Gary Andrews

I’ve just got back from a fascinating evening down the pub catching up with an old friend of mine, who now happens to be working for a local newspaper and it wasn’t long before we got onto the topic of online video – something which forms part of his everyday job.

[Enters broken record mode] 

What was really fascinating was to hear how his views matched mine and, at times, was even more vehemently critical of the efforts of some local newspapers when it comes to online video [1].

Chief amongst his criticisms were:

1. The idea that throwing video online for the sake of throwing video online is a good way to win readers.

2. Journalists aren’t trained properly and are given sub-standard equipment, so produce sub-standard videos.

3. Sub-standard videos damage the brand.

4. Local journalists simply don’t have the time to produce consistent good quality web content.

This isn’t to say he was negative, and could point to some examples of papers within his group producing well-produced web content, be it video, podcasts, or blogging. But the frustration was there – it wasn’t that he didn’t want to do online content, its just the resources and time available were nowhere near enough.

What was somewhat more terrifying was the attitude of senior management to online content. There was no consistent approach to RSS feeds and he’d taken to putting the videos on YouTube himself because it hadn’t occurred to anybody else in the office to do so. Tellingly, the YouTube videos appeared to be getting more hits.

Then there was the inflexible CMS, not to mention the fact that nobody was even mentioning blogging. He’d considered trying to start a newspaper blog but didn’t have time, although he did occasionally expand some of his print articles. The management attitude to online media players such as Bebo, Google, and Myspace was nonexistent. While it’s not surprising to hear these criticisms coming from somebody who works within the industry (and is by no means representative. A more casual acquaintance is much more upbeat about their paper), it’s worrying. Even more worrying is hearing that those who have some nous about harnessing online potential are just giving up and moving elsewhere.

Tonight was definitely food for thought. There were a lot of positive ideas bandied around, as you’d expect over a few pints, but also a lot of frustration. It’s a shame for his paper that he’s moving elsewhere – he’s not just a very good journalist, but also one who’s willing to embrace the web and can see where the problems lie with local papers’ attempts to move into the digital age. 

[1] I’ll freely admit I’m writing from the point of somebody who has done a bit of this and a bit of that, which includes print and broadcasting, but am not currently working on the front line, as it were, of newspaper’s online efforts. 

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: local newspaper websites, video journalism, Web 2.0, YouTube

Today’s post will loosely pull together three very good pieces on Web 2.0 and the media and draw some probably spurious conclusions that will be nowhere near as good as those in the original posts. Probably.

Firstly, Paul Bradshaw’s extended piece on how local news is changing[1], which nicely sums up the challenges facing all media, but especially local media. There’s an especially pertinent point when he mentions Google’s Super Tuesday election mashup with Twitter and YouTube.

News, and news innovations, are no longer the sole preserve of traditional media companies and anybody going into the traditional end of the media, be it print or broadcast, needs to recognise the landscape has changed. The online startups and established brands may not always get their experiments right but it’ll only take one of them to hit upon an easy and popular idea and the whole industry could be playing catch up.

It doesn’t hurt to experiment with mapping, mashups, wikis, widgets, vodcasts, podcasts and, yes, even online video content and bulletins. The important part is remember not to do them for the sake of being able to do them, but thinking about how this will resonate with regular users of the website as well as drawing in new users and strengthening the brand online.

Getting it right isn’t an easy science and not every experiment will work. But in any media, be a national magazine or broadcaster, or a local paper or radio station, it’s vital to have somebody on board who is naturally interested in keeping track of Web 2.0 developments, like the Google/Twitter/YouTube mashup, and going: “Hey. We could adapt this for our readership.”

All of which brings me nicely to Roy Greenslade’s response to Bradshaw’s post, who also emphasises the need for investment and experimentation. His conclusions are spot on:

“Journalism is being reborn online and it requires total dedication.

It’s the failure of owners to recognise this fact that is holding back development. I applaud all the regional groups that have spent money on new kit. I am less willing to cheer them for viewing investment in kit as a substitute for investment in human beings. In this transitory stage, with papers being published on separate platforms, more staff are required.

If we want reporters to be innovative, to push the boundaries by finding new ways of engaging online audiences, then they must be given the time and space to experiment. Unless owners catch on, they may find people drifting off to non-newspaper websites.”

Finally, a slight tangent [2] from teacher Will Patterson aka J. Arthur McNumpty on teaching blogging in schools, but one that I’ll misappropriate towards journalistic endeavours.

Patterson’s main points – that blogging is a difficult thing to teach and there’s a danger of turning it into a chore; a weekly exercise – could just as easily be applied to teaching blogging to journalists or journalists-in-training.

There’s no question that journalism courses or training should include a significant element on utilising online journalism but it shouldn’t be taught as a series of tick boxes.

Most places I’ve worked, I’ve been an evangelist for blogging, encouraging colleagues to get online and get blogging. Similarly, during my postgraduate training we were required to set up a blog and update it at least every week.

The same problem quickly became apparent in both my evangelising and on the course. You got those who, for want of a better word, ‘got’ blogging and started posting on a regular basis. You got those who didn’t see the point and ended up posting nothing at all. And you got those who kind of understood that it was something they needed to know about but weren’t quite sure what to do with it, so ended up posting in a very formal structure, ticking all the boxes that were required but not saying anything very much and, ultimately and through no real fault of their own, not creating particularly interesting content. Many probably got fed up and joined the not bothered category.

Conclusion: You can take a journalist to a keyboard but you can’t make them blog.

I’m not going to pull out some wonder-solution to teaching blogging, or at least understanding blogging, because I’m not entirely sure how I’d go about it myself. Blogging’s partly about finding your own voice and in formalised settings its not always easy to do this.

The only way that immediately springs to mind, is a bit of coaxing towards storytelling behind the story by tapping into the enthusiasm for what the would-be-blogger was originally employed to do – journalism.

Some of the best posts I’ve seen have been from infrequent bloggers who’ve been out to a story or event and want to share what they’ve been to or seen, but are restricted by space in their traditional outlet. Hence turning to blogging to add depth and context to the story from a personal perspective – a little like an online version of From Our Own Correspondent.

If you’ve got somebody who’s genuinely excited by an aspect of their work, then employers should give them the online means to do this – it works much better than the formal: “This is a blog and this is how to blog.” It’s still probably nowhere near the best way to push media people into the Web 2.0 world, but it’s as good a starting point as any.

[1] A shorter version can be found at journalism.co.uk

[2] Via this week’s Britblog Roundup.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: journalism training, online journalism, Paul Bradshaw, reporting online, Roy Greenslade, Web 2.0

A very nice piece on Publishing 2.0 [1] asking if blogs can do journalism.

The short answer is obviously yes.

Gawker’s move shows why journalism schools up and down the country should be showing and encouraging their students to blog (although you can take a journalist-in-training to a keyboard, but like the proverbial horse and water, you cannot make them write), and why media organisations should be doing the same to their existing staff.

I can see plenty more blogs/journalism crossovers in the months (years ahead). There will still be a ‘them v us’ mentality from some quarters, but hopefully that’s becoming less common. Blogging won’t usurp journalism. Journalism, no matter how high a standard, won’t see off blogging. But the two can definitely find a happy medium.

What would be really interesting would be to see how attitudes to blogging have changed among the intakes on assorted journalism courses. Up until now, I’ve been if not quite a lone voice, then one of a very faint chorus singing the virtues of blogging in every job I’ve had. And even 18-or-so months ago, when I took my postgraduate diploma in journalism, the percentage of people who ‘got’ blogging was worryingly low, with the number of regular bloggers even lower. It’ll be interesting to see how the current intake view Web 2.0 (or 3.0, depending on where you see this being in. Shall we say 2.5 as a compromise?)

[1] Via Strange Attractor.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: blogging, journalism, Web 2.0