journalism
- The Times Needs a Policy on Quotation Approval, and Soon by Margaret Sullivan at the Times's opinion column Public Editor’s Journal
Washington Post reports "a person familiar with the plans" says Washington Post considering paywall
Philly.com posts NSFW photo, ‘production glitch’ blamed
Philly.com posts NSFW photo, ‘production glitch’ blamed
Someone’s gonna get fired…
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse
Carlos Fernando Lindenberg Neto, president of Brazil’s National Association of Newspapers, on his association’s withdraw from Google News:
Google News’ presence in the Brazilian market is small. We believe (the loss of traffic) is an acceptable price to protect our content and brands.
The linked article, by Isabela Fraga at the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas blog, offers good background on the issue.
I never go to Google News without clicking on at least three stories I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered. Maybe I’m the exception and not the rule. But if Google News’ presence is really that small, isn’t the potential or actual harm they claim necessarily small as well?
This decision looks petty and short-sighted, particularly in light of Newsweek's recent announcement.
Welcome to VentureBeat’s reporting-driven Friday
Welcome to VentureBeat’s reporting-driven Friday
Good on ‘em for trying this out.
NYT quote approval policy is (only) a good start
The new quote approval policy at The New York Times, as quoted by Times opinion writer Margaret Sullivan:
So starting now, we want to draw a clear line on this. Citing Times policy, reporters should say no if a source demands, as a condition of an interview, that quotes be submitted afterward to the source or a press aide to review, approve or edit.
I first wrote about the quote approval problem when I linked to David Carr’s piece on it. Then I expressed my agreement with Temple Law professor David Hoffman, who wrote at Concurring Opinions about the frequency with which experts such as himself are misquoted or taken out of context.
I’m not sure the Times policy does a very good job of distinguishing between approval by PR folks and approval by subject-matter experts. The former try to approve quotes to control messaging, while the latter try to approve quotes to ensure their opinions on a given issue aren’t manipulated to further a skewed narrative.
I don’t think those two cases can be dealt with in the same policy without explicitly pointing them out and setting up a framework for each one. The Times policy allows for exceptions with senior editorial approval, and that may allow experts like Professor Hoffman to explain that they want to ensure their comments are presented in the manner in which they intend them to be presented. Or, it may not.
Marco Arment suggested disclosing when quotes have been approved for an article, instead of calling for an unqualified end to the practice. I’m not sure that’s the perfect solution, but I think I prefer Mr. Arment’s policy to the Times policy.
Disclosure makes sense and would show great respect to readers by allowing them to decide whether the reliability of a particular quote is or is not affected by its pre-approval by the source. Experts could ensure accurate representation of their opinions, and readers could be kept in the loop when a communications department has manufactured the CEO’s statement to the paper.
In short, the Times quote policy is nothing less than a good start, but it’s also nothing more.
David Hoffman on quotation approval
David Hoffman on quotation approval
Two days ago, I mentioned a piece by David Carr on quotation approval. This morning, I found that Professor David Hoffman, whose corporate law class I took at Temple Law, had posted his own thoughts at Concurring Opinions.
Specifically, this part stuck out to me:
There’s a simple reason that most sources (including me) ask for quote approval: we don’t trust reporters to avoid making a hash out of our comments, pulling quotes selectively to fit a pre-existing narrative, and consequently turning the source into the reporter’s sock puppet.
Professor Hoffman’s reaction illustrates an important distinction that we need to make in thinking about the integrity of quote approval. I think that experts have a right to approve not only their quotes, but the context in which those quotes will appear.
After all, a journalist’s use of an expert extends beyond the quote, and can be honest or manipulative depending on the integrity of the journalist in question. The press seeks quotes from experts like Professor Hoffman, and I believe their seeking creates an obligation to accurately report not only the words but the context.
However, David Carr’s thesis on the problem with quote approval holds true when those approvals are coming from public relations departments or firms, campaigns, or others who actively seek press coverage. The difference is between controlling the narrative (in the case of PR) and ensuring accurate context (in the case of experts).
David Carr on quotation approval
David Carr on quotation approval
Keep in mind that when public figures get in trouble for something they said, it is usually not because they misspoke, but because they accidentally told the truth.
News junkies probably know this already, but it’s worth letting the Times's David Carr remind us that what we find between the quotations marks isn't always accurate: sometimes it's edited by the speakers themselves.
Further Reading
[Longread] Scamworld: 'Get rich quick' schemes mutate into an online monster
[Longread] Scamworld: ‘Get rich quick’ schemes mutate into an online monster
This article by Joseph L. Flatley at The Verge is a feat of modern reporting and storytelling. Do yourself a favor and watch the associated documentary, too.
I like to give everything a “link” / “longread” category and one other that describes the content. This one covers a topic I won’t likely post about often, so I’m filing it under “journalism” because, again, it’s just that good.
A Vision for the Future of Newspapers—20 Years Ago
A Vision for the Future of Newspapers—20 Years Ago
Mark Potts, writing about his major part in what might be properly called the genesis of the first digital publishing strategy:
As someone said when they saw PostCard a few years later, “It looks like the Web.” Except that, in those early days of experimentation, the Web didn’t really exist yet.
How to Save the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News
How to Save the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News
Joel Mathis, writing at Philadelphia Magazine‘s blog The Philly Post, may have a point. But going online-only would require a serious modernization of the Philly.com brand and site design.
I don’t see the ownership having the vision to invest in either branding or a design refresh, and if they do, I’m not confident they’ll pick the right people for the job. I hope I’m wrong, because the only sure thing about Philly’s major papers these days is that something needs to change fast.
Fareed Zakaria Apologizes for ‘Lapse’; Faces Time and CNN Suspensions
Fareed Zakaria Apologizes for ‘Lapse’; Faces Time and CNN Suspensions
I would be honored to work for Time, CNN, The Atlantic, or The New Yorker. While I may require some on-the-job journalism training, I will absolutely do my own work 100% percent of the time.
Portland Press Herald plagiarized a photo they didn’t even need
This is a story within a story. The outer story is about Reverend Robert Carlson, who killed himself recently amid a sexual abuse investigation. This post isn’t about that story. It’s about the inner story, about a reporter using a copyrighted photo without attribution, and claiming fair use when the photographer realizes it.
Summary: Steve Mistler of the Portland Press Herald plagiarized a photo by Audrey Slade and when she requested they take it down he told her it was fair use. I think he is wrong, his reporting was solid and didn’t require a photo, he should take the photo down, and he should apologize to Slade for plagiarizing her photo.
Steve Mistler of the Portland Press Herald used a photo taken by Audrey Slade, who worked at Husson University while Carlson was there but didn’t take the photo in her capacity as an employee. Mister didn’t request permission to use Slade’s photo, and he didn’t attribute the photo to her. He found the photo on Slade’s Flickr account, labelled as “All Rights Reserved,” and published it with this article about Carlson.
The appropriate course of action was to contact Slade either via contact information on her Flickr profile or via Flickr’s built-in messaging system. If she replied granting permission, run the photo. If she denied permission, or didn’t reply at all, don’t run the photo. Instead, the reporter used the copyrighted photo without permission and later, in an email exchange Slade published on her blog, claimed fair use.
Mistler’s failure to seek out and use Flickr’s messaging system suggests to me that he didn’t want to contact Slade.
I’m not going to write in-depth about fair use, but you can find good basic information at the U.S. Copyright Office, Standford University, and Wikipedia. The Herald's use of Slade's photo is not, in my educated opinion, fair. The newspaper is a for-profit enterprise, the copyrighted work is a photograph for which false attribution can easily be claimed, the newspaper did not transform the work in any way, and they used it in its entirety.
Ms. Slade sent some very polite messages asking them to take them down, and even offered to handle invoicing them for continued usage (by the way, I think that is wonderful, regardless of whether it would hold up in court). Mistler could have replied asking whether attribution would convince her to allow the newspaper’s continued publication of the photo on their website. Slade probably would have said no, but it would have demonstrated that Mistler was aware of his mistake. Instead, he gave Slade two justifications for his perfunctory infringement:
(1) We could not, by deadline, determine who the photo belonged to, and (2) we ultimately decided it was in the public’s interest to publish them. The story was, in essence, about the evidence that Rev. Carlson was still partaking in Husson activities for years after supposedly being told he was no longer welcome.
And the photo proved that claim, Mistler’s reasoning goes, so it had to be in the article. Except Mistler got the former President of the University to admit to the allegations in the article, a far more powerful confirmation than a plagiarized, undated photo.
That was the wrong answer, legally and ethically.
Now Slade has published the email addresses of several Herald employees (all, I think, publicly available anyway), and a commenter has posted some phone numbers (one of which is a cell phone number and likely not meant to be public).
It wasn’t my photo they used without permission as part of a for-profit enterprise, but I can say that if it was, this whole thing would be more about principle than money or the law: be authentic with readers and respectful of sources and copyright holders.
In sum, there was no fair use in this situation, and there was no need for the “unfair” use in the first place because there was real reporting behind the story. Hopefully, Mistler and the Herald will do the right thing and remove that photo, preferably adding an apology to Slade and their readers at the bottom of the article for the previous use of an unlicensed photo.
Philadelphia newspapers CEO’s message to employees
Philadelphia newspapers CEO’s message to employees
Jim Romenesko, quoting the letter from Bob Hall, CEO at Interstate General Media, which owns Philly’s major papers:
We must produce products that reflect the needs of our readers, viewers, advertisers and future prospective customers. This is essential if we are to increase the total audience that we reach and to provide the consumer superior content, whenever, however (multi-products), and in whatever format desired. It is becoming even more important to be relevant, useful and timely via the applications that are utilized by our customers.
If Hall means what he says, and is well-informed, he’ll approach people like the folks who run Technically Media—people who are connected to what 21st-century journalism is shaping up to be.
In related news, read the response of the Newspaper Guild, as posted by Philly Mag’s Victor Fiorillo, [here][blogs.phillymag.com/the_phill...](http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/08/08/28-million-cuts-proposed-philadelphia-inquirer-daily-news/.)
Analysis over revision: Kara Swisher's mysterious edits to Marissa Mayer's Yahoo! memo (Updated)
Updated 12:00 p.m: Kara Swisher reached out to me on Twitter after I published this post (her tweets and my replies here, here, here, here, and here).
She said she only made minor edits to things like commas and contractions, and that she thought people would assume that she didn’t rewrite the substance. She is right; I should have focused on wanting her take on what I describe below as the interesting bits and not on her revision. She also told me I should have asked her. She is right about that, too. I stand by my wanting some analysis of the areas I mention below where Mayer’s memo departs from PR speak, but to the extent that my post appeared to question Ms. Swisher’s integrity, I am sorry._
Kara Swisher, writing at All Things D about new Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer’s recent memo to employees:
I took that to heart in tracking down this do-not-forward (oops) memo —- which I changed around > a bit to thwart those who try to stop me from getting these emails via tricky computer programs […]
“Changed around a bit” to what extent? Does that diminish or eliminate the value, if any, of the memo to readers? Was there any value to readers to begin with? My answers are probably “yes” and “no” respectively.
I’m not the only one thinking these things, some commenters asked the same questions. I think Ms. Swisher should have analyzed the interesting parts of the memo, posting little or none of the actual text. It would have been better use of her knowledge and skills, and would have been more valuable to readers.
The memo itself is nothing special. I can summarize it as “I’m happy to be here, I think Yahoo! is great, I have big plans, but don’t stop doing what you’re doing (unless you hear otherwise) until I learn more about the company’s management culture and direction.”
But Ms. Swisher’s casual mention that she edited it gives me pause. It’s not exactly a sensitive diplomatic report, but mysterious edits by a journalist to a document originally written by the subject of the article make me uneasy.
Ms. Swisher is laudably dogged about disclosing her spouse’s role as an executive at Google. There is a link to her disclosure and ethics policy at the bottom of all her articles. That’s why this offhand mention of memo-revision reads as out of place to me.
Ms. Swisher could have published the unedited version of the memo as an image, likely thwarting any “tricky computer programs” aimed at preventing her future access to such internal emails in the future. Alternatively, she could have simnply written about the bits that weren’t cliche corporate-speak.
For example, Ms. Mayer said in the memo that “While I have some ideas, I need to develop a more informed perspective before making strategy or direction changes.” That suggests the pace of change at Yahoo! under her leadership may initially be slower than observers would like, but will likely accelerate as she soaks up institutional knowledge about how the company functions.
Another interesting bit says “Please don’t stop. If you have questions or concerns about whether to continue or not, please ask. However, with the exception of a few things that might heavily constrain us in the future, the answer is most likely: Yes, keep moving.” What is going on at Yahoo! right now that “might heavily constrain” them in the future if employees don’t pull the plug?
Finally, Ms. Mayer said “We will continue to invest in talent, so we can produce the most compelling and exciting user experiences anywhere.” That tracks with the Flickr team’s response to dearmarissamayer.com, asking people to apply for jobs there.
But does Ms. Mayer’s comment suggest that Yahoo! will be ramping up compensation and benefits, going on a hiring and expansion spree to bet the company on a new army of innovators, or just building out the kind of infrastructure and marketing that will make current employees proud to work there again?
Ms. Swisher is a journalist and I am not a journalist. She is talented and successful, and no doubt has a better editorial sensibility (or at least a more refined one) than I do. But I can’t help thinking that a breakdown of the memo’s telling points would have been more worthy of her efforts and our reading time than posting it in its entirety with some unknown edits.
Evening Edition beautifully presents the important news you missed
Co-creator Jim Ray of Mule Design describes Evening Edition like this:
It’s a summary of the day’s news, written by an actual journalist, with links to the best reporting in the world, published once a day.
Last night, in between reading the news using various Android apps, I spotted a link to John Gruber’s Daring Fireball post about Evening Edition. I went to the new news site on my phone and, ten minutes later, I realized I had learned more in that time reading Evening Edition than an hour of playing with Flipboard and Pulse.
I spend all day reading technology news. It’s my area of interest and there are some great people reporting on it. But it takes time away from informing myself about what is happening in the world in general.
It looks like Evening Edition beautifully solves that problem. Ray’s design is elegant, minimal, and simple. (Put Evening Edition in a browser window next to this site, and you’ll realize very quickly why I’m such a big fan of Ray’s design decisions.)
As for substance, it’s like the site’s news editor, Anna Rascouët-Paz, secretly knows all the important stuff I either didn’t encounter or shamefully skipped over to read another Apple rumor.
Rascouët-Paz boils down complex topics well enough to keep you informed, but also whets your appetite to click through to her sources and get more information. Her summaries contain more rapid-fire facts and quotes than most of what you’ll find in the newspaper, and that’s a very welcome change.
If you want to read a beautiful website about the important news you missed every day, bookmark Evening Edition.