To Twitter or not to Twitter, that is the question

The problem with using Twitter for journalism is precisely what was mentioned in one of the articles – you can’t assume the facts are true. Journalism/news is supposed to be about facts, and there is absolutely no way to check the facts of what people say. Someone could pretend to be in China when there’s an earthquake, for instance, but really be sitting in Illinois watching their TV. Who’s to know?

The site is useful for finding contacts, however. A quick search can bring up a tailored list easier than a search on Facebook or MySpace (you can’t search Facebook for people talking about water buffalo, for instance, but you can on Twitter). I know that The Ledger’s managing editor has a Twitter profile and uses it to ask his followers questions to find sources for articles. It’s just that you have to take every answer with a grain of salt.

Twitter is good and bad for making initial contact to set up an interview. I wrote an article on Twitter a couple of weeks ago for The Ledger, and I used the site to set up interviews. I must say that I’ve never seen sources respond as quickly as people on there did, but the 140-character limit makes it so unprofessional. It’s very difficult to explain what you’re doing in so few characters, and I had to resort to saying I was with The Ledger and asking for an email address to explain what I needed. And how are they to know if I’m from The Ledger or not? Some people did choose to ignore me, and how could I blame them?

Is Twitter the future of journalism? I think not. But I do think that it can be handy for finding interesting discussions on a plethora of topics, and good for finding people interested in even very specific things. So sure, Twitter is good for finding sources and ideas, but checking the facts of people you Twitter with is very, very important.

Investigative journalism

Online news websites make a lot of sense because they are less expensive to run, but one difficulty not mentioned in the article is that people tend to distrust websites more than traditional media, simply because anyone can pretend to be a legit journalist. Thus I feel that websites linked with real newspapers and news stations will always get more hits. Fewer hits means fewer advertisements, which means less money. Private monetary support can only last so long, and how likely is it really that the government is going to provide money for “journalists” to investigate them? So unless the sites somehow really catch on, I don’t see how they could ever come close to surpassing more traditional media.

Nonetheless, these sites are far more inspiring than sites like washingtonpost.com that are essentially replicas of their offline counterparts. With concerns already prevalent about corporate ownership and the shrinking pool of viewpoints, what good are extra news sources that say the same things? Investigative sites that explore different ideas and aren’t afraid to ask different questions are a good thing. People that uncover scandals and thefts can only better their societies, so by all means, let them continue.

Also, newspapers and news stations are limited in what they can cover by their sponsors. A certain bloody burrito story comes to mind. If these investigative journalism sites are not sponsored by McDonalds and used car lots, then they have the freedom to speak the truth about them. But then again, if they plan on applying for government grants, their watchdog status might have to change if they want to keep that monetary support coming.

I agree that at least a good chunk of future journalism will be online, because of its accessibility, lower costs and more options for functionality, but I also believe (have to believe) that the traditional media sources will always be there as well.

Washingtonpost.com is not Facebook!

When I first read the quote from the pillar, “"Providing utility, engagement, and convenience for our local readers," I took "engagement" as refering to readers' engagement with the paper itself. I know that many newspapers today are struggling with trying to get their readers more involved with the paper, especially online. So I was thinking they meant introducing more along the lines of games, quizzes, photo galleries and other interactive activities, especially online. This idea would make sense, and the Washington Post website does seem to be fairly interactive in parts. But seeing as how I’m no expert on the Washington Post, I’m going to take Tom Grubisich’s word that “engagement” really refers to out in the community.

Following that assumption, then sure, I agree that the Washington Post needs to get more involved with its community, but so should every other media. Yes, Washington is suffering, but so are many other places, and not only in America either. But to contrast the Washington Post website with Facebook is ridiculous. The two exist for very different reasons, and really are not comparable.

Also, while I agree that media branches should give back to the community, I think it’s more important for them to cover problems in the community and draw awareness to these issues that need fixing. The primary purpose of newspapers is uncovering and sharing news, not throwing money at fixing old water pipes.

Finally, the anonymity on the Washington Post website may not make Tom Grubisich feel “welcome,” but it does allow readers to post comments without any fear of repercussions, which I’m sure does increase the number of comments overall. Again, this is not Facebook. I certainly don’t believe everything I see posted on Facebook, so why is Grubisich encouraging change from a reputable newspaper site to a social networking “anyone can say what they want” site?

In conclusion, I understand Grubisich’s frustration that no one is doing more to fix up the Washington community, but I disagree that the Washington Post is the one who should be applying that band-aid. And I think that washingtonpost.com needs to continue striving to be an interactive NEWS site, not a newsy-ish INTERACTIVE site.

Evaluating websites

The National Word
The National Word website is very informal, and clearly labeled as “America’s Blog,” so any information from that site would have to taken as being very subjective. It is difficult to find much information on the site or the primary writer, William Brady, which is rather odd, even for a blog. He writes primarily about politics, but his writing is quite opinionated and the topics often unimportant on a national scale. No accuracy issues jumped out at me. The site’s layout is very simple, and so looks like something almost anyone could put together. Also, the last blog update seems to be from November of 2008. Even worse, there is a disclaimer at the bottom that attempts to protect the author from being persecuted for copyright infringement. So in conclusion, the site does not seem very reputable or the information expressed trustworthy.

Air Congress
The producer of this site, K. Daniel Glover, used to be a journalist (though with what media it doesn’t say), but he also runs a social networking site for conservatives, which means that the content will probably lean to the right. The content is obviously political, as the site claims to be the source of all information from Capitol Hill. While I would not trust the writers on that site to be objective, much of the information on there comes directly from politicians (videos, speeches, podcasts, etc.), and so while the information comes direct from the source, the politicians themselves are obviously going to be subjective. Also, the work seems to be fairly well put together, grammar and spelling-wise. The site also does not seem to be updated very often – the lead article is from September of 2008, and the About section was last updated in November of 2006. The visual is good and clean, however, and seems like a fairly decently put together site. Nonetheless, I would not trust the site to be an objective news source.

The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan)
The Daily Dish is under the Atlantic, which gives it reputability, but it is still a blog or column, so it will not be subjective. Yet his journalistic background and long history of writing for reputable media (like Time Magazine) means that what he says is probably important, and implies that the facts he uses are probably legit. Also, there are no issues with spelling and grammar. The content is primarily political, with a lot of satire, and so draws attention to important issues. His blogs are frequent and so up-to-date, and the site obviously has a clean look, as part of the Atlantic. So while I would not expect Sullivan’s writings to be objective, I think they may be worth reading if you keep in mind his biases and intent.

Independent Media
Independent Media was founded and is presumably run by members of social organizations and other activists, and works with the purpose of benefiting minorities and those suffering around the globe, so the writing will probably have a pro-social bias. The writers are from around the globe, but all have the same goal in mind. Also, because the site allows so many people to write, there is no guarantee that the articles are factual, and with no editors, mistakes and typos are likely. However, the site looks good, the issues seem to be of pretty high importance, and the site seems up to date. Still, the site exists more for the purpose of raising awareness and money for social injustice than for journalistic importance, and I would not trust it to be reliable.

Communication department websites

I compared FSC’s communication department website to the websites from Mississippi College, Central Texas College, Buffalo State, Boston College and Florida State.

Mississippi www.mccomdepartment.com
Their communication department home page features a picture of the 2008 graduates, which is a nice idea, but I would rather see a picture of students in the department, which the FSC website has a couple of, although more would be better. I also prefer the way that the FSC website has written information on the home page, whereas the Mississippi College site’s home page only has the picture and links. However, I do like the link to the department’s news releases, as well as having direct links to their newspaper and radio station. On the FSC website, you have a click around a little more to see how students can get involved. Mississippi also has links to add the department straight to your Facebook profile, which is a great idea for this generation.

Central Texas www.ctcd.edu/communications/contact.html
The Central Texas communication website is very minimal and rather confusing. Unlike the FSC communication department website, they offer very little information on the home page about the department, and, annoyingly, most additional information has to be opened in pdf. Also unlike the FSC site, the faculty list does not have pictures, which is boring. One good feature Central Texas has, however, is a search tool that allows you to type questions and get answers. Other than that though, the FSC website is far more sophisticated and helpful.

Buffalo State www.buffalostate.edu/communication
I really like the layout of the Buffalo State communication department home page. It has pictures of students in class in the top middle (where people look first), important links on the top left, the rest of the links on the bottom, news release headlines in middle and then links to what each of the concentrations entail on the right. There is a lot space, which is easier on the eye, and a consistent color scheme helps separate different parts of the page while still looking uniform. On the FSC page important information is a little more hidden amongst too much text, the available concentrations are less obvious, and some links are only accessible inside other links, which can make them harder to find. I also think that the FSC page could make more use of the space available, instead of essentially just having one long column with a couple of links on the left. Separate little boxes giving different information are more informative and visually appealing.

Boston College www.bc.edu/schools/cas/communication
The Boston College communication department website is simple but useful. While a lack of pictures and a very vertical-looking home page are not visually appealing, a variety of links (with brief explanations of what they are) help viewers easily find what they are looking for. Other little touches make students or prospective students feel more informed, such as having brief biographies for the professors and a copy of their communication honors banquet program available for reading. The FSC website could certainly improve by incorporating their methods of having multiple links with descriptions, but the design of the FSC site is more appealing.

Florida State www.comm.fsu.edu/Communication-Dept
Florida State’s communication department’s page catches your attention immediately with pictures that switch continuously, similar to the pictures on the FSC home page. An “Events and Deadlines” column on the side is also a good idea. However, the rest of the communication department home page is boring – too much text and a focus on news briefs instead of concrete information on the department. The links on the side are also too broad, labeled things like “Communication Department” and “Research” instead of the more specific “Degree Requirements” and “Student Organizations” listed on the FSC communication department page. Even when you click on those links you don’t get information immediately, but have to navigate some more (all you get at first are mostly pictures, which looks good but isn’t really useful). Overall, the page is not very user-friendly, but I liked the “Events and Deadlines” and use of multiple pictures.

Hello there

Testing 1 2 3