Tag Archive for 'media'

Another reason I still like newspapers

gmposter

It’s hard to include a free poster on a web site following a major event, like one heck of a gold medal hockey game.

Though, this is just the latest news event that provided a piece of art demonstrating the value of a physical product over collections of ones and zeros.

Barack Obama’s historic election victory in November 2008 saw collectors hitting eBay and paying more than $100 for a copy of The New York Times.

I was working part-time evenings in a call centre at the time and had a co-worker who was a big Obama supporter ask if she could have my copy of the local paper to hang on her wall. I obliged.

Right-clicking on a web site image and hitting “Save As” just isn’t the same as holding something in your hands, it would seem.

I suppose forward-thinking news organizations could consider adding a direct link to The Rasterbator for images that go with big news events but printing at home can still be pricier than the dollar picking up the newspaper costs – as well the extra work that goes along with putting the “Rasterbated” poster together.

National Post’s copy & paste trick

The National Post has done something interesting with the newspaper’s web site content.

If someone tries to copy text from the site, upon pasting it there will also be a link to the original story, as well as a link to the National Post’s Facebook page.

For example, if I tried to copy and paste text from the Post’s coverage of today’s Google Buzz announcement the following would appear at the end:

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2010/02/09/fp-tech-desk-google-gets-social-with-gmail.aspx#ixzz0f4aclGtJ
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

It’s an interesting trick, given how many other news organizations are so focused on protecting their content and preventing bloggers from “stealing” it, the Post seems to be adding something useful (although obviously self-serving) with the link back.

Not sure what the point of the Facebook link is, though. I can’t image too many bloggers would leave it intact and unlike the link to the original store, it doesn’t provide the full URL.

Regardless, it seems pretty nifty to me.

The New York Times missed the real digital sweatshops

I’m rather disappointed in this piece on the dangers of blogging in the New York Times.

Not for the same reasons as the legions of bloggers who’ve already denounced it, though. The piece has a strong lead, referring to blogs as the “digital-era sweatshop.”

Seeing that line filled me with glee, I thought that finally, someone is going to say something about the exploitive pay rates that come from so-called “new media” enterprises. But no, the sweatshop comparison went away after the first paragraph. The rest of the article focused on how bloggers work insanely long hours often to the detriment of their health.

First off, I have no idea why the piece focused on blogs specifically. Being constantly “turned on” and seeking the story before anybody else applies equally to any form of media, including newspaper journalists. (I’ve written before that I don’t get the whole divide between newspaper reporters and bloggers who blog about the news…)

Heck, I’m equally guilty. While in college I literally spent 15 straight hours working on an article for a college-published magazine. The next day, I had massive stomach pains that I figured were probably from a stress-induced ulcer.

But that’s the nature of the business and it takes a certain kind of person to do it.

So, no, my issue with the piece was I wanted to see more on the digital sweatshops which is destroyed halfway through the story when reporter Matt Richtel writes that bloggers make between $30,000-$70,000 per year. A very generous estimation and why I was so annoyed with the story.

Sure, the major blogs pay that much but getting a job at one is about is likely as getting hired by the New York Times. In fact, it’s probably easier to get a freelance piece in the Times than on Gizmodo (does Gizmodo even accept freelance submissions?)

The fact is, most of the blogs that advertise opening offer a pittance: $5 per post or something insane like, $175 a month for 6 posts per week.

Or worse, they lure writers in on a “revenue share” plan, which sounds great…if the blog in question HAS any revenue.

Fresh out of j-school and desperate to find work since I’d spent all of my modest savings supporting myself through an unpaid internship, I applied for a web site looking for writers. I didn’t now much about online publishing at the time, but I figured a share of advertising revenue should be decent, since it seemed like a big site.

Well, I quickly learned that a 25 per cent share of zilch is still zilch.

That my friends, is a digital sweatshop and what I had hoped the article would be covering.

Going to 100% digital media? Not for me…yet.

So Kara Swisher of the Wall Street Journal has announced she’ll only be writing for the web from now since she’s tired of killing trees.

A noble sentiment, certainly, but it’s sparked some discussion as whether or not journalists should completely ditch paper and embrace new media.

I’ve liked the idea of online publishing since Salon launched more than a decade ago along with quirky zines that were posted in Usenet groups. But right now, there are several flaws in the system that are creating resistance among so-called "old media reporters."

The big one is money. I get job postings for writers delivered through my RSS reader from multiple sources and some of them are mind-blowing. The main one I see are blogs looking for writers to post 400 words per day, six days per week. The pay: $125 per month.

Um, excuse me?

I’ve met freelance journalists who consider one dollar per word to be a pittance, I wonder how they’d react if they knew there are some well-trafficked blogs out there that only for two dollars per article.

Now, Ms. Swisher can certainly do what she’s doing. She has had more than a decade of building up credibility and a loyal readership while receiving a steady pay-cheque. Those of us starting out now have to do things like work nights in call centres while researching and writing during the day.

This is one reason things are hard for new-comers like myself.

Another point of contention I’ve heard from some veteran reporters is the multi-media aspect of the Internet. Management is increasingly expecting their staff to not only file a text article, but they also want a video to throw up on YouTube as well – making the reporters drag handy-cams to their interviews with no extra compensation for the video work.

Never mind the fact that having to film can seriously cramp a journalists interview style – people tend to behave differently when there’s a camera pointed at them.

Finally, I have one more person beef with writing online: search engine optimization or SEO. Essentially, SEO involves writing an article in such a way that more people will come across it while searching on Google.

So rather than writing for the readers, you’re writing for an algorithm that indexes information. This usually means repeating keywords over and over instead of looking for creative synonyms and somehow working in Paris Hilton, no matter what the article is actually about.

Of course, all of this said, I tend to go where I can get monies – some print publications like to give them to me and some web sites and blogs give them to me, so I’m all over the place. I’m just not about give up on print media since, at the moment, they send more shiny pennies my way.