information and opinion...
and Jay appears to be concerned more with information than with opinion:"It’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in." (end of first paragraph) [my emphasis]
seems like a roundabout way of saying yes we do want you to be objective (that's the threshold for having a chance to make it...)
... give the objective assessment first (the facts etc.), then give your opinion... (if you must:)... -- my take on it...
re: "Bring the scattered facts together in one place so that we have a view of them we didn’t have before. Conduct an original act of reporting and tell us what you found. Interview someone (or multiple someones) whose knowledge and perspective adds to our understanding. Witness a campaign event and report what happened, making sense of it for those who weren’t there. Provide an overview of an episode in the news and the range of reactions to it by linking to those reactions and to the best accounts you can find online. (Then express your own attitude.)" [my emphasis] (answer to first question)
Delia
Showing posts with label PressThink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PressThink. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Alright! I'm going to break with tradition...
and just post my comments on this blog (I still like Jay's projects, I was just getting tired of his pissed off knee jerk reactions to my comments)
asking people to *strive* for objectivity (and the fact that it did get pretty close to it) is what made Wikipedia succesful (it would have been a useless collection of dubious material otherwise): this is what Jay doesn't seem to get about his project -- that he severily handicaps it if he doesn't establish such a goal -- (would it still fall short of that goal? absolutely... but that's not the point -- the point is that you get a much better, much more useful product if you do have this goal than if you don't...)
Delia
re: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48753
asking people to *strive* for objectivity (and the fact that it did get pretty close to it) is what made Wikipedia succesful (it would have been a useless collection of dubious material otherwise): this is what Jay doesn't seem to get about his project -- that he severily handicaps it if he doesn't establish such a goal -- (would it still fall short of that goal? absolutely... but that's not the point -- the point is that you get a much better, much more useful product if you do have this goal than if you don't...)
Delia
re: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48753
Saturday, January 13, 2007
back at PressThink...
... Jay is making yo momma jokes
Jay: there is a lot of life in this place!(can't stay away for too long...) D.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Best set-up blog: Pressthink!
I can link to the exact comment, always works and I don't feel compelled to duplicate on my own blog.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Chicago Tribune article ("Did he mislead us?")
my critique of it
Tim,
Here is my critique of the Chicago-Tribune article:
General criticism: leaves the analytical job to the reader without even giving them the information they would need to do such analysis.
Specifics (I'll just give them for what they gave as the first argument):
Biological and chemical weapons
re: 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."
OK�? That sounds like a truncated phrase, to me. It very likely had a qualifier before it. If not, what was the context around it? did the president take that phrase out of context? this is the kind of info you *need* to have if you want to decide, on your own or not, if the president *mislead* us -- the question is not 'did he flat out *lied* to us?'-- if that would have been the case... showing that he quoted actual sources would have been much more pertinent.
Re: 'Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.'
Unbelievably vague at the factual level (and thus useless for analytical purposes), even more unbelievable in that it actually purports to draw a conclusion. Things the readers would *need* to know: what were the 'many' assertions that have 'proven' flat out wrong? what criteria does the writer use to conclude the assertions were 'proven' wrong? (to be fair to the president: just because whatever illicit weapons searches were done did not produce what would have been expected does not 'prove' anything -- too strong a word in this circumstance; again, to be fair to the president: what were the Bush administration's assertions that did NOT prove wrong?) . And again, were any of the assertions *misleading*? that's the QUESTION�
Unbelievably vague at the factual level (and thus useless for analytical purposes), even more unbelievable in that it actually purports to draw a conclusion. Things the readers would *need* to know: what were the 'many' assertions that have 'proven' flat out wrong? what criteria does the writer use to conclude the assertions were 'proven' wrong? (to be fair to the president: just because whatever illicit weapons searches were done did not produce what would have been expected does not 'prove' anything -- too strong a word in this circumstance; again, to be fair to the president: what were the Bush administration's assertions that did NOT prove wrong?) . And again, were any of the assertions *misleading*? that's the QUESTION�
re: 'There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.'
Again, unbelievably vague and conclusory and it doesn't even draw the relevant conclusion... the question is: DID HE MISLEAD US?
Oops! I gotta go�(more to follow; it might take me a while...)
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/11/14/ptwo_mcquaid.html#comment30626)
"interpretative history" (no shit!)
Jay: great interview!
Arlan: I agree with you that it's disturbing but I'm not so sure objectivity will become more critical as a matter of course.
Delia
P.S. The way I see it, the idea that we are just not naturally objective is a valid one. I think the disturbing part is to conclude that because we all have our smaller or bigger handicaps in that respect, we should just revel in them and not even attempt to overcome them. That seems to result in abandoning the job altogether. (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/11/14/ptwo_mcquaid.html#comment30557)
More suggestions
I think there is a big difference between what works at the beginning as compared with later on (from the *volunteer’s* POV)…
For instance, most people take some time to become valuable contributors (and for good reason: what do they really know at the beginning just how worthy of their time a particular project is, for instance).
So it would be a mistake not to accommodate for that — I think newcomers should be treated differently (they need to get the feeling that their contributions are *valued* even if they are not necessarily all that valuable…)
And I see a little bit of a problem with this as far as the current NA site goes. I think, at a minimum, all people who made comments (especially if it was their first comment) should have been greeted. If they are not… plenty of them would not bother commenting again… And this probably also affects *potential* contributors that haven’t posted a comment yet (they see what treatment others got and are less likely to post themselves).
re: “A lot of what Asa does amounts to cheerleading for people who are doing things that add value”
and more ...
re: this comment...
Jay,
Looks good! Don't get discouraged if you don't get a "huge turnout" -- it's just a starting point. I think what's important is that people get the feeling that you are *sincere*... that you'd only suggest projects that you would yourself participate in and (to the extent that it's feasible) are there to provide assistance if needed.
Delia
P.S. Feel free to email if you'd like my opinion on anything.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/11/02/pppp_ancr.html#comment29731)
Jay,
I'd consider adding a chat room to the NA page (I think the immediacy aspect of it would be much more conducive to encouraging people to gather and talk among each other).
It could be a free for all (and see what happens) or much more structured (I'd see if I could get the advisers together for a weekly hourly chat -- maybe a digest of the week's news with an emphasis on stuff relevant to NA -- , on Saturday afternoons for instance).
Delia
P.S. Something tells me that could prove to be a very powerful magnet: you, Dan Gilmore, Jeff Jarvis and (maybe) Craig Newmark casually talking about news...
Re: why I said "(maybe) Craig"
Jay,
Just to clarify. The way I see it, Craig comes with a caveat: you'd *have* to get him to actually TALK (beyond his regular cutesy fare -- that would get boring quick) and I suspect that's not an easy feat. If you can't do that,(my opinion is that) the "chat circle" (you, Dan Gillmor and Jeff Jarvis) would be stronger without him.
Delia
Jay, wondering if you think this could work:
re:
# Delia Says:November 14th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Jeff,
Interesting experiment, except the other way around: get 'the internet' to assemble a news portal that ignores newspaper and wire services for 24 hours after their release on the internet and see how well it would or would not work.
Delia
P.S. Wondering if NA could test this (just state the premise and invite contributors). You'd probably have to do it for quite some time before you conclude if it could work and how well.
(http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/11/13/how-to-kill-newspapers-in-one-easy-lesson/#comments
P.P.S. Forgot to mention in that comment that part of the premise would be that they could not use info from the printed version, either (a commenter suggested that could be done).
Second thought: forget about the 24 hour thing (completely ban all info originating with newspapers and wire services)
The point of the experiment would be to test if you can get decent NEWS -- as opposed to opinion based on news already gathered -- without using info that originates with the newspapers or wire services.
Of course, there is plenty of this stuff *somewhere* on the internet... but it's not all (or even lots of it) in one place so I think it's much harder to form a well informed opinion on... say... how would news fare if (God forbid) the newspapers were dead tomorrow...
So if you could get a lot of the people who actually go out and gather news themselves, to at least post a link on a master page connected with NA, I think you'd get a much better idea of what's really going on...
I also think it would probably encourage at least *some* new people (that are not currently going out and gathering news) to at least consider doing so...
Delia
P.S. I posted a follow-up comment on the Buzzmachine blog... well... I *tried* to :)... and it appears that Jeff Jarvis "moderated" against it... I don't know why... If there is something not quite right about this idea, don't bother answering (I'll understand). D.
still thinking about it while travelling in Europe...
Jay,
Great News! Been traveling (still am) so I only have time for a quick note at this point -- it's just a comment on whether or not you *need* to have a "community."
re: "I'm not sure "community" is the right word for the eventual users of New Assignment. People use that term too loosely, in my opinion. But if NewAssignment.Net develops a base of active, loyal and intelligent users, it's not unreasonable that they can help police the site, especially if they understand that verifying information and preventing fraud are basic to everything we are trying to do."
I think it would be extremely difficult (if at all possible) to attract AND *keep* people that would be able and willing to police the site without having them feel that they are much more than "users."
If you don't think "community" is the right word for the kind of social glue needed... I guess you can call it anything you like... but I seriously doubt it could work without having *something* that fulfills the function of a "community"...
Delia
my return (worried about "the Daylife connection")
MORE: my posts...
Connection with Daylife?
Jay,
Some people might be wondering whether there is an undisclosed connection between NewAssignment and Daylife.
“[Jeff Jarvis] also said the site would provide technical and distribution help to NewAssignment, which aims to encourage ‘smart mobs’ of regular citizens to submit ideas and report the news through a process they're calling ‘open source journalism.’" ( http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191600725 )
This statement was made *before* either Daylife or NewAssignment were even launched. If I remember right, Jeff Jarvis is involved with both projects (editor for Daylife and advisor for NewAssignment).
Some people might be wondering why? (Why would the for-profit Daylife *necessarily* provide technical and distribution help to the non-profit NewAssignment…)
Does Daylife stand to gain from the work done within NewAssignment? If that’s the case, I think volunteers/donors for NewAssignment should be made aware of that.
Delia
P.S. just wanted to let you know (will be away for the day so I can only read your reply, if any, when I get back probably late in the day).
P.P.S. another thing that might be relevant: Daylife seeks to “create a distributed platform for the world’s news” (http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191600725); meanwhile, NewAssignment’s model is distributed reporting…(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235021/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/27/na_jrnl.html#comment28724)
ok... I'd keep an eye on it.
I mean, I don't see anything wrong with just learning (and possibly putting it to lucrative use, as long as you don't secure intellectual property rights), but it might end-up being a whole lot more than that (impossible to tell at this point, if you ask me, given how little is known about what Daylife would really do).
You may find-out that Jeff Jarvis is not such a good choice (even for a *free* advisor): he may end-up having serious conflicts of interest.
I'd also watch donations (or collaboration) from other for profits that are more than casually related to NewAssignment for their source of profit (giving money or "help" to NewAssignment might be an attempt to influence for financial gain).
Delia
...
and another post down that thread...
and another post down that thread...
almost gave up on the whole thing...
MORE: my posts...
Jay,
I'm disappointed (I think you are missing a great opportunity) but, of course, I wish you best of luck!
re: "For starters, I need to state clearly—and keep saying it—that NewAssignment.Net… does not propose to put users in charge in some ultimate sense."
Nor does it offer much to those that would do the work, aside from some sort of an acknowledgement, which is fine but I just don’t see it as enough to build a very strong following. There just isn’t enough there for a whole lot of people to get that excited about…
Delia
P.S. Somebody's going to come along and do the bold thing (and make it work) any day now...
P.P.S. Oh well... as I said: best of luck! It can still be a very good project! (it's just missing a soul, as far as I'm concerned...) D.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235021/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/27/na_jrnl.html#comment28677)
Jay,
re: " 'Nor does it offer much to those that would do the work.'
I just don't know how you know that. And to speak with such confidence!"
1 - how I know that: it's NOT bottom-up
2 - where my confidence comes from: the fact that the following is set in stone (at least that's what your language suggests): "For starters, I need to state clearly—and keep saying it—that NewAssignment.Net… does not propose to put users in charge in some ultimate sense."
re: "the site doesn't exist yet and not a single story has been done. No journalism... yet. "
right! but you've set the *philosophy* (and that's what gives it a soul or not): the way you set it up, the possibility of having "advisory committees" and what not serves journalistic ends (not those of the people that might want to spend a lot of their time and resources on this) -- they would have no power whatsoever, they would have some *influence* at best (influence that can be rescinded at any time).
re: "I decided to try pro-Am journalism on the open web, and in my universe, which is a mixed republic... In the beginning there is the editor!"
that is the *choice* you make, Jay -- I think it's the wrong choice to make, but of course this is YOUR project so all I can do is tell you what I think (and I've probably done too much of that already...)
OK, just one last thing since I've already started this:
re: "NewAssignment I already described as a hybrid, not boldly one thing or the other."
the bold part is giving power to those who would do the work, being a hybrid does not preclude that from happening
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235021/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/27/na_jrnl.html#comment28679) ...
Jay,
I'm disappointed (I think you are missing a great opportunity) but, of course, I wish you best of luck!
re: "For starters, I need to state clearly—and keep saying it—that NewAssignment.Net… does not propose to put users in charge in some ultimate sense."
Nor does it offer much to those that would do the work, aside from some sort of an acknowledgement, which is fine but I just don’t see it as enough to build a very strong following. There just isn’t enough there for a whole lot of people to get that excited about…
Delia
P.S. Somebody's going to come along and do the bold thing (and make it work) any day now...
P.P.S. Oh well... as I said: best of luck! It can still be a very good project! (it's just missing a soul, as far as I'm concerned...) D.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235021/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/27/na_jrnl.html#comment28677)
Jay,
re: " 'Nor does it offer much to those that would do the work.'
I just don't know how you know that. And to speak with such confidence!"
1 - how I know that: it's NOT bottom-up
2 - where my confidence comes from: the fact that the following is set in stone (at least that's what your language suggests): "For starters, I need to state clearly—and keep saying it—that NewAssignment.Net… does not propose to put users in charge in some ultimate sense."
re: "the site doesn't exist yet and not a single story has been done. No journalism... yet. "
right! but you've set the *philosophy* (and that's what gives it a soul or not): the way you set it up, the possibility of having "advisory committees" and what not serves journalistic ends (not those of the people that might want to spend a lot of their time and resources on this) -- they would have no power whatsoever, they would have some *influence* at best (influence that can be rescinded at any time).
re: "I decided to try pro-Am journalism on the open web, and in my universe, which is a mixed republic... In the beginning there is the editor!"
that is the *choice* you make, Jay -- I think it's the wrong choice to make, but of course this is YOUR project so all I can do is tell you what I think (and I've probably done too much of that already...)
OK, just one last thing since I've already started this:
re: "NewAssignment I already described as a hybrid, not boldly one thing or the other."
the bold part is giving power to those who would do the work, being a hybrid does not preclude that from happening
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235021/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/27/na_jrnl.html#comment28679) ...
....
there is more down that comments thread -- you know the drill by now...I hope:)...
there is more down that comments thread -- you know the drill by now...I hope:)...
a "garden variety misunderstanding"...
MORE: my posts:
you can't expect blind trust
Jay,
If you are going to have any permanent positions (say an editor), I'd make those people accountable to the volunteers (collectively, the volunteer community needs to be able to "fire" them if they don't suit its needs).
Maybe don't *ever* give them power (you could have employed people act as if they were working for the volunteer community): they would be expected to put their knowledge forth and step out of the way... (leave the decision with the volunteer community).
Say a number of stories have been considered and looked into. Instead of the editor saying: this is the one we are gonna do! (period...), she would be evaluating and contrasting the stories for the benefit of community (this one is likely to cost this much, appeal to these many people etc.; maybe make a reasoned recommendation but not more than that).
Delia
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28667)
Jay,
All I meant to say was that you would probably save yourself a lot of time and frustration if (whenever you have something concrete to present to people -- after Labor Day, if I remember right)you make sure your chosen system puts the volunteers at ease (if you *want* to build a community of volunteers).
If you mostly want to go hire people and just hope that citizen journalists/volunteers would help you *find* the ideas, do leg work and then surrender everything and wish you luck with them... I'm afraid you are going to find that there would not be enough interested people for the long run (even the ones that would give it a try would not stay long...)
As far as what has been said, my suggestion was an attempt to solve the problems Aaron Barlow brought-up (which I think reflect the citizen journalist/volunteer part of things very well).
I don't know if you actually meant the "new voices" comment for me (doesn't seem to fit)... but this is about all I have to say at this point.
Good luck!
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28669)
Jay,
No problem… Well, I don’t want to stress you out even more than you probably are :)… but I believe that you will win/lose the citizens journalists/volunteers on the concrete model you present after Labor Day. I’d make it as generous possible AND *mean* it… (it *needs* to be bottom-up).
And it doesn’t need to be something that can be implemented right away: I think people would understand that it might take some time to get there – they just need to know that the train they would be getting on is going in the right direction... So… no, there will be no community to speak of come Labor Day (your model is just going to have a place holder for it).
I think the relevant community (from the model’s point of view) is made-up of those who would do the work, use the site, provide funding or a combination of those. Ultimately, it *is* a community of belief (those who believe that worthy stories that mainstream media doesn’t cover *should* be covered) – I just think that from the *practical* point of view it makes a lot of sense to organize it geographically (the way Craigslist is).
I’d start with NY, of course, and make that geographic community work. I’d first see if I could get enough volunteers (professional or amateurs) to do one (not terribly hard to cover) story – something they, as a community, *want* to do. If people wouldn’t be rushing…I’d see if I could talk the NYU journalism students into participating (at least doing one easy project and see how it turns-out). And build-up from there. At the point where the community would want to pursue a “complicated story” and couldn’t (because they would be missing some critical skill), I’d go out and hire someone who could do the job *and* teach them.
If I remember right, Jimmy Wales observed that there was a certain size of a Wikipedia community where serious problems start happening (intimate social interaction usually keeps problems under control as long as the size of the community is small). You will probably find-out that something similar would happen with your communities. It’s hard to tell when that will happen, but you’ll probably know it when you see it…
At that point, I’d just split the community in half (for the same geographic area) – maybe have a politics branch and an economics branch (if that would suit them well). Of course, you would need to present this to the community and have their *approval*. The two new communities could of course collaborate if they wished but they would be two separate units.
Once NY would take off, I’d set my sights on Washington, DC… I think you see where I’m going :)….
Delia
P.S. If you’d like my opinion once you get the concrete thing together, feel free to email.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28672)
you can't expect blind trust
Jay,
If you are going to have any permanent positions (say an editor), I'd make those people accountable to the volunteers (collectively, the volunteer community needs to be able to "fire" them if they don't suit its needs).
Maybe don't *ever* give them power (you could have employed people act as if they were working for the volunteer community): they would be expected to put their knowledge forth and step out of the way... (leave the decision with the volunteer community).
Say a number of stories have been considered and looked into. Instead of the editor saying: this is the one we are gonna do! (period...), she would be evaluating and contrasting the stories for the benefit of community (this one is likely to cost this much, appeal to these many people etc.; maybe make a reasoned recommendation but not more than that).
Delia
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28667)
Jay,
All I meant to say was that you would probably save yourself a lot of time and frustration if (whenever you have something concrete to present to people -- after Labor Day, if I remember right)you make sure your chosen system puts the volunteers at ease (if you *want* to build a community of volunteers).
If you mostly want to go hire people and just hope that citizen journalists/volunteers would help you *find* the ideas, do leg work and then surrender everything and wish you luck with them... I'm afraid you are going to find that there would not be enough interested people for the long run (even the ones that would give it a try would not stay long...)
As far as what has been said, my suggestion was an attempt to solve the problems Aaron Barlow brought-up (which I think reflect the citizen journalist/volunteer part of things very well).
I don't know if you actually meant the "new voices" comment for me (doesn't seem to fit)... but this is about all I have to say at this point.
Good luck!
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28669)
Jay,
No problem… Well, I don’t want to stress you out even more than you probably are :)… but I believe that you will win/lose the citizens journalists/volunteers on the concrete model you present after Labor Day. I’d make it as generous possible AND *mean* it… (it *needs* to be bottom-up).
And it doesn’t need to be something that can be implemented right away: I think people would understand that it might take some time to get there – they just need to know that the train they would be getting on is going in the right direction... So… no, there will be no community to speak of come Labor Day (your model is just going to have a place holder for it).
I think the relevant community (from the model’s point of view) is made-up of those who would do the work, use the site, provide funding or a combination of those. Ultimately, it *is* a community of belief (those who believe that worthy stories that mainstream media doesn’t cover *should* be covered) – I just think that from the *practical* point of view it makes a lot of sense to organize it geographically (the way Craigslist is).
I’d start with NY, of course, and make that geographic community work. I’d first see if I could get enough volunteers (professional or amateurs) to do one (not terribly hard to cover) story – something they, as a community, *want* to do. If people wouldn’t be rushing…I’d see if I could talk the NYU journalism students into participating (at least doing one easy project and see how it turns-out). And build-up from there. At the point where the community would want to pursue a “complicated story” and couldn’t (because they would be missing some critical skill), I’d go out and hire someone who could do the job *and* teach them.
If I remember right, Jimmy Wales observed that there was a certain size of a Wikipedia community where serious problems start happening (intimate social interaction usually keeps problems under control as long as the size of the community is small). You will probably find-out that something similar would happen with your communities. It’s hard to tell when that will happen, but you’ll probably know it when you see it…
At that point, I’d just split the community in half (for the same geographic area) – maybe have a politics branch and an economics branch (if that would suit them well). Of course, you would need to present this to the community and have their *approval*. The two new communities could of course collaborate if they wished but they would be two separate units.
Once NY would take off, I’d set my sights on Washington, DC… I think you see where I’m going :)….
Delia
P.S. If you’d like my opinion once you get the concrete thing together, feel free to email.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061205235614/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/08/15/ear_ntw.html#comment28672)
....
... and more exchanges (just scroll down that blog entry if you'd like to see the whole thing)
... and more exchanges (just scroll down that blog entry if you'd like to see the whole thing)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)