maybe that’s why I am writing this… an attempt to say THIS WAS AN INTERNET JOKE, NOT JOURNALISM.

And that’s cool, right? RIGHT?

Tell me it’s cool and that I’m over thinking this.

P.S. The Internet gets it… someone just added Sad Keanu to the photo!

Well, here’s an idea… let’s have a ‘hangout’ on G+ and watch films together that are on YouTube.

There are plenty to choose from… In the past I wrote about seeing the classic journalism film Deadline, U.S.A., which sadly has been removed. But there are many others to watch.

Maybe it’s a clip showcase… maybe it’s reviewing our work… maybe it’s a meme off, in the but-have-you-seen-this style? Maybe it’s a version of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Anyone interested? Send me a note!

And, if you have an idea for a film/clip, submit it here!

Thanks for trying this out with me!

Robert