Author Archives: Janelle.Clausen@stonybrook.edu

Vox Has All the “Cards”

by on .

Vox Media leads the way in the future of journalism.  It’s interactive, colorful, exciting, and deviates from an older news culture.  I really like its “cards” feature in particular. Here’s why:

It’s touted that journalists write at a middle school level so people can read and understand a story.  It’s good that we can read, but can we comprehend the depth behind what’s said if there’s a complicated concept like the healthcare mandate? What makes it significant?  Would an average reader really know about it? Sounds like it’d be fuzzy to a fifth grader.

The “cards” give you more information right on the spot.  As I’ve learned in all my journalism classes, context is the key to true understanding.  To offer the extra background information that doesn’t bludgeon you is good journalism and that’s exactly what the world needs. An informed public is a powerful public.

You may be the expert on your subject, but most people aren’t (and that’s okay). I’m not an expert on the Ukrainian crisis for instance. Vox cards put the current conflict into perspective and answered questions about things like what Putin’s trying to accomplish in the annexation of Crimea. Interesting stuff.

It’s good for the site too.  If you have the information readily available, but optional, then I’ll gladly stay on the site.  This convenience reduces competition and keeps users from straying.

This will not go unnoticed.  People like quality and flock to it.  Journalists like seeing their work noticed and applied, so that breeds loyalty too. As someone working for the Stony Brook Independent, it broke my heart to exclude other information I gathered on a simple food pantry story.

In short, Vox really has the right “cards” for good journalism.  I won’t be surprised when they see happy journalists and higher ad revenue.

Where Broadcast Began: Radio Remains Relevant

by on .

It’s not digital’s golden age everywhere.  Although radio took over 30 years to build its first 50 million viewers, it will take even longer to fall.

New York Public Radio recently earned a $10 million grant, the largest single gift to a public radio station- this promises to enhance its “Discover” app, which allows for online playlist creation.  At the end of 2013, the privately and publicly funded non-profit National Public Radio (NPR) received a $17 million grant to expand its coverage.  See what I’m getting at yet? There’s still demand for radio (with digital help) and that’s what Wall Street likes.

Don’t believe me?

Advertising revenue in digital radio is projected to rise 23% this year universally.  This could save radio like digital ads on NYTimes.com, a supplement to the main product, offset loss in print ad revenue for the New York Times. Music data firms also see potential profit with Internet radio, otherwise they would not be corroborating in its build-up.

Internet radio’s incredible growth in the United States shows promise for radio as a whole. 

Radio is still radio, and news is still news.  Podcasts meanwhile take the audio concept of radio and put it online.  A lot of what we hear online has roots in radio.  It’s applying the new to the old- not vice versa.

If you look globally, old school radio remains among the most accessible mediums worldwide, where 75% of households in developing countries have access to a radio and rely on it.  Only two of five have access to the Internet. In Africa, local radio grew 360 percent between 2000 and 2006 and community radio skyrocketed 1,386 percent.  Meanwhile, radio survived- even grew- in Russia, from 37.7 million listeners to 39.2 million since 2008.  It was the only traditional medium to do so.

Political movements around the world still use radio too.  Syrian opposition used pirate radio to broadcast their message, while Zello App (popular in Ukraine’s revolts) functions similarly to ham radio. More moderately, Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo still take to the airwaves.

In short: Radio is the heart, and digital innovation the defibrillator.

Newsweek Bringing Back Luxury

by on .

My computer screen’s glare eats my eyes as I type this, but I can see the appeal of Newsweek printing one more time.  I’m not blind (yet).

Either the digital media is trying to comprehend how bad my jokes/ideas are, or I’m rubbing my eyes to make “the blurry” go away.

There are people that find comfort in the tangible.  They will pay $7.99 for glossy print and colorful information to read on the train when their phones have no connection, just like my dad would rather pay for the subscription of Astronomy magazine.  Even I admit that being surrounded by printed books (you know, those bulky things made of paper) is a little more comforting than scrolling on a touch screen.

Naysayers cry, “get with the new media, Newsweek!” as the fully online paper restarts the presses to print 70,000 print copies. But they’re appealing to a concrete tradition: flipping through a paper and truly owning it.  Spending an hour reading something you wouldn’t dare search for on your own.  There’s actually an unfolding story in my hands!  

OH MY GOD! This… is… AWESOME!

It might be a trap, but they can afford to try one more time so long as it remains a supplement to the product (how the tides have turned!). Their advertising profits are healthy enough. It’s an attempt to reach “the unreachable” in the diffusion of innovation curve. It never quite reaches 100% of people, but print could help.  There are people that just refuse to use new technology- and that’s okay.

Not the straight colorful chart you expected, is it? Sometimes the facts are black and white.

To focus on print solely would be suicide of course.  A lot of people love digital media (myself not excluded). To start a limited print run to see if it would get former loyalists back, snag some people in that small unreachable percentage, and keep the people you have by making an old feature new seems smart though. Plus, these print copies are doubling as advertisement for the online product.

If it doesn’t work, fine.  But until then, go Newsweek.  Make me feel luxurious for reading one of your 70,000 copies.

 

WhatsApp? Facebook’s Future

by on .

1.2 billion people and billions in ad profit already- how can you go beyond that? Stock-owners demanded growth. Facebook answered with their $19 billion purchase of the company WhatsApp to address an issue that will re-emerge later.

Here’s the $19 billion problem:  Facebook needs to stay relevant.  What better way to stay on the charts than to acquire a company popular in other markets (WhatsApp) that also stands a chance to add more people and help Facebook innovate?

Honestly, the only reason I know WhatsApp exists is because Facebook- a big name here- bought something that’s popular everywhere else.  But now that it’s here, let’s take a look…

It’s 450 million people strong with a faster growth rate than Facebook or Twitter.  It’s free the first year, costs a dollar after (likely to change after this purchase), and helps people avoid the painful fees of texting.  They can connect with nearly any mobile device and announced that it will challenge Skype in online calling.  Pretty nifty.

Considering Facebook’s attempts of mobile integration and its need to expand, it’s no surprise it gobbled up WhatsApp. This app has room to grow.  Facebook has 1.2 billion people.  That’s almost a fifth of the world population. How can you keep that many people aboard a ship being attacked by older people reducing the cool factor?  You get new people, new features, take away competition, and get ahead in the game of technology.

This $19 billion problem is greater than the GDP of over a dozen countries and can probably buy you a few islands to start your own nation. From there you can wage war against this injustice: WhatsApp cost 100,000 times more than your parents’ lifetime income before taxes, is 19 times costlier than Instagram’s acquisition ($1 billion), and could finance your presidential campaign to protest this madness.

 

 

 

 

Anarchy in Ukraine.

by on .

We take our freedoms for granted. Contrary to what some talking heads may say, we’re not on the verge of civil war.  We have problems, but are fires in the street of your capital common?  Protesters occupying city hall and demanding to be listened to?

The answer is probably no.

A civil war involves chaos. How many people do you see dying on the streets here?  None?  I hope so.  I don’t want to be where you live if the answer’s yes.

Ukraine just saw 9 die today alone.

Let’s zoom in on them for a moment.  Essentially, Ukrainian leadership didn’t listen to people who wanted to turn closer to the European Union (rather than Russian President Putin), and people are quite unhappy to say the least.  They were even more unhappy when the government cracked down on them with force..

The legislature in turn drafted several laws that restrict right to expression and assembly. President Viktor Yanukovych then signed them into law, in turn kind of proving the overall point that the government really is kind of a dick worth protesting.

I haven’t seen that here yet.  It makes me understand one thing though: the power of a free press and social media.  While some higher-ups might say it’s “fueling the hostilities,” for some reason I can’t help but think that sending guys in riot gear to silence complaints “fuels hostilities” a bit too.

 

 

 

 

Land of the Free, Comparable to Haiti

by on .

The “Land of the Free” is sandwiched between Romania and Haiti in terms of Press Freedom at rank 46.  Think about that for a second.  Romania was a part of the Soviet bloc and Haiti is notoriously unstable.  Of the 180 countries surveyed, we’re technically not in the top quarter (1-45).

Had to scroll a little to find us...

Had to scroll down a little to find us- at least I was a little patriotic in how I distinguished us. Click for bigger.

As a country with a constitutional amendment (constitutions are the framework of government) guaranteeing rights to expression and the press, and over 200 years of tradition to back this up, we should at least be comparable the United Kingdom (33), who:

A) forced the Guardian, arguably their most reputable newspaper, to destroy classified documents,
B) detained Glenn Greenwald’s journalistic partner and interrogated him,
C) has an unwritten constitutional monarchy
D) and of course is who we got away from to begin with.

Why have we fallen so low?

We are at historic highs in whistle-blower crackdowns and our treatment of people such as Mr. Snowden has not exactly been very nice (he’s hiding in Russia after all!).  Meanwhile, promises of transparency and open government have yet to be adequately answered. How exactly can we be the “Home of the Brave” if the brave become too intimidated to stand up and the population is complacent? An intimidated press is not a strong one.

In the words of Robin Williams: “You are the kindest country in the world.  You are like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.” Hello, Canada.  [Once again, click for bigger.]

Contrary to what this map says, the U.S situation isn’t “satisfactory.” We have “noticeable problems.”  I’m not saying we won’t function, but let’s do a little bit better next year, shall we?

 

It’s Always the Little Guy

by on .

National news sweeps over the entire country and finds quick headlines that affect the masses. Generally speaking, this is good- but it’s not enough.  Very few realize the potential power of their local news organizations.

The News About the News, by Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser of the Washington Post, pointed to a disturbing trend in the 80s and 90s that continues today: big companies and corporate figureheads cutting quality to boost short-term profits. A general consensus has been that hard-hitting local news isn’t important (never mind that the public actually appreciates this watchdog role and disapproves of low quality journalism).

David Carr of the New York Times would disagree.  His latest column story, appropriately titled “Local Papers Shine Light in Society’s Dark Corners,” reminds us that the “Bridgegate” scandal was discovered by a local newspaper with apt resources and trained journalists.  Who knows what could be lurking beneath the surface?  In the words of poet W.H. Auden: “There’s always another story.  There’s more than meets the eye.”

Thus, there should be more investment in local news, not less.  As a journalist-in-training on Long Island, it’s sometimes painful to read reactions about News 12 Long Island on Facebook and witness Patch suffer from cuts we’re so familiar with. It’s always the little guy that suffers, and yet it’s always the little guy we turn to give us important news.

Spotlight on Sochi

by on .

With the world’s eyes on the Olympics and thus Russia by extension, journalism’s searchlight has already rescued truth from beneath the rug. Twitter is just one good reflection of that in general.  All and all, the media has covered a variety of stories: the jailing of environmentalists, economic downturns combined with draconian spending for Sochi ($51 billion, more than any other for the Olympics) and criticism of Putin, how locals are impacted, the shoddy state of hotels mere days before the Olympics, crackdowns on protests, corruption, security concerns, the killing of stray dogs, and human rights concerns– to name a few.  Arguably, the biggest outpouring came in response Russia’s anti-gay laws and attitudes.

Russian officials haven’t been too pleased about the barrage of coverage.  Plenty have also said that the Olympics should remain a sporting event, not political, and that Russia can do what it wants within its own country.  I disagree. Politics are inseparable from the event and should be covered as much as the athletes and events themselves. I won’t deny that coverage has seemed to drag out our inner-Cold War mentalities a little, nor will I say that’s a perfect thing.

By stepping into the international eye though, one should expect all sorts of coverage- positive, negative, and otherwise.  One surrenders their right to privacy when stepping on a public, international stage. The job of journalists has always been to reveal problems and give people information difficult to come by, regardless of who it annoys. Attempts at suppressing will eventually fail. China was criticized last time around and the U.S. is no stranger to Olympic controversies.  Putin could not expect everything to be glorious.

That being said, so far Sochi has shown that the news and social media are capable of fulfilling a watchdog role anywhere.  May we see more of this in the future and keep that spotlight shining not just on Sochi, but wherever it may be needed.

Adding Paper to the Facebook

by on .

With Facebook turning 10 years old today, two things immediately come to mind: my age (twice that of Facebook) and how tiring it is to scroll through my home page.  Give it a little more time and a little more analysis though, and you suddenly realize the potential any small change on Facebook can bring- like with applying a news-based app for it called Paper.

Paper, an iPhone app released just yesterday, promises to supplement computer searching with human, editorial judgment in presenting news beyond what your friend had for lunch or what your aunt thinks is the cutest video of all time. Mini-magazines and articles are sprinkled through the news feed. It also provides an option to organize according to interests, appeal to the eye, and minimize distractions, according to its preview description:

Explore and share stories from friends and the world in immersive designs and fullscreen, distraction-free layouts. Paper includes your Facebook News Feed and sections about your favorite topics.

Early users described “the story-reading experience [as] rich and beautiful,” and done rather well for an “initial release.”  Some technology sites also gave it good reviews.  While I cannot comment on its actual impact since I a) don’t have an iPhone and b) it’s very early to tell, let’s look at the potential for a moment.

There are 1.2 billion people registered on Facebook and plenty of people without one know someone who spends time on it. For instance, while my father doesn’t see what’s so appealing about the endless stream of updates from people he half knows and content from pages he doesn’t, he sees mom and I engulfed in it.

Now imagine that 31% of them rely on it to keep up on current events, regardless of gender.  That’s nearly comparable to the 310 million population of the United States. If the app catches on for its smooth design and ability to minimize distractions from those friends that post 15 times a day (many people wouldn’t mind that), it’s still promising.  Over 100 million people use Facebook from a mobile device.  If just 1 of 100 uses the application over the default Facebook mobile app, that’s still 1 million people- the size of some small countries.

My journalism major-self is both skeptical and ecstatic. One one hand, even if news isn’t your first reason for browsing, there’s still a fair chance it can pass through the newsfeed when people share something of concrete value.  On the other hand, the New York Times acknowledged that it may appeal more to some left-leaning updates at first (LGBT, environmentalism) and that Zuckerberg wanted “the best personalized newspaper in the world.” It could turn into confirmation bias and send some people on the far-right screaming into the night (ha, that rhymed).

Above all of this though, is the mention of it being a ‘newspaper‘ and better quality articles that will hopefully provide better insight.  As said, actual newspaper editors are getting into a fresh new project.  Whether or not this succeeds is purely speculative right now. But even if it provides only a little change, a little more actionable information rarely hurts.

 

The Privacy Bowl

by on .

Ah, Super Bowl Sunday.  It’s a fight between Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos, healthy competition between commercials worth $4 million apiece vying for our attention, a time for divided families uniting to scream at the television screen, and a battle between privacy advocates and the NFL itself.

Wait- what was that last part?

For the few of us lucky enough to afford the $4000+ price tag on some Super Bowl tickets and enter MetLife Stadium, brand new technology is being tested on anyone with a smart phone.  The NFL mobile app, with the help of transmitters scattered within the venue and through Midtown Manhattan (for those of us in New York who can’t afford to go to the Super Bowl or watch it), will deliver personalized messages, ads, and updates based upon (disturbingly precise) location and patterns.

The technology is months old, but Major League Baseball, American Eagle, Macy’s, and Apple have jumped aboard. Meanwhile iBeacons, developed by Apple, does not even require an app running to display alerts and track. Sounds like that old stalker boyfriend/girlfriend creeping through your Facebook photos and judging you, even though adjusting the settings could do wonders against that.

While advocates of the technology (mostly companies wanting hyper-local catering to consumers) may call it starting a “one-on-one dialogue,” critics point out what it could lead to: ease in companies buying and selling your data and privacy becoming non-existent for anyone with a smartphone.

Many of us remember the revelations of Edward Snowden- the NSA is watching, decrypting our emails, skimming through our data, and the like. There’s a fair chance the data here, due to the (justified) safety concerns with the Super Bowl, will end up in their hands.  The government has demonstrated that its de facto limits here are minimal. Constitutionally speaking, the right to privacy seems void.

With companies invested in the collection of data about you, a consumer individual, it’s rather concerning.  And dehumanizing. It only brings companies closer to what keeps them in business. They never met you, just the pages you’ve visited and the places you’ve been.  Some say they find it convenient, though, getting help in the area and helping with navigation (God knows I’m directionally challenged).

People don’t always like being watched though, and uninstalling an app, changing loyalties, or moving back to an old phone may show companies just how their customers feel.  Misreading what consumers want has sunk many a business’s profits.

With this in mind though, enjoy your Super Bowl.