It Wasn't Sunil Tripathi

The Atlantic has a sobering write-up of how the Internet falsely identified missing Brown student Sunil Tripathi as one of the Boston bombing suspects yesterday.

[T]here was a full-on frenzy as thousand upon thousands of tweets poured out, many celebrating new media's victory in trouncing old media. It was all so shockingly new and the pitch was so high and it was so late at night on one of the craziest days in memory. That Redditors might have identified the bomber hours before anyone but law enforcement seemed like amazing redemption for people who'd supported Reddit's crowdsourcing efforts.

Hughes himself, the primary source of the information on Twitter, tweeted, "If Sunil Tripathi did indeed commit this #BostonBombing, Reddit has scored a significant, game-changing victory." And then later, he continued, "Journalism students take note: tonight, the best reporting was crowdsourced, digital and done by bystanders. #Watertown."

Within a few hours, however, NBC's Phillips had confirmed with his sources that two Chechnyan brothers were the primary suspects in the case. Their names and stories came out quickly. This horrible deed of misidentification ended mercifully quickly. Apologies were made.

Journalism students should still take note, of course - this is stuff you learn the first week of class. Don't make assumptions. Stuff from the police scanner is unconfirmed and should not be reported. Check and check and check your sources.

Photography

A portrait of me from the photographers of the Otago Daily Times, during a training session last week.

Crucial lesson: keep the face in focus.

Law & Order: Dublin Edition

Court reporting has its moments. Especially in Ireland apparently.



"The plaintiff said of the experience, 'It frightened the shite out of me altogether, Lord Jesus.'"

Body Image

The NZ Herald Online went unintentionally meta in this article about the need for positive female role models to battle "the epidemic of eating disorders and self-harming among young girls":

I can't tell if the ad undermines the article or reinforces it, but either way it shows the risk of combining news, advertising and automated web design.

The Making of "Snow Fall"

I finally got around to reading The New York Times's multimedia feature "Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek", which has been attracting a lot of attention from web-savvy reporters.

Basically, it's a long, in-depth article about a deadly avalanche in the Cascades near Seattle, illustrated by videos, photographs, audio clips, slideshows and animations that come to life as you scroll down the page.

I really like the format. It combines classic long-form writing with the smooth interactive experience that people now expect from online media, and the graphics and videos make it easier to concentrate on the story and keep track of all the details.

In a team interview with Source, NYT's graphics director Steve Duenes explains: "We wanted to make a single story out of all the assets, including the text. So the larger project wasn’t a typical design effort. It was an editing project that required us to weave things together so that text, video, photography and graphics could all be consumed in a way that was similar to reading—a different kind of reading."

If this is where print journalism is headed, then I'm encouraged - but it's looking more and more likely that I'll need to dust off my computer science degree if I want my career to go anywhere. And here I thought I'd escaped.

Richard Engel, Superman

I'm relieved to hear that NBC's chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel and his team are safe after being kidnapped and held for five days in Syria:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Engel's ordeal reminded me of his theory about the four stages of stress a reporter goes through while covering war zones, outlined in his book War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq:

• Stage One: I'm invincible. Nothing can hurt me. I'm Superman.
• Stage Two: What I'm doing is dangerous. I might get hurt over here. I'd better be careful.
• Stage Three: What I'm doing is really dangerous. I am probably going to get hurt over here no matter how careful I am. Math and probability and time are working against me.
• Stage Four: I have been here too long. I am going to die over here. It is just a matter of time. I've played the game too long.

It's not time just yet, thank goodness. Welcome back, Richard.

Six Months In

I have been a full-time reporter at a daily paper for six months now. I made a list of things I'd learned when I was fresh out of journalism school, so I thought I'd add some of my practical experiences so far.

• Working in a small town is rough at first. It takes ages to figure out all the local gossip and even longer for people to trust you; and in the meantime there's nothing to do on the weekends and you can't get a decent coffee anywhere. But it's worth it in the long run, because you end up trying a bit of everything and learning about a part of society you might not be familiar with.
• Nothing really prepares you for interviewing a man who just got laid off from his job, or facing an angry parent whose child is being bullied at school because of an article you wrote. All you can do is stay calm, be fair, and try to have as much empathy as possible. Never lose sight of the fact that you are affecting people's lives in a very real way.
• You'll also get a lot of political staffers and corporate PR people angry with you, and there is aaaaabsolutely nothing wrong with that. You just annoy the crap out of them. (Politely.)

The Onion: "F*ck Everything"

The Onion nails it with their gut-wrenching article on the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut - not just America's anger and despair, but also the thoughts running through reporters' heads as they try to cover a tragedy of this scale:

Despairing sources confirmed that the gunman, armed with a semiautomatic assault rifle—a fucking combat rifle, Jesus—walked into a classroom full of goddamned children where his mother was a teacher and, good God, if this is what the world is becoming, then how about we just pack it in and fucking give up, because this is no way to live. 

I mean, honestly, all 315 million Americans confirmed.

Sometimes journalistic detachment is impossible.

Post-Industrial Journalism

Journos will find plenty to inspire and even more to worry about in "Post-Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present", a study from Columbia Journalism School's Tow Centre. It's a dense read (check out Poynter's write-up if you're in a hurry) but worth setting aside an afternoon.

Basically, the report says that the transformation of American journalism is unavoidable, "that the journalism industry is dead but that journalism exists in many places", and journalists and news organisations have to be much more versatile in order to survive. Alarming, but kind of exciting if you like a challenge.

Study Project

I've given in and bought a Kindle. The part of me that loves rummaging through second-hand bookshops is horrified, but in the end practicality won out. My reading list is too long, and I don't have the time or money to buy hardcover books, or wait for paperback editions, and then lug them around in boxes every time I change addresses. I'll still buy books that have special meaning to me, but for the most part I've gone digital.

I plan to step up my reading on journalism and politics, and the Kindle could be really useful for that. I can download free resources from websites like Project Gutenberg and then step away from the Internet to avoid distractions (ahem), and I can buy the latest books without traveling to a city or shipping them all the way from America. Not a lot of fancy politically-themed bookshops in Greymouth, you see.

What I'm hoping is that by following journalists and scholars on social media and doing independent study while learning basic reporting skills at my job, I can gain some insight and sharpen my focus on where I want my career to go. A four-year journalism degree is beyond my reach for now, but I suspect I can learn quite a lot just by knowing where to look.

We'll see how it goes. Expect more ramblings about what I'm reading, along with the usual snarky jokes. Like these ones!

Thoughts on Fact-checking

The American presidential election is over, thank goodness, and I'm in the process of separating the important lessons from the emotional drama of the last few months.

On the journalism side, one of the most interesting topics has been the conflict between balance and fact-checking, which I find to be just as polarising as the Bias vs Objectivity debate in some cases (hi there, PolitiFact).

The issue was summed up in this article from The New York Times's public editor Margaret Sullivan. The rise of fact-checkers, she said, was "all a part of a movement — brought about, in part, by a more demanding public, fueled by media critics, bloggers and denizens of the social media world — to present the truth, not just conflicting arguments leading to confusion."

Jon Stewart Skewers CNN (Again)

I don't always agree with Jon Stewart, but CNN's big mistake on the Supreme Court ruling was what he was born for.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"Yes, 'widely different'. There's what you've been saying, and then there's what happened."

Has Cable News Peaked?

Jack Shafer makes an interesting point about the future of the cable news business:

CNN isn’t the only network riding the down escalator when it comes to ratings. Over the same week, Fox News Channel attracted its fewest viewers in the important 25-to-54-year-old category since July 2008, the Times added.

Various observers have blamed the viewership downturn on the lull in the 2012 campaign, on viewers defecting to the season finales on the entertainment channels and on the lack of breaking news. But I interpret the falloffs as fresh evidence that the audience for cable news has peaked.

Despite my favourite (and pretty much only) TV show being on cable news, I see discussion like this with more curiosity than concern. Beyond a few bright spots, the format is starting to feel tired and predictable, and I'm waiting for some innovative multimedia format to become profitable enough to take off.

That's one of the reasons I'm drawn to television personalities who didn't originally come from television - who started out as professors or bloggers or writers. With a little basic talent you can always learn how to look good on TV, but I think if you want to stay afloat in the media over the next few decades you need to be able to evolve and do something out of the ordinary.

Melissa Harris-Perry's "Nerdland"

Fair play to MSNBC. They're actually starting to seem a bit edgy - at least on the weekends.

I've loved watching Dr Harris-Perry as a guest and guest host on the network. As a tenured professor and a political scientist, she makes me feel like I should be taking notes and doing homework - a rare thing for cable news.

Now she has her own show, following the equally nerdy "Up with Chris Hayes". Michael P Jeffries writes in The Guardian that this proves MSNBC's commitment to education and intellectual debate:

The Harris-Perry show will not solve the deeply-rooted inequities that restrict access to higher education for so many Americans. But it does represent MSNBC's recognition that the public thirsts for earnest intellectual discussion, driven by data and evidence and facilitated by trained professionals. All members of the academy, regardless of discipline or political preference, should recognize the value of the Harris-Perry show, as its host explicitly acknowledges the different skill sets and demands of academic research and public intellectualism.

Sounds great. If we see more of this intellectual style brought into the primetime lineup, I'll be a happy news geek.

Charlie Brooker: How to Report the News

Amen on the vox pops, seriously.

One Foot on the Ladder

Making the transition from news junkie to journalist is a strange experience. I have insight now that I never imagined when I was just watching political shows and bumming around on the Internet - and there are a few guilty pleasures from my fangirl days that I can't get away with anymore.

Here are a few of the things I've learned:

• Controversial issues have a tendency to split into obvious, polarised and ultimately unhelpful factions. Reporters ought to find a different way to frame the debate while still getting ratings and page clicks. Good luck with that, reporters.
• Everyone thinks their favourite story should be on the front page or at the top of the news hour. Don't even try to please them all - but have a good reason for your decision.
• Humour, sarcasm and moral indignation are fun, useful tools that can backfire spectacularly.

How To Fumble a News Story

I've been watching with interest - and not a little frustration - the recent evictions of Occupy protesters in the States, and how the possibility of federal involvement in the raids has been covered by the media. 

You dig through the debate at your own peril by now, but here's what I've pinned down.

More than a dozen cities moved to evict Occupy protesters from their campgrounds earlier this month, all acting in the space of ten days and using similar tactics. Department of Homeland Security vehicles were spotted at a number of the evictions, including one in Portland.

Later Oakland Mayor Jean Quan revealed to the BBC that she participated in a conference call of 18 cities before the wave of crackdowns began. There was another set of conference calls headed up by the Police Executive Research Forum.

Rick Ellis, a reporter for the (somewhat dodgy) news aggregate site Examiner.com, said an unnamed Justice Department official told him on background that local police agencies had received tactical and planning advice from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

Sex and Infotainment

Today our journalism tutor Jim Tucker started the class with “Well, we’re famous, maybe for all the wrong reasons” – kicking off an argument that lasted all morning.

He’d just been interviewed by RadioLive’s Marcus Lush over a poll he’d posted to Whitireia’s news website, NewsWire, asking readers “Which politician would you like to go to bed with?”

The poll went viral after conservative blogger David Farrar tweeted the link and posted it to his Facebook page, and soon the comments were flooding in.

Journalist and former ACT MP Deborah Coddington was furious. “I find that so bloody offensive. Is this what this country has come to? The people we vote for are nothing more than something to consider mating with?”

By this morning the sex poll story had only gotten bigger (ha ha) with coverage from RadioLive, Newstalk ZB and the New Zealand Herald.

Jim insisted that the poll was meant to show the superficial nature of political reporting, to get NewsWire some attention and to “have a bit of fun”. Half the class thought the whole thing was hilarious and couldn’t see why anyone was complaining.

Sports vs Science

With all the Rugby World Cup coverage going on at the moment, which I'm more interested in than I thought I'd be, I keep coming back to a point made by physicist Sir Paul Callaghan on Radio New Zealand's "Mediawatch" (at about the 22 minute mark):

You could imagine what would happen if a sports commentator made a mistake about a score, or the track record of a particular player. They'd be deluged with complaints, because they're dealing with an expert audience out there, and sports commentators treat their audience with respect.

And that's why sports commentators are some of the smartest people in the media. They're the ones who have to think on their feet, and they've got to get it right. That's kind of a benchmark. If we could all be as good as sports reporters and commentators, we'd really have a fantastic media.

What he doesn't say explicitly is that we also need an "expert audience" for science - people who are interested in and educated about science issues - which underlines the need for good science education.

Daily Fail

I love this - it reveals so much about tabloid journalism:

The Daily Mail made Twitter headlines for all the wrong reasons this morning, after incorrectly reporting Knox had lost her high-profile appeal and would remain in jail. 

[...] It read: "As Knox realised the enormity of what Judge Hellman was saying, she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friend hugged each other in tears."

The website even managed to find "sources" to comment on the false verdict.

"Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done'," the Mail reported, "although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'."

I wonder if any of the Daily Mail reporters dreamed of being crime novelists when they grew up.