Plan to get married? Read this.

Brian Sumers
| August 20, 2009 1:29 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (4)
Like a lot of folks -- or at least a select, well-refined, few -- I've always wanted my wedding featured in the Sunday New York Times Sunday Styles section. 

Some colleagues and I were discussing this today when we realized these wedding vignettes, which constitute appointment reading for many, are an original version of user-generated content. 

To produce this content, the Times offers readers a questionnaire, open to everyone, and then picks the most compelling weddings. In the past, presumably, this process was done via the postal service. Today, it's done on the internet. But the idea is the same: The readers provide the content. 

In our discussions, we've often implied user-generated content is a 21st century, internet-based, phenomenon. But these have been around as long as newspapers and the mail. 

Some of us rant about the drivel newspapers are publishing online and in the paper, but this isn't new. In the past, there was less room for it. Now, with the internet, the space is unlimited. So why not give readers the space?

I do find it interesting that, on the internet, a reader cannot comment on these weddings. Presumably the Times does not want readers spewing hate about celebratory notices. 

This is probably a good idea. Do we need people asking if a divorce is imminent? Or saying that one spouse is better looking than the other? Or, even worse, maligning the education of someone? (Education is perhaps the most important element of these wedding synopses.)

The Times shows admirable restraint in limiting comments. It is popular to allow readers to comment on almost everything, but I find this to be necessary. Sometimes, even in the 21st century, the readers are just readers. If they have not sent in the content themselves, they should just keep their opinions to themselves. They don't need to be part of the process. 

In the case of Sunday Styles, I suggest readers skim the wedding announcements and move on with their day. If they need to say something pithy about  a couple, they can pick up the phone and call a friend. They don't need to share their opinions with the world, nor should the world care about their opinions.




Pack Journalism, Blog Style

Brian Sumers
| August 17, 2009 7:43 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (1)
Recently, the NCAA's Southeastern Conference enacted a policy banning both fans and media from using social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook during games. 

At least that is what I think happened. 

The sports blogosphere has been complaining for days. People are writing vitriolic messages about university presidents. They're complaining that fans at stadiums won't be allowed to send Tweets about the game, or upload pictures from the stadium on their Facebook accounts. 

Could it be true? 

I wanted to find out. Like any lazy journalist, I went to Google News and searched for "SEC Media Policy."

Here's the problem. Nearly all of the sites linked were blogs. Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain many of these blogs are spreading misinformation. 

There is one blog written by Heather Burchfield of the Nashville Social Networking Examiner. Her article, entitled "Beware SEC sports fans and social media users," excoriates the conference for its anachronistic policies. 

I'm sure Heather is a nice person. But did she pick up the phone and call the Southeastern Conference? Nothing in her piece suggests she has. I am not comfortable with her sources or her reporting. 

I feel the same about "BleacherReport.com," which has an article called "SEC Policy Could Ultimately Ban Your Mobile Phone From Stadiums." This article quotes "sources," as saying the policy could be in effect soon. Sources? Are they kidding?

It is possible the Southeastern Conference policy is as restrictive as much of the blogosphere suggests. But I will feel more comfortable when I read about it in the New York Times or another reputable publication. I suspect this policy is more nuanced than its detractors claim. I also suspect it will not change the average fan's game-day experience. 


UPDATE: On Wednesday, The Times weighed in with a measured story about the new SEC policy. There is comment from an SEC representative as well as comprehensive nut graf. This graf should put the alarmists at ease:
 
The rules are aimed not at the casual fan who might post a few pictures of Saturday's football game on a personal Web site, but rather those who copy television broadcasts, create their own highlight reels and post them on sites charging for access or advertising.

We're on YouTube!

Brian Sumers
| August 15, 2009 4:13 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (0)
As part of a a class exercise, I made two films for YouTube. They are not art, and I am not particularly proud of their content. However, I'm glad the assignment made me more familiar with using the Flip camera. In the future, I hope my videos will be of better quality. There are a couple of transitions here that make me cringe. 

There are a handful of things I realized while doing this project.

  • The microphones on the Flip cameras are not particularly strong. You can't get crisp audio from a wide shot. 
  • You might consider having periods of silent before, during and after an interview. I would assume this makes the cutting process easier. Otherwise, you have to cut at the exact right second. I tried my best, but I don't think it looks right. 
  • You should take a lot of footage for each clip.
  • This is harder than it looks, at least for me. 







"I love your work"

Brian Sumers
| August 13, 2009 10:18 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (1)
IMG00034.jpgWhat do Hollywood types and journalists have in common?

Our insecurities!

At dinner tonight in West Hollywood, I was amused when I looked about the urinal in the men's room. At exactly my eye level, someone had written me a note. "I love your work," it read.

Nothing like a little positive reinforcement to brighten a Thursday night.

Ruminations on Week 1

Brian Sumers
| August 13, 2009 1:10 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (3)
Some observations as we near the end of week one of the Specialized Journalism seminars:

  • What Goes Online Stays Online
We have been warned several times that whatever we write on this blog will remain on the internet forever. Future mates can find it. So can human resources departments. The professors tell us we must be careful with what we write because we can never delete it. Most of us know this already from using social networking sites like Facebook. But this concept is compounded because we are all blogging. If I must be careful about what I write, can I be honest? Can I be innovative? And if I am neither honest nor innovative, does anyone want to read these postings? Let's say, for example, I admit on this blog I am terrible at shooting video. At some point, a hiring editor might see this. Does this mean I should not write about video in my blog? I'm usually brutally honest, so I doubt I will be too careful in the blog. Nonetheless, I wonder what repercussions this will have on the writings of others. 

  • What was the holdup, Medill?
When I graduated four years ago from the Medill School of Journalism, I had never used a camera -- still or video -- and had never written anything for the internet. I was, amazingly, tutored on the finer points of using a pica ruler. When I entered the workplace, I felt the school had failed me. I could not even shoot 10 seconds of video. (I still can't, though I'm told this will change later this afternoon.) I imagine the anachronistic teachings at Medill have changed by now, but I wonder why it took so long. Surely someone at Northwestern knew the world was changing by the early 2000s. 

  • Does anyone pay attention anymore?
From my perch in the back row, I've spent a lot of time watching the computer screens in front of me. Nearly everyone is on Facebook, or Twitter, or a favorite blog. While technology has been the focus of many of the lectures, most of the internet surfing is unrelated to the discussion. Because the professors are looking at the the backs of the computers, they don't know whether the audience is taking notes, or surfing the web. Does that make the internet searching OK? Or is it still disrespectful? And even if it is not disrespectful, is it possible to digest the material while surfing ESPN.com?



Technology is overrated

Brian Sumers
| August 11, 2009 6:38 PM TrackBacks (0) Comments (1)
We're at least 10 years into the digital revolution, and yet no one knows how to best use the internet. Not even the bright students of the specialized journalism program. 

Take today's informal polling in class. We're a well-educated group. We've had access to broadband for years, both at work and in our personal lives. Yet few of us know much about technology. We do Facebook, which makes sense, because it's a fabulous program that allows us to keep in touch and share news. 

But the other stuff? Who cares?

Almost none of us Tweets on a regular basis. We read some blogs, but not many. We have limited familiarity with the most popular editing software for audio, pictures and video. And we're relatively lucky. Unlike 30 percent of Americans (a number we learned in class today), we have access to all of this technology. 

We don't care about technology because so much of it is unnecessary. Let's take Twitter. Somehow, it has become one of most popular technological advances, despite being almost impossible to follow. Reading it is like being privy to an inside joke. 

A friend of mine Tweets for his television station. I looked up his most recent dispatch to get an idea of what he is working on. Here it is: 

newark mayor booker was on sun.'s @meetthepress; finally got me to pick up 'street fight' re: his race in '02 from @grpl. fascinating doc. 

This is advancement? There's almost no information in my friend's Tweet, and what is there is almost impossible to decipher. This friend is a solid reporter, but this format makes him look practically illiterate.

As journalists, we're so interested in looking cool that we have lost track of how ridiculous we have become. When my friend Tweets or when Rick Sanchez reads instant messages on CNN, the craft of journalism is being devalued. (And really, does anyone think Rick Sanchez is cooler because he has his own Youtube site? He's still the same nitwit who got tased on national television.)

Our business is serious stuff, and we can't devalue it by attaching ourselves to every fad. News organizations must seriously consider every technology before deciding which to incorporate into their newsrooms. Legitimate technological advances such as Facebook should be embraced. Fads like Twitter should be ignored.

As a final note, I should mention I just googled the word Fad. What came up? An article from the examiner.com asking whether Twitter is a fad. (I think the writer stole my idea.)