This semester we took something of a leap when we introduced J198 here at Lehigh. As students in our department you’ve always had the journalism focus as part of your studies. The only thing that was narrow was the platforms you learned about: writing, photography, maybe some online work here and there.

This semester we learned (in the words of Cassie) everything. Yeah, we learned video. And photos. And . And blogging. And Web building. And maps. And a little Gowalla. And SEO. And podcasting. But there’s a common thread there. We used it to build something greater than the whole, and that something was the story. If there’s one lesson I want you all to take away from this course it’s something Steph said during her group’s presentation: When we learn the technology to the point where operating the equipment is second-hand, you realize something: It’s always about the story. Always.

You learned a lot about technology and networks this semester, and that kind of information will be vital. But now that you’re at the end of the term, zoom out and see the big picture. See how this all works together. For example, we didn’t use Twitter because it is all-important. We used it to build up networks and relationships with people, to listen to them in shaping stories and work with them to promote the work you did. We used it to get information and push information.

And it works. For example, Google and what do you get at the top of your search hits? Why, the very site put together by Andrew, Lauren, and Ope. Why is this? Because it was set for SEO, it had a clear title that was reflected in the URL, and it was sold in social media by both you and your followers. In other words, “everything.” All of it was pointed toward benefiting from Google’s system of rewarding clicks over big media brands. Read more

I am writing this whole post from my new 3G+WiFi iPad using the WordPress app. Who says you can’t create content with these things?

The app is pretty good, though it could use a WYSIWYG interface. Formatting links and text is sort of a pain, but then again I was surprised WP even had an iPad app so quickly, so maybe the limitations are due to them just getting something out.

I played with the WiFi version at the Apple Store, but I spent about 6 hours with this thing tonight. Immediate things that jump out with the luxury of time:

E-mail is real nice on this thing, much better than the iPhone. I like the flat design, where you can see your inbox and the called up message in one pane.

The A/V is sweet. Great screen quality and robust speakers. Resolution on pictures and video is eye-popping, far better than a computer. I streamed a couple ballgames using the excellent MLB app (more on this in a second) and got uninterrupted viewing at HD quality. Amazing.

Any app that uses Web browsing within its interface (i.e. not using Safari) better put out an iPad app quickly or they are toast. If there is no iPad version it loads at iPhone size and you can blow it up, but it usually pixelates. That works ok at times for the app itself, but it kills Web pages and often makes them hard to view.

Students love it. I have let about 15 students tool around on the thing for a while. Some were skeptical of it before using, but I have yet to find a user who doesn’t love it after trying it. Better, they generally see a use for it that either is unique or inadequately filled by a device they already have. I think this thing is going to be a hit for students once the textbook market revs up in the iBook store.

My own media habits are changing. Pre-iPad, I often had my laptop out in the living room with me for media browsing (quick email checks, news, looking up things on IMDB). Now I barely pull it out, and I don’t miss it. If I need more computing power or things for work, I use the laptop. But that’s what it’s for. Regular surfing for info or quick looks is easily filled by the iPad. The laptop was always clunky for around-the-house stuff, and the iPad has simplified my life a lot. Not once have I found myself wishing i could plug in a USB drive.

Favorite app: MLB At Bat, and it’s not even close. Especially with MLB.tv streaming games. A really nice way to watch a game. Pitch speeds and types, player stats, live video, and all kinds of info at your fingertips.

Unexpectedly cool app: Star Walk, which uses GPS and the compass functions to locate constellations and planets in the sky. Really cool for star gazers or space lovers like myself. Awesome app.

Other apps: I’m looking forward to checking out the magazines on this such as Vanity Fair (not a magazine I normally read; I feel I should point this out). Twitteriffic is probably my favorite Twitter client on there, but Tweetdeck is nice too.

Overall my sense of this device is unchanged: If you understand what it is and is not, you’ll love it. Most of the critiques I read are from programming and architecture enthusiasts. Their criticisms are valid and usually true, but it’s a mistake to think these views match the general perspective. So I think public perception of the iPad depends largely on how Apple sells this thing. It can’t market it as a computer, but if it sells the value of a niche device then it has a hit on its hands. The experience is that good.

Something tragic happened yesterday for those of us who breathe a little Web culture. YouTube acquiesced to a request from Constantin Film to that feature a short segment from the studio’s 2004 German-subtitled movie Downfall.

Not an unusual request by copyright standards, of course, but this one is personal. The segment in question fuels one of the greatest Web memes of all time: the Hitler meme.

You’ve probably seen at least one Hitler meme video. They all have one thing in common: the same climactic scene from Downfall, where Adolf Hitler learns that his rule is about to end. The subtitles take a scene full of rage and realization and apply it to a variety of things happening in society or on the Web, including politics, entertainment, pop culture, and so forth. Here’s one of my favorites, from the 2008 presidential campaign:

Yeah, OK, we’ll get it out of the way early: “Anyone who thinks YouTube’s decision to take the videos off their service is a good idea, please leave the room now.” Read more

This picture within a picture will BLOW YOUR MIND.

I’ve had a number of conversations in the past few days with people who don’t seem to know what to do with the iPad. Buy? Don’t buy? Is this going to change my life? Is it going to be a waste of money?

If you’re still confused, Guy Kawasaki posted a pretty good decision-point flowchart that might help you out. It’s pretty funny and even this Apple fanboy can admit it’s pretty right on.

I posted the other day that the iPad is a complementary device for almost everyone. You aren’t going to ditch your desktop and likely won’t ditch your laptop for it, although you might get rid of the latter if you don’t use your laptop for much more than news browsing, video/photos, and e-mail. No, the iPad is a device for consuming media while comfortable.

My wife’s latest issue of Newsweek seems to confirm this idea (pictured). The back page of the mag has an iPad ad featuring a person writing a fairly mundane e-mail. Interesting, but the feature isn’t the thing. Notice the positioning. It’s on the user’s lap, feet propped up and crossed.

Apple has a little more of a sell job on its hands than it had with the iPod and iPhone. The iPod was a breath of fresh air after a few years where tons of complicated MP3 players had flooded the market. It simplified the mobile music experience and solved all kinds of problems related to music purchase thanks to the iTunes store. The iPhone filled a similar void. A lot of smartphones were of the BlackBerry variety, with reputations more rooted in business use than personal use. The smartphone market wasn’t going to grow past the business base unless a smartphone came along that was fun and easy to use.

The iPad is different. Consumers have to think a little harder about whether this device makes sense for them. Unlike the iPad and iPhone, most people don’t have a tablet computer and haven’t thought about one. So people have to sit down and think about how they browse and use media before taking the plunge.

That’s why I think Apple has created ads such as the above. It’s selling features in a sense, but Apple also is tying it to a type of experience. In this case, comfortable media browsing. We’re going to see more of this, not less. Obviously Apple has to sell what the iPad can do, but it also has to help people imagine what it can be or what spaces in our lives it might occupy if this is going to go mass market.

The highlight of SXSWi so far for me has been Clay Shirky’s presentation “Monkeys with Internet Access: Sharing, Human Nature, and Digital Data“ on Sunday afternoon.

You can get a good rundown of his main points from Liz Gannes at Gigaom. My takeaway was a little bit different, but then again I’m coming at this from the side of people creating content and so I think about business models a little bit more.

As I see it, here is the thread of logic in Shirky’s presentation …

1. We are wired to share information. Shirky noted that from an evolutionary standpoint we are wired to hoard physical goods or products, things that are tangible and have scarcity. At the other end of the spectrum, we are inclined to enjoy sharing information. It comes at no cost to us, but it has value to both the person sharing and the person receiving.

2. We have a word for not wanting to share information that comes at no cost to us: It’s called being spiteful

3. Media has gone from being a physical commodity to being information. The newspaper in my hand or CD in my possession is hard to give away or even loan out. As the owner, I lose control of the product. Digital media, though, is easy to give away. You can give away copies, and thus it comes at no cost to the giver. Shirky notes that “abundance breaks more things than scarcity.” I loved his point that the original aim of the printing press, for example, was to print indulgences, something that should have entrenched the Catholic church. In fact it had the opposite effect; the abundance of indulgences led to backlash that was part of the seeds of the Reformation.

4. Media companies are freaking out about this change, but rather than realigning to a new reality they are trying to protect the old one. He noted that businesses create workarounds to problems, but part in parcel with that is that this builds in a desire to not solve the original problem lest the solution make itself obsolete. There is no profit motive in fixing something once and for all.

5. User behavior, which is motivation filtered through opportunity, is being rewritten as access opens up. In light of #4, Shirky aked a salient question in light of this: What kind of society will we create if the media companies win? If we are wired to share information at no cost, and the opposite of that is being spiteful, then in essence media companies are trying to encourage us to behave in ways that make us more spiteful through the act of denying ourselves the enjoyable act of sharing information? This comes at an enormous cost to society.

So where’s the value in systems that figure out how to use open information? It’s in the co-creation of civic goods. Shirky noted a couple examples that illustrate that thinking.

Patients Like Me is a site that crowdsources symptoms and medical ailments among a user base, and the aggregate is essentially a knowledge base that might help people better figure out what is going on with their health. This flies in the face of the U.S. medical system, which has privatized patient information and made a good living off of it (i.e. why switch doctors when they “know” my medical history and are an expert on it?). PLM is creating a public good using medical information, but Shirky argues it won’t be successful unless it completely changes the health care industry. I saw a lot of parallels between that example and media companies, and all of a sudden a light switched on. The intense fight being put up by healthcare companies in the latest reform debate is a lot like the RIAA suing illegal downloaders.

Pickup Pal was another example. It uses information sharing between users to arrange rides for people going to the same places, saving money and maybe even a slice of the environment. The service was so successful that a bus company in Canada successfully sued the site for breaking the law. You can read about the details if you want, but the general point is that businesses are going to protect their model when a new idea comes along that fixes an idea too well. Fortunately the public outcry was so strong that it changed the law.

Both examples highlight a basic point of Shirky’s talk: We use free information sharing to create public goods through better efficiency, but at some point it’s going to trip over business models that depend on the problem not being solved. Abundance of information, in this case, breaks a lot of business models based on scarcity.

The upshot of all this? Shirky says that we’re going from a society that emphasizes “doing big things for money and little things for love to point where we can do big things for love.” The best, the coolest stuff we are doing with interactive media happens when we create these civic goods using information.

This lecture drove home a number of things for me. I’m teaching multimedia reporting at Lehigh, but I’m reminded there are a wider array of projects I can be doing. What are we doing to create civic goods in the Lehigh Valley through data-driven projects that are built on users sharing their own stories?

In a larger sense, the talk crystalized the feeling I’m getting after four days here in Austin. Journalism has a bright future, but the traditional players are so screwed. They’re chasing the wrong solution. I just don’t see a future for them when they’re trying to protect information as a scarce commodity. The scarcity, in truth, is in media companies trying to create civic goods via user sharing.

The info-must-be-free thought process has been argued against for some time even though it lacks specific . Shirky was not making that kind of claim about information either, although I think it might be plausible to conclude that he made a compelling argument for the info-free notion from a sociological point of view: we’re wired this way, and what are we doing to ourselves by trying to restrict this type of behavior?

Other things that stood out from the Q&A:

Innovation: If you’re a company wanting to innovate, take the person who has one big idea and lock them out of the building. Tell them they can’t come back until they have 10 medium-sized ideas or 100 little ideas. Try a lot of everything, and double down on what works. Brilliant.

Education: The same transformation happening to media companies is coming at education like a freight train (and in fact from sitting in on other sessions I think it’s happening now). Shirky noted that we have cognitive dissonance in how we sell education. We tell students they’re joining a community of scholars, and we’re telling the private sector we’re managing the student mind such that when we churn them out they’re going to be excellent creators and workers. There is an inherent tension (and disconnect) between these two sales pitches.

It was a fantastic presentation. Thanks, Clay Shirky, for blowing my mind (again).

I tried to stay away from a full-blown rant on the Tiger Woods coverage. I really did, I promise.

But Stacey Woelfel, the current RTDNA chair and the news director for KOMU at the Missouri School of Journalism (yes, I am berating posts from my own; it’s what I do), pushed me over the edge with a snarky response to Woods’ silence. It captured a lot of what I don’t like about where news has drifted on the definition of “newsworthy.”

The argument, essentially, is that Woods has no right to privacy in the aftermath of the awful-terrible-no-good car crash because he is a celebrity, and the money he makes off of that fame gives him no ground when he wants to retreat.

You are who you are thanks as much to media interest as to your own golf ability, and we, the media, won’t settle for this approach you’re taking. … You have chosen to live your life publicly by cultivating your superstar sports status.  Had you chosen a private life without the attention on your golf—not to mention the multimillion-dollar endorsement deals — that would be different.

Well when you falsely frame it like that, who can argue? Read more

Walter Lippmann has been rattling around in my brain for the past few weeks. Part of it is because my class, Media & Society, is right up his alley. The other part is because I’m being subjected to the latest pseduo-event in the news, the release of Sarah Palin’s new book.

I love exposing students to Lippmann because he elegantly strips away all of these ways we falsely see our world. His argument was that most of the things we think we “know” about the world come to us via media, which means that most of how we perceive the world is based on stereotypes. Media, after all, is an incomplete picture merely as a product of its function; we don’t ask what’s not in the picture when looking at a photo, because we don’t think to do so. We put together these individual media moments and over time construct our “view” of something based on little facts, images, and information we’ve consumed via media.

The simple example I use in class is to talk about Paris and then ask students what went through their heads when they heard the word “Paris.” Most of them name famous places – The Eiffel Tower, The Lourvre, sidewalk cafes, leisurely ways of life, etc. Our perception is so shaped by images of famous places, pictures, and writings that it astounds us when something shatters that construct we’ve created by our own use of media. When we hear news of ethnic riots, for example, it doesn’t square with how we view Paris. It sounds a lot more like Los Angeles.

This material is often new to students in M&S. Even the bright ones don’t think of media use as thing that frames our world for us. It’s just media – we’re so immersed in it that it just feels like life. It feels real. Read more

Stuff I’m reading and thinking about …

Mark Briggs has a good post about applying the reputation economy to comments on news sites. In terms of discussion online, when I talk to folks running news sites the issue of civility is usually atop the list of concerns.

Vin Crosbie has some good thoughts about where we are in the media reorganization, calling us in the “middlegame.”

I spent some time with working professionals last summer when I taught Online Journalism here at MU through our online master’s program. I wish I’d had this piece by Martin Langeveld from the Nieman Journalism Lab when we talked about journalism and the stream of discussion.

Mashable has some good thoughts about passing the social recruitment test for prospective employers.

Lastly, congrats to my former LA Daily News colleague Matt Hufman, who was part of the team that produced a series that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service. Matt reported and wrote a series of editorials that went with the packages that were considered for the award. He’s a top-notch journalist and a great guy.

I’ve blogged a lot over the past few years, either here or via the Cyberbrains, about different pieces of the puzzle that the news industry can use to pull out of the current economic challenge it faces. My recent posts about Google and the AP got me thinking about maybe pulling some of those ideas together, and then one of my bright students who follows me on Twitter (@) gave me a bit of a nudge on this.

Obviously it’s really easy to point out misguided ideas, but putting yourself out there and talking about what you think will work is a little bit harder. I’ve been here at MU for almost five full years and had access to knowledge, resources, great minds, and some really cool future-looking projects. A lot of different ideas are swirling in my head as a result as I’m winding down my time here.

In reference to AP and newspapers/online sites in general, I’ve cobbled toether some ideas that I’ve read about or witnessed in action firsthand that offer a glimpse of a better future. Three caveats I offer: Read more

New York Times media writer David Carr penned an interesting piece that has gotten some play in media circles today. Summing up the feelings of a lot of my fellow journalists, he modestly proposes that newspapers get together and end the free ride on the Web for both readers and aggregators.

In other words, charge.

Carr notes that for this to work it’s going to take some collusion among newspaper companies, which is probably illegal and would require antitrust law changes to make it happen. A lot of what he’s saying is a rehash of what others have suggested, but it’s a pretty solid summary of the camp that wants to charge now and often. Read more

One of the true joys of living here in Columbia is the annual True/False Film Festival, a four-day event that brings in some great independently made documentary films. It’s a real treat to have in a place like this and draws people from all over, and the 2009 edition has been no exception.

I saw four very good films today, but the one that hit me the most was Burma VJ. Directed by Anders Østergaard, the film is the story of how a bunch of citizen reporters documented the Saffron Revolution in Burma for the outside world back in 2007 (background) using nothing more than digital video cameras and a network of delivery that could get around the oppressive military regime’s measures against dissent.

The film is unique. Rather than using documentary footage shot by Østergaard and his crew, it strings together actual video shot by the VJs (video journalists) during the time of the conflict. It uses the narrative supplied by “Joshua,” who was the leader of the network, talking about how he was responsible for getting their footage out to sources such as CNN and BBC to raise awareness around the world. Read more

It’s a sad day for those of us who care about journalism and public service. The Rocky Mountain News, a newspaper that existed and served Denver even before Colorado became a state, folded this week and published its final issue this morning.

Much has been said how we got to this point. noted that it’s remarkable the RMN lasted this long, because two-newspaper towns (The Denver Post being the competitor in this case) were a dying breed even 15 years ago. Others have lit up the boards at Poynter, blaming everything and everyone from management to out-of-touch journalists.

In some ways, this is a rehash of what we’ve been talking about for 10 years now. Read more

About 2 p.m. I got an e-mail from a friend with the subject “Holy crap!!!!” and immediately had to open it. He recounted he was downloading the new U2 album now after it had been leaked online and wanted to pass on the information that I could get the album a full two weeks before its actual release.

A little background first. I’m a U2 nut, and not so closeted. I saw them play three times in three different cities on their last tour, and that was a down year for me. So a chance to hear fresh music from my favorite band is always enticing.

Ultimately, I declined, and it wasn’t that difficult despite the potential payoff. Just two weeks ago, I mused, I had lectured in Principles of American Journalism that a big challenge facing the journalist of tomorrow is monetizing news in an era where people expect it to be free. Read more

I’m a little annoyed with journalists today.

On the same day Joe Matthews pens a column for TNR about the loss of watchdog journalism, we get this Alex Rodriguez spectacle in Tampa. In bemoaning the cuts at the Los Angeles Times, Matthews toes the line according to the standard argument of the day, we need journalists to investigate, uncover wrongdoing, and ask tough questions.

Cut to the A-Rod news conference this afternoon and you see a bunch of journalists either afraid or unwilling to challenge a guy who’s being pretty evasive. Every answer is “mistakes of my youth” or “I was naive” and not enough insight. Read more

The Online News listserv had an interesting post about a site called Breaking Tweets, the brainchild of Craig Kanal, that culls interesting Tweets from Twitter feeds on particular topics and puts a “human face” on things going on in the news.

A good example is the coverage on the site of the Australian brushfires.

Thinkers rightly note that, as with any media that is an aggregate of socially produced content, this ultimately means more noise in the stream of media conversation. Journalists often use this as evidence that this “noise” doesn’t matter and makes it inferior to professional jounalism. Read more

I’m a longtime WordPress user in my blogging, but I finally found a little time to mess around with one of Brian Gardner Media’s Revolution themes.

Holy. Cow.

I used the Metro theme to redesign my professional site and integrate it with a professional blog for a more seamless look. What you see as of today took about three hours to set up. I could’ve designed this all by code and it would’ve taken a week for me (I can do it, but I’m not fast with PHP). Obviously I have more of the deep links to fix, but I pretty much configured the front page and got it to look how I wanted in a few hours. Read more